Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Lichess will no longer cooperate with the USCF and the Saint Louis Chess Club

lichess.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 160 posts

Re: Lichess will no longer cooperate with the USCF and the Saint Louis Chess Club

#131

Post by ethanbond »

lettergram wrote: post #76
ethanbond wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> To be honest, that’s effectively what led to the US revolution — lack of due process, ability to redress grievances and representation No it wasn’t

https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcrip... There’s a whole lot in there about lack of representation, lack of due process (ie trial by jury) and representation (like the whole list of complaints are these 3 things)

Lack of representation [in state affairs]

Lack of due process [in exercise of state power]

The Founding Fathers never said “if you’re accused of horrible things, everyone still needs to be nice to you and want to hang out with you until you’re convicted of a crime.”

Re: Lichess will no longer cooperate with the USCF and the Saint Louis Chess Club

#132

Post by the_lego »

RangerScience wrote: post #105
paulddraper wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Their goal is to protect their members. That is the goal of the legal system as well. > There are things an organization may choose not to accept that aren't crimes Sure. Dress code, etc. But sexual assault is a crime.

> That is the goal of the legal system as well. Gonna strongly contest that. The legal system only gets involved once protections have failed . (well, the judicial part of it, at any rate)

That still provides deterrence, and safeguards against future harm from the same perpetrator.

Regardless, the chess federation is not being asked to act on pre-crime either, so in that aspect they are no different than the legal and police systems.

Re: Lichess will no longer cooperate with the USCF and the Saint Louis Chess Club

#133

Post by em-bee »

lamontcg wrote: post #130
em-bee wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

doesn’t really apply to the court of public opinion i strongly disagree with that. allowing public opinion to judge people without proof leads to mob rule. any rumor can destroy someones life. as a society we must not allow that to happen. innocent until proven guilty should apply to every interaction we have with any human being. if there are suspicions it is ok to take precautions, and obviously those who are victi…

> innocent until proven guilty should apply to every interaction we have with any human being. that is ludicrous. people are free to have red flags that cause them to cut ties with other people without clearing any evidentiary bar. that is part of entirely healthy human behavior.

individuals maybe, but large organizations that people depend on no. and even as individuals we need to be careful to not allow prejudice to control our actions. some people take "being black" as a red flag.

Re: Lichess will no longer cooperate with the USCF and the Saint Louis Chess Club

#134

Post by Turing_Machine »

constantly wrote: post #80
em-bee wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

no it's not. it subverts the principle that someone is innocent until proven guilty. with so many associations becoming mandatory (eg: i can't do my job without a google account) we can no longer allow any organization to reject people based on their own judgement. at least for the larger ones that don't have trivial alternatives.

Innocent until proven guilty is primarily a legal principle in the United States and doesn’t really apply to the court of public opinion. And in fact for many of the good reasons presented by the person to whom you’re responding, really shouldn’t apply to the court of public opinion or the principle of freedom of association.

"The court of public opinion" used to be called "witch burning".

Re: Lichess will no longer cooperate with the USCF and the Saint Louis Chess Club

#135

Post by squeaky-clean »

nonethewiser wrote: post #113
ajkjk wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Weird way to phrase it. Most people, even the ones who rail against social justice, would not categorize "actually doing something about sexual abuse" as a social justice cause -- a phrasing which is obviously intended to politicize it and disable your need to care about it, anyway. Is your preferred alternative "don't do something about sexual abuse"? Good luck with that. Lichess is doing something because (a) they…

But thats what social justice is. Im not sure why you have a negative connotation with it when you describe it as a positive. > Lichess is in the convenient position of having a lot of negotiating power over other organizations because of its ascendancy, which means that since it apparently has a sense of ethics it can assert those ethics on the more-despicable organizations that don't.

SJW is primarily used as an insult. It's not synonymous with someone who just does things that are socially just. It's used to describe people/organizations who are unreasonable or even fraudulent in their actions.

