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

81–90 of 160 posts

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

#81

Post by thereddaikon »

altairprime wrote: post #17
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…

They want each organization to publicly state (“acknowledge”) that they acted and communicated inappropriately in the past regarding these events. In their exact words from the post: > However, in our opinion, both US Chess and STLCC have failed to demonstrate an important aspect of accountability – a willingness to acknowledge and address past shortcomings. We do not think that reconciliation will be possible withou…

Not happening. The sad fact is, people and organizations rarely admit to wrongdoing. You usually only see it happen in court and even then they may deny it even when judged to have done wrong.

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

#82

Post by econnors »

bluGill wrote: post #52
ajkjk wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah, too hard to figure out what the problem is here – might be all these women lying to ruin his life. Better do nothing about it until we're sure.

> 2011

> A woman alleges that she was sexually assaulted by Alejandro Ramirez at a chess camp in 2011, when she was 15 years old. (WSJ)

> Jennifer Shahade alleges that she was assaulted by Ramirez for the first time in 2011. (Lichess)

> 2014

> Jennifer Shahade alleges that Ramirez assaulted her for a second time in 2014.

> Claire Grothe alleges that in 2014 she was assaulted by Ramirez at a reception organized by STLCC, and that the incident (and Ramirez’s response to it) led to her leaving her job at the World Chess Hall of Fame later that year. (WSJ)

> 2015

> A woman who was underage at the time alleges that Ramirez encouraged her to drink alcohol, attempted to have sex with her, and initiated oral sex without her consent. (WSJ)

> 2016

> A woman alleges that in 2016, when she was underage, she was warned by STLCC employees to not allow herself to be alone with Ramirez. (WSJ)

> 2017

> A young player’s mother says that in 2017 she alerted top US Chess officials to Ramirez’s behavior, and overheard STLCC staff make jokes about his interest in young women. (WSJ)

> 2019

> A woman alleges that in 2019 she was sexually assaulted by Timur Gareyev while walking to her car from a hotel where a US Chess sanctioned tournament is taking place (in which Gareyev was playing). She submitted a complaint to US Chess shortly afterwards. The US Chess ethics committee declined to accept jurisdiction of the matter, as the alleged incident had occurred outside the hotel, and therefore (in the committee’s view) it could not be “directly connected” to the chess tournament. No action was taken against Gareyev. (Lichess)

> Another woman alleges that at a different US Chess sponsored tournament in 2019, Gareyev grabbed her and kissed her against her will. (Lichess)

> 2021

> In January 2021, Jennifer Shahade informed STLCC and US Chess of a case involving an alleged victim (of Ramirez) who said she was 15 years old at the time of the first alleged incident. She urged US Chess and STLCC to act against Ramirez. (Lichess)

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

#83

Post by OkayPhysicist »

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…

You absolutely can ban someone because of an allegation. It's a chess club. The worst punishment they can levy is banishment. That doesn't need the kind of "beyond reasonable doubt" certainty that a court throwing you in prison needs.

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

#84

Post by paulddraper »

JoshTriplett wrote: post #27
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…

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…

That's absolutely true of criminal cases.

But civil cases have a far, far lower bar. 4/5 is acceptable, especially considering that sentencing can incorporate uncertainty.

Plenty of cases succeed in civil court where they would fail in criminal court.

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

#85

Post by nonethewiser »

ajkjk wrote: post #78
nonethewiser wrote: post #44

[flagged]

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. We are lucky to have them in that position.

I agree that they are obviously championing a social justice cause.

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

#86

Post by wuiheerfoj »

lettergram wrote: post #62
jasonlotito wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Testimony is evidence, just not _conclusive_ evidence.

The reality is for such cases there’s basically never going to be conclusive evidence; I think that’s why they cause such a divide amongst people

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

#87

Post by dragonwriter »

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…

> If someone is committing sexual assault why does their seem to be this avoidance of the existing legal system and a push into these opaque and what amounts to amateur alternative legal systems?

That's not a legal system, and the reason for it is (or, at least, includes) that the organizations themselves have duties that are enforceable through the actual legal system, and they would rather not fail those duties in a costly way. And those duties often include duties to both potential victims and accused, so determining the facts in order to take the correct actions to uphold those duties requires some method of resolving disputes.

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

#88

Post by lettergram »

jasonlotito wrote: post #48
lettergram wrote: post #30

Earlier 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 If by existing social issues, you mean lack of evidence, statute of limitations, then sure. For instance, I see zero evidence that anything occurred here. There may be evidence, but the point of the justice system is to publicly disclose it an…

> It’s very unamerican This is 100% wrong. American' are very much in favor of instilling their own ethics and morality and guidelines on things they own. Which is exactly what is happening here. Your belief that you can dictate to others how they can manage their own property is the unamerican thing here.

True, America is / was known for the Jim Crow laws, public lynchings without a trial, etc. I guess it is “very American”.

That said, if you ask around, I suspect most Americans believe that is horrendous and not at all what America is. In fact, there are a lot of laws protecting the accused for this very reason.

That said, I do think the accused here should consider a civil lawsuit (if they’re innocent). It would help clear their name, because they aren’t doing so — I do suspect the claims are true, for what it’s worth.

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

#89

Post by constantly »

nonethewiser wrote: post #44

[flagged]

“SJW” has become somewhat of a term that’s used pejoratively by a certain group of people. But if it aligns with wanting women to be able to exist and enjoy chess without being harassed, it’s probably a good thing.

By using it in the pejorative sense here you’re on the wrong side of history, which is your prerogative.

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

#90

Post by paulddraper »

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.

Explain more about what you see?
Post reply on HN