@MemeTeam2016 said in #90:
> Sorry, I thought this was a chess website, not a political opinion site. SHUT UP
no u
> Sorry, I thought this was a chess website, not a political opinion site. SHUT UP
no u
Finally. I'm happy to see this.
<Comment deleted by user>
unbelievable
completely support Lichess decision
So there is no evidence and none of those women filed a lawsuit against these guys? Why exactly do we believe what they say over what the dudes say? If these guys are rapist they should be in jail, otherwise innocent until proven guilty should be a thing
<Comment deleted by user>
@lichess you have researched an excellent article on an absolutely sad and shameful subject. I fully support the conclusions you draw against US Chess and STLCC!
Since Jennifer Shahade went public with these horrific incidents earlier this year, the many articles that have reported since then have never mentioned whether there is a police or prosecutorial investigation.
Since Jennifer Shahade went public with these horrific incidents earlier this year, the many articles that have reported since then have never mentioned whether there is a police or prosecutorial investigation.
@Pashut said in #89:
> @librocubiculartist -- Thanks for the answer, appreciate it. Imho, it would have been much better if Lichess itself would have stated that clearly in the article, don't you think?
I think the article does say this, though perhaps not as directly. It talks about the need for both organizations to publicly admit what lichess (and others) see as their past mistakes, and they talk about not trusting the leadership that allowed a certain environment to exist. I think the article may actually call for leadership change, but I don't know if that was explicitly stated or not. The lawyer stuff is speculation on my part, but it just makes me think that USChess and STLCC can't respond the way lichess and others want them to without opening themselves up to financial and organizational damage. Some could argue those organizations deserve that, but I'm just trying to explain why I think USChess or STLCC won't take steps that are satisfactory to lichess.
> @librocubiculartist -- Thanks for the answer, appreciate it. Imho, it would have been much better if Lichess itself would have stated that clearly in the article, don't you think?
I think the article does say this, though perhaps not as directly. It talks about the need for both organizations to publicly admit what lichess (and others) see as their past mistakes, and they talk about not trusting the leadership that allowed a certain environment to exist. I think the article may actually call for leadership change, but I don't know if that was explicitly stated or not. The lawyer stuff is speculation on my part, but it just makes me think that USChess and STLCC can't respond the way lichess and others want them to without opening themselves up to financial and organizational damage. Some could argue those organizations deserve that, but I'm just trying to explain why I think USChess or STLCC won't take steps that are satisfactory to lichess.
@ChaeDoc said in #64:
> Why do you assume that Gareyev and Ramirez were suspended without evidence?
Because if there was any evidence, they would have gone to the police, not to the chess federation
> Why do you assume that Gareyev and Ramirez were suspended without evidence?
Because if there was any evidence, they would have gone to the police, not to the chess federation
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.