[flagged]
Lichess will no longer cooperate with the USCF and the Saint Louis Chess Club
61–70 of 160 posts
Re: Lichess will no longer cooperate with the USCF and the Saint Louis Chess Club
#62Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Generally the existing legal system is a very difficult path And for good reason, the current legal system assumes innocent until proven guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt (for criminal cases). Civil cases have a lower burden of proof. These protections are there for a reason. Everyone has likely been accused of things they didn’t do. We shouldn’t assume anyone’s word without a decent amount of certainty. sexual “mi…
> Everyone has likely been accused of things they didn’t do. To this degree? No. This is not likely. > We shouldn’t assume anyone’s word without a decent amount of certainty. Several claims from individuals with corroborating evidence in this case. > most people making the accusations are doing so long-after the fact, often have outside motivation for making claims Citation needed. I need evidence that most people ma…
> Several claims from individuals with corroborating evidence in this case.
Claims are not evidence, can anyone see the claims?
Can I see the rebuttal from the accused?
The point I’m making is this is not “justice” it’s “injustice” because it’s not actually adjudicating a dispute. What’s happening here isn’t a “trial”.
Here’s what I understand from the article — a group of people (who likely know each other), accused a high profile competitor of sexual misconduct, 4 years after the incident. There appears to be no police report nor any other legal action.
That’s it… so to me it’s hard to say “yeah let’s ban someone and ruin his name!” Because quite frankly, I don’t see any evidence. Note: there could be evidence! I just don’t see it presented here.
Re: Lichess will no longer cooperate with the USCF and the Saint Louis Chess Club
#63Earlier quoted context omitted.
Generally the existing legal system is a very difficult path. Having said that I do agree with you (and thus my other comment) that these informal efforts by people who understandably are not qualified to deal with these things, are a mess too, and I'm not at all sure how they could possibly get it right often enough. US Universities in their effort to make the path less difficult have demonstrated that just pressing…
> Generally the existing legal system is a very difficult path. Yeah, it's a difficult path because of pesky things like evidentiary rules, burden of proof, and presumption of innocence. False accusations happen, especially in mega-competitive spaces like sports/chess competitions. I'm not sure why so many folks believe that destroying someone's livelihood, career, and reputation is ethically permissible based simply…
> Hypothetically, if you were falsely accused, wouldn't you want a fair trial?
You can't force an accuser to file a criminal complaint. The mechanism available in this case is a defamation civil suit.
Re: Lichess will no longer cooperate with the USCF and the Saint Louis Chess Club
#64One 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…
It makes sense that the legal system and individuals' freedom of association would have different thresholds for deciding to act. Suppose we say that the legal system needs to have 95% probability of guilt to render a guilty verdict, and its associated consequences such as imprisonment and/or restitution. A high threshold makes sense for such systems ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone%27s_ratio ). Suppose, fo…
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.
Re: Lichess will no longer cooperate with the USCF and the Saint Louis Chess Club
#65I 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…
I'd suggest lobbying congress to reform the US courts. A few things come to mind: - ban binding arbitration and all other extrajudicial legal proceedings - strengthen whistleblower laws so that NDAs against people with whistleblower protection are non-enforceable - train a subset of police to properly investigate sexual assault / harassment allegations - provide a low cost alternative to civil court similar to small…
>ban binding arbitration and all other extrajudicial legal proceedings
Sure.
>strengthen whistleblower laws so that NDAs against people with whistleblower protection are non-enforceable
Ok.
>train a subset of police to properly investigate sexual assault / harassment allegations
Not really something the feds can handle except for the minority of cases that end up in federal jurisdiction. Most policing is local.
>provide a low cost alternative to civil court similar to small claims court for situations where there is a large asymmetry in the financial resources of the two sides of the proceeding.
I was going to point out that your first two point would increase the world load on our already overworked court system. But you noticed that. The only problem with this approach is there really isn't an existing framework, as far as I know, that would allow for this. You would want it to be held to the same standards as normal courts. In which case it will be just as slow and expensive. The law is complicated and therefore requires professionals. And professionals are expensive. I don't have a solution to this. But saying, we need simpler and cheaper courts sounds nice but doesn't really work if you still want things like innocent until proven guilty and beyond a reasonable doubt.
Re: Lichess will no longer cooperate with the USCF and the Saint Louis Chess Club
#66[deleted]
Re: Lichess will no longer cooperate with the USCF and the Saint Louis Chess Club
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
> 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 are neither implicitly discriminatory, nor are they implicitly a slippery slope to discrimination.
Re: Lichess will no longer cooperate with the USCF and the Saint Louis Chess Club
#68One 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…
Large organizations are in a middle ground between "You are forced to participate" nation-state groups and "Leave at any time with little impact" groups like a small club or friend group. Different levels of proof are appropriate at these various levels. For a nation-state, you need to be damn sure before levying a punishment, because the impact of punishment is much greater. The trade off is a much more rigorous investigation of potential wrong-doing, and a certain level of acceptable false negatives. It's better for a nation-state to let a couple people get away with crimes versus falsely convicting someone. In a small, informal group, the greatest punishment they can issue is a relatively low-impact exile, so levels of proof can be extremely low: a vaguely plausible rumor will probably get someone kicked out.
Big organizations like universities, chess leagues, and workplaces are in a middle ground. Exile from such a group is a much bigger deal, as it can threaten someone's livelihood, future, or incur other fairly large opportunity costs. However, they can't throw someone in prison, so compared to the nation state they need less confidence to levy their punishments, and thus are expected to be less accepting of members getting away with inappropriate behavior.
All of this comes to head with the issue of sexual harassment and assault. It's a very hard category of crime to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt", because often the only witnesses are the victim/accuser and the perpetrator/accused. If an organization takes a stance of only kicking someone out when they are convicted in a court of law, they are stating that they are willing to accept some level of misconduct, which is greater than most would like.
Re: Lichess will no longer cooperate with the USCF and the Saint Louis Chess Club
#69One 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 think the major difference compared to the past is that these companies put out press releases instead of just blacklisting someone and moving on.
And that is one of Lichess's biggest complaints....the sanctions were not publicized enough.
Re: Lichess will no longer cooperate with the USCF and the Saint Louis Chess Club
#70One 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…
This is literally the definition of social justice. I just wanted to emphasize because this the term has lost a lot of meaning since it’s used as a catchall (by both opponents and proponents).
No, it's not. It's one possible parsing of the words "social" and "justice" when combined together, but "social justice" has been used in its current form since at least John Stuart Mill in 1861:
> Society should treat all equally well who have deserved equally well of it, that is, who have deserved equally well absolutely. This is the highest abstract standard of social and distributive justice; towards which all institutions, and the efforts of all virtuous citizens, should be made in the utmost degree to converge.