If Ramirez and Gareyev feel guilty, then the two must have had many sleepless nights for a long time. They have to fear that the fathers, brothers, friends, husbands of their numerous victims will turn up at their door one evening to settle matters in their own way.
@keatanpatel said in #26:
> Innocence until proven guilty is how the law works. I’m not saying the matter was handled correctly by the cooperations it wasn’t, but suppose the people are innocence, their careers have been ruined completely, and their reputations are continuing to be tarnished due to pressure when there isn’t any concrete president (nothing to convey an official verdict anyways). And the cooperations acted from public pressure not in the way of the law.
“Innocent until proven guilty” (if you define “proven guilty” as “found guilty in court”) is a legal concept and has nothing to do with this situation. A company can fire an employee for taking money out of the cash register without that employee first being convicted of theft. A bar owner can ban someone from their establishment for starting a fight without that person being convicted of assault. And a person can talk about being sexually assaulted by someone without having to report that person to the police or wait until a judge finds them guilty.
And I guess I don’t need to tell you that most parents would not continue sending their children to a chess club where someone who they believe (due to testimony by many victims and witnesses) to be a sexual harasser continues to work without particular scrutiny. Do you think they have a moral duty not to make that decision because the person has not been convicted in court?
> Innocence until proven guilty is how the law works. I’m not saying the matter was handled correctly by the cooperations it wasn’t, but suppose the people are innocence, their careers have been ruined completely, and their reputations are continuing to be tarnished due to pressure when there isn’t any concrete president (nothing to convey an official verdict anyways). And the cooperations acted from public pressure not in the way of the law.
“Innocent until proven guilty” (if you define “proven guilty” as “found guilty in court”) is a legal concept and has nothing to do with this situation. A company can fire an employee for taking money out of the cash register without that employee first being convicted of theft. A bar owner can ban someone from their establishment for starting a fight without that person being convicted of assault. And a person can talk about being sexually assaulted by someone without having to report that person to the police or wait until a judge finds them guilty.
And I guess I don’t need to tell you that most parents would not continue sending their children to a chess club where someone who they believe (due to testimony by many victims and witnesses) to be a sexual harasser continues to work without particular scrutiny. Do you think they have a moral duty not to make that decision because the person has not been convicted in court?
In every organization, when a manager gets something like this on their desk, they go to the legal team. If they don't, they get fired for that. From there the legal team counsels them on what to do, but on public communication as well, meaning they have to shut up about it unless instructed otherwise.
USC+StL may simply not be allowed to reply to this strongly worded open letter for legal reasons, perhaps even for reasons that are not their fault, for example even not to harm the prosecution. Is Lichess aware of this sensitive context when expressing their tough criticism of how things are handled before conviction? What is Lichess' own playbook before court?
USC+StL may simply not be allowed to reply to this strongly worded open letter for legal reasons, perhaps even for reasons that are not their fault, for example even not to harm the prosecution. Is Lichess aware of this sensitive context when expressing their tough criticism of how things are handled before conviction? What is Lichess' own playbook before court?
@lessi17 said in #113:
> “Innocent until proven guilty” (if you define “proven guilty” as “found guilty in court”) is a legal concept and has nothing to do with this situation. A company can fire an employee for taking money out of the cash register without that employee first being convicted of theft. A bar owner can ban someone from their establishment for starting a fight without that person being convicted of assault. And a person can talk about being sexually assaulted by someone without having to report that person to the police or wait until a judge finds them guilty.
> And I guess I don’t need to tell you that most parents would not continue sending their children to a chess club where someone who they believe (due to testimony by many victims and witnesses) to be a sexual harasser continues to work without particular scrutiny. Do you think they have a moral duty not to make that decision because the person has not been convicted in court?
I’d like to think they’d have the courtesy to have any evidence or a verdict before slandering someone’s name on a public domain. But hey, everyone told me I was over optimistic...
> “Innocent until proven guilty” (if you define “proven guilty” as “found guilty in court”) is a legal concept and has nothing to do with this situation. A company can fire an employee for taking money out of the cash register without that employee first being convicted of theft. A bar owner can ban someone from their establishment for starting a fight without that person being convicted of assault. And a person can talk about being sexually assaulted by someone without having to report that person to the police or wait until a judge finds them guilty.
> And I guess I don’t need to tell you that most parents would not continue sending their children to a chess club where someone who they believe (due to testimony by many victims and witnesses) to be a sexual harasser continues to work without particular scrutiny. Do you think they have a moral duty not to make that decision because the person has not been convicted in court?
I’d like to think they’d have the courtesy to have any evidence or a verdict before slandering someone’s name on a public domain. But hey, everyone told me I was over optimistic...
My understanding of the article is that Lichess is emphasizing that USC and SLCC should have done more prevention wise.
That is, if the first reports by the alleged victims are from 2011 it does not sound normal to me that a full investigation was completed and consequent actions by the organizations were announced more than ten years later.
Surely in this timespan the probability that more episodes would occur, in the event that old allegations are to be found true, has been increasing exponentially.
If I were part of an organization that works with minors and I received allegations from people about an employee of mine involved in sexual misconduct or even rape attempts or sexual assault/harassment I'd make sure to run an internal and thorough investigation about the matter before hiring this person for a job that involves being in close contact with minors.
