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

51–60 of 160 posts

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

#51

Post by paulddraper »

lbotos wrote: post #29
paulddraper wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

100% I expect a "chess federation" to be good at.....federating chess. Why do we expect a chess federation to be good at policing, investigating claims, collecting evidence, following precedent, passing judgments, and balancing collective and individual interests? We have actual, legitimate justice systems that do this. Are they perfect? No. But why do you expect a bunch of chess nerds/experts to be any better at it…

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37080054 said it well, because there are things an organization may choose not to accept that aren't crimes.

> 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.

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

#52

Post by bluGill »

ajkjk wrote: post #26
COGlory wrote: post #5

I'm confused what Lichess wanted here. One woman complained. USCF assigned her an escort. More women complained. USCF banned the guy. This sounds completely reasonable, unless the first woman provided proof, you can't just ban someone because of an allegation. But they took steps to ensure her safety at future events. What does Lichess want here? They say it's insufficient, but they never really say what should have…

What are you talking about? There are like... a thousand things that could have done better here, and which were still being done long after the complaints. Ban the people. Completely totally remove the people who are assaulting underage girls from any event and any association. Don't "provide an escort", wtf. Ban them .

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.

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

#53

Post by rtkwe »

nonethewiser wrote: post #35
ianburrell wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The legal system has a much higher bar to put people in prison for crimes. Organizations have a much lower bar for deciding not to associate with people. Their goal is to protect their members. Also, there are lots of things that are problematic but not crimes. "Sexual misconduct" could mean sexual harassment, which isn't a crime but shouldn't be allowed in organization.

But Lichess has neither the means nor interest in uncovering the truth. So why active as a judge?

How so? They can gather evidence and hear testimonies as well as anyone else can. They don't have the power of the state to compel testimony but tempered by the lower consequences of an incorrect decision.

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

#54

Post by giraffe_lady »

hgsgm wrote: post #12
duxup wrote: post #4

I want to address this more generally. I'm not taking issue with any of the claims, I don't know what is true or isn't. The thing I wonder after reading this is how many organizations struggle to deal with these types of situations. Employers, schools, universities, clubs all seem to now have to have a process to address these things. And yet they seem to fumble it regularly, in every direction. The results are all o…

Conflict is fundamentally intractable. If it were so easy to avoid conflict, we wouldn't need to address it!

"Conflict is not abuse" yes. But also, abuse is not conflict. Organizations and communities have their own ways of limiting, tempering, and mitigating conflict within them that relates to the domain of the organization. But however effective those methods are, they will be insufficient to handle cases of interpersonal manipulation, abuse, sexual harassment, etc. Because again, those things are not conflict.

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

#56

Post by djcannabiz »

glenda wrote: post #19
paulddraper wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, we have such organizations...they are called courts.

And from what I can see those courts have shown to be pretty ineffective against crimes like sexual assault.

Why are you being downvoted?

https://www.rainn.org/statistics/criminal-justice-system

I definetly agree with user glenda, but if anyone disagrees at the very least leave a comment explaining why!

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

#57

Post by arrakeen »

nonethewiser wrote: post #35
ianburrell wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The legal system has a much higher bar to put people in prison for crimes. Organizations have a much lower bar for deciding not to associate with people. Their goal is to protect their members. Also, there are lots of things that are problematic but not crimes. "Sexual misconduct" could mean sexual harassment, which isn't a crime but shouldn't be allowed in organization.

But Lichess has neither the means nor interest in uncovering the truth. So why active as a judge?

who, then, should decide what organizations and people Lichess associates and works with?

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

#58

Post by moate »

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…

Such is the problem with free speech: it enables free association.

Alternative language for what you're saying: Should we force people to allow everyone access to them/their company/their spaces? If not, how do we determine what groups are and aren't protected?

Tangential: Why would banning criminals be fine for you, and what crimes warrant exclusion? Should tax cheats be excluded from chess orgs? What about someone with a DUI?

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

#60

Post by nickthegreek »

nonethewiser wrote: post #50
nickthegreek wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is about Freedom of Association, a protected right under the first amendment.

No one is challenging that.

Apologies then, as I interpreted the OP's comment to state that since this man hasn't been convicted in a court of law, Lichess should not behave this way.
Post reply on HN