Re: Lichess will no longer cooperate with the USCF and the Saint Louis Chess Club

#136

Post by Turing_Machine »

glenda wrote: post #10
tick_tock_tick wrote: post #3

One thing I'm really struggling with for all these kind of issues is do we really want to create another legal system? That's basically what every organization is being pushed into at this rate. From Universities to chess Leagues they are assembling what amounts to their own judges, juries, and prosecutors. If someone is committing sexual assault why does their seem to be this avoidance of the existing legal system a…

I don't believe anyone wants to create a new legal system, but the reality is the vast majority of sexual assault cases aren't resolved in court due to existing social issues. These "judges, jurries and prosecutors" are just people who don't want to associate with potentially dangerous people regardless of the legal outcome. Beyond legal consequences to crime there have always been social consequences too - I think t…

> I don't believe anyone wants to create a new legal system, but the reality is the vast majority of sexual assault cases aren't resolved in court due to existing social issues.

That's as may be, but the answer isn't to let every HOA and garden club run their own kangaroo courts.

Re: Lichess will no longer cooperate with the USCF and the Saint Louis Chess Club

#137

Post by gameman144 »

altairprime wrote: post #67
gameman144 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> These "judges, jurries and prosecutors" are just people who don't want to associate with potentially dangerous people regardless of the legal outcome. This is true, but also has excused discrimination in the past (e.g. white flight), and can very easily lead to the tarring and feathering of innocent people. At the individual level, not associating with potentially dangerous people is fine and smart. When large swat…

The possibility of discrimination exists in all cases where any human entity, whether individual or group, judges another human entity. This is widely accepted in human societies as a necessary risk of being able to judge others as fit or unfit for participation, and Lichess is exercising their right to do so, just as all other human entities may choose to do. Until a pattern of bias is demonstrated, such judgments a…

> Until a pattern of bias is demonstrated, such judgments are neither implicitly discriminatory, ...

I mean, by definition they are discriminatory though: you are choosing to discriminate between individuals that you will associate with and those you won't.

This is not inherently bad, but can definitely be unjust toward those on the receiving end even if it's justifiable by the discriminator.

For instance, maybe a neighbor down the street seems a bit creepy, so I tell my kids not to hang around them to stay safe. This is fine. For that person, though, it may be a totally unfair and unwarranted restriction, and they actually are kind and good, and hurt that people won't associate with them.

The point I'm making is that even if everyone is just exercising their rights and being reasonable and safe, the outcome can disproportionately negatively impact the receivers of the (perhaps reasonable) discrimination.

Re: Lichess will no longer cooperate with the USCF and the Saint Louis Chess Club

#138

Post by mkeedlinger »

kstrauser wrote: post #100
bluGill wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, but if are a large organization like USCF you probably want to have a higher bar than just an accusation.

Sounds like they have multiple allegations from multiple victims across multiple years. That seems like a reasonable cause for USCF to investigate those allegations.

This comment [0] doesn't list their sources, but their list of events certainly makes it seem more conclusive than I was initially impressed skimming the post. That seems to be causing some confusion between the "just an accusation" and "it's not just an accusation" people.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37080296

Re: Lichess will no longer cooperate with the USCF and the Saint Louis Chess Club

#139

Post by lettergram »

ethanbond wrote: post #131
lettergram wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcrip... There’s a whole lot in there about lack of representation, lack of due process (ie trial by jury) and representation (like the whole list of complaints are these 3 things)

Lack of representation [in state affairs] Lack of due process [in exercise of state power] The Founding Fathers never said “if you’re accused of horrible things, everyone still needs to be nice to you and want to hang out with you until you’re convicted of a crime.”

Clearly, I was referring to the ethos. It’s also that you’re taking their profession (grandmasters often make significant income), off accusations.

Re: Lichess will no longer cooperate with the USCF and the Saint Louis Chess Club

#140

Post by bluGill »

ajkjk wrote: post #71
bluGill wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We know from painful experience that some accusations are baseless. there are people who will allege harm just to get rid of an opponent they do not want to play against. As such it is really hard to figure out what of the thousands of things they can do are really the right thing to do.

"Some accusations have at some point been baseless" is utterly irrelevant. Are these accusations baseless? Multiple ones, from multiple people, about the same person, over years? No, they're not. Done. End of story. That would be like arguing: some logical statements are false, therefore the truth of logical statements is unknowable. Lol, no, it just depends on the statement . (Nowhere in this article, by the way, di…

The article didn't allege that. Probably that wasn't the intent for any case. However such things happen and so we must always be careful about allocations.
Post reply on HN