As far as I understand, when Shahade contacted SLCC to report for the second time about Ramirez's alleged misconduct she got told to "deal with it herself" privately with him. I don't know in what universe this is a normal response.
Moreover, if Ramirez was extraneous to the facts why would SLCC even let the two handle the matter privately and why would he accept to withdraw from the job just for something that was unproven? It sounds like taking steps down was better than risking the matter become public and more allegations come to light and everything become bigger, like it has in 2023 with the WSJ article and Shahade's twitter message.
That is, if the first reports by the alleged victims are from 2011 it does not sound normal to me that a full investigation was completed and consequent actions by the organizations were announced more than ten years later.
Surely in this timespan the probability that more episodes would occur, in the event that old allegations are to be found true, has been increasing exponentially.
If I were part of an organization that works with minors and I received allegations from people about an employee of mine involved in sexual misconduct or even rape attempts or sexual assault/harassment I'd make sure to run an internal and thorough investigation about the matter before hiring this person for a job that involves being in close contact with minors.
As far as I understand, when Shahade contacted SLCC to report for the second time about Ramirez's alleged misconduct she got told to "deal with it herself" privately with him. I don't know in what universe this is a normal response.
Moreover, if Ramirez was extraneous to the facts why would SLCC even let the two handle the matter privately and why would he accept to withdraw from the job just for something that was unproven? It sounds like taking steps down was better than risking the matter become public and more allegations come to light and everything become bigger, like it has in 2023 with the WSJ article and Shahade's twitter message.
@keatanpatel said in #115:
> I’d like to think they’d have the courtesy to have any evidence or a verdict before slandering someone’s name on a public domain. But hey, everyone told me I was over optimistic...
Ummmm... did you actually read any of the many articles detailing all the statements by victims and witnesses and people who were aware of the person’s reputation?
And did you consider the person’s reaction to the allegations (on numerous occasions)?
What would count as evidence for you? Nothing short of video documentation of the incident?
> I’d like to think they’d have the courtesy to have any evidence or a verdict before slandering someone’s name on a public domain. But hey, everyone told me I was over optimistic...
Ummmm... did you actually read any of the many articles detailing all the statements by victims and witnesses and people who were aware of the person’s reputation?
And did you consider the person’s reaction to the allegations (on numerous occasions)?
What would count as evidence for you? Nothing short of video documentation of the incident?
I completely agree, it was unreasonable for USCF to say they won’t investigate because it happened. What I don’t like in this post is the biased framing, and the slander of someone’s name. I think one would have to be delusional to say this is a neutral piece of writing. I’ve no problem with what was written but I’d like to see evidence, a law suit, and the defence of these people published. That way people can know all the facts, but this way thousands of people are being taught to hate these people (an impression that will last) over an alleged crime.
Is there actually any evidence other than a few statements? Any proof?
@lessi17 said in #117:
> Ummmm... did you actually read any of the many articles detailing all the statements by victims and witnesses and people who were aware of the person’s reputation?
> And did you consider the person’s reaction to the allegations (on numerous occasions)?
> What would count as evidence for you? Nothing short of video documentation of the incident?
I just mean there is no official verdict.
> Ummmm... did you actually read any of the many articles detailing all the statements by victims and witnesses and people who were aware of the person’s reputation?
> And did you consider the person’s reaction to the allegations (on numerous occasions)?
> What would count as evidence for you? Nothing short of video documentation of the incident?
I just mean there is no official verdict.
@keatanpatel said in #120:
> Ah I must have fallen asleep during that part. My bad. Still if they want justice they need to bring it up to the courts.
But... they don’t
It’s not up to them
The women can choose to go to court or not
And they chose not to
Which makes sense for a lot of reasons you’d probably refuse to acknowledge
But preventing the guy from doing more damage is not “justice”, it’s about protecting people and making them feel safe. It’s not only about the victims. It’s not about “punishing” these people. It’s about creating a safe environment for everyone, especially women and children who are usually the ones victimised by sexual misconduct.
And on a purely factual level... what does it mean they “need to” bring it up to the courts? If you consider what is happening here as pursuing “justice” against Ramírez and Gareyev, then apparently they didn’t actually “need” to go to the courts to do it? Are you saying what they (lichess, US Chess, St. Louis Chess Club) are acting illegally?
> Ah I must have fallen asleep during that part. My bad. Still if they want justice they need to bring it up to the courts.
But... they don’t
It’s not up to them
The women can choose to go to court or not
And they chose not to
Which makes sense for a lot of reasons you’d probably refuse to acknowledge
But preventing the guy from doing more damage is not “justice”, it’s about protecting people and making them feel safe. It’s not only about the victims. It’s not about “punishing” these people. It’s about creating a safe environment for everyone, especially women and children who are usually the ones victimised by sexual misconduct.
And on a purely factual level... what does it mean they “need to” bring it up to the courts? If you consider what is happening here as pursuing “justice” against Ramírez and Gareyev, then apparently they didn’t actually “need” to go to the courts to do it? Are you saying what they (lichess, US Chess, St. Louis Chess Club) are acting illegally?
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.