Was an offence committed and a conviction given. If not, these are allegations and opinions and Lichess would do well to avoid speculation and transparent virtue signalling virtue and let the proper authorities handle this.
@LFC2020 said in #34:
> Surely if we apply your reasoning of if enough people accuse person x of doing y then they should go to jail. You set a bad precedent of herding/just ganging up on people to ruin their lives without any sense of due process lol.
> Can also ask if it was you who was experiencing the allegations (and you were innocent) would you be happy that you had the system as you described? I doubt it.
your framing of my statement is just plain silly. there are multiple variables which indicate that these (multiple) allegations are legitimate and non-coordinated. they span across time, across women who even have their own chess titles, etc. there was not a sudden spike in allegations... so i think all of your points are moot lol
> Surely if we apply your reasoning of if enough people accuse person x of doing y then they should go to jail. You set a bad precedent of herding/just ganging up on people to ruin their lives without any sense of due process lol.
> Can also ask if it was you who was experiencing the allegations (and you were innocent) would you be happy that you had the system as you described? I doubt it.
your framing of my statement is just plain silly. there are multiple variables which indicate that these (multiple) allegations are legitimate and non-coordinated. they span across time, across women who even have their own chess titles, etc. there was not a sudden spike in allegations... so i think all of your points are moot lol
@LFC2020 said in #34:
> Surely if we apply your reasoning of if enough people accuse person x of doing y then they should go to jail. You set a bad precedent of herding/just ganging up on people to ruin their lives without any sense of due process lol.
> Can also ask if it was you who was experiencing the allegations (and you were innocent) would you be happy that you had the system as you described? I doubt it.
I completely agree with you, and that is the reason why the law doesn’t work in the way. This post seems one sided, and the large number of people will read this will assume that the people are guilty despite there only being allegations. Assuming isn’t good, which is why objective facts are relayed in court, and we don’t have a system of millions of people “voting” for whether someone is innocent or guilty.
> Surely if we apply your reasoning of if enough people accuse person x of doing y then they should go to jail. You set a bad precedent of herding/just ganging up on people to ruin their lives without any sense of due process lol.
> Can also ask if it was you who was experiencing the allegations (and you were innocent) would you be happy that you had the system as you described? I doubt it.
I completely agree with you, and that is the reason why the law doesn’t work in the way. This post seems one sided, and the large number of people will read this will assume that the people are guilty despite there only being allegations. Assuming isn’t good, which is why objective facts are relayed in court, and we don’t have a system of millions of people “voting” for whether someone is innocent or guilty.
@LFC2020 said in #38:
> No? You simply said that because enough people accused him then he is guilty. Regardless of the time period, your reasoning indicates that regardless if they're guilty or not, if enough people accuse then he is guilty as charged. Isn't the burden of proof on the accuser rather than the accused???
and just how do you expect them to present proof? the nature of these allegations is such that it's incredibly difficult to obtain any record of it ever happening. so who would you believe - the guy who has multiple accusers that have no benefit of accusing him, or the girls who are getting assaulted and now probably extremely anxious to play the game they love?
by the way this isn't a god damn prison sentence. it's just the grounds justifying LIchess's stance on the issue, and their subsequent actions. so quit acting like lawyers LOL. you can reference his reputation as being tarnished all you want, but it goes two ways. inversely, you are implying that Shahade and the others are liars...
> No? You simply said that because enough people accused him then he is guilty. Regardless of the time period, your reasoning indicates that regardless if they're guilty or not, if enough people accuse then he is guilty as charged. Isn't the burden of proof on the accuser rather than the accused???
and just how do you expect them to present proof? the nature of these allegations is such that it's incredibly difficult to obtain any record of it ever happening. so who would you believe - the guy who has multiple accusers that have no benefit of accusing him, or the girls who are getting assaulted and now probably extremely anxious to play the game they love?
by the way this isn't a god damn prison sentence. it's just the grounds justifying LIchess's stance on the issue, and their subsequent actions. so quit acting like lawyers LOL. you can reference his reputation as being tarnished all you want, but it goes two ways. inversely, you are implying that Shahade and the others are liars...
breaking the silence by silencing me for a comment that offended no one and wasn't meant to...
@LFC2020 said in #41:
> Your reasoning is completely incorrect regarding my supposed implication that if Ramirez is innocent (which I never said he was) then Shahade and the others are liars (I did not say that nor imply that). All I'm saying is that allegations such as seriously should be tried in a judicial court, not the court of public opinion which tends to inevitably swing on one side regardless of the facts.
i don't understand. we aren't in a court. we are on a LIchess forum. why are you suggesting a judicial process? if you banned your in-laws from coming over because they pooped on your floors, would you need a judicial process?
> Your reasoning is completely incorrect regarding my supposed implication that if Ramirez is innocent (which I never said he was) then Shahade and the others are liars (I did not say that nor imply that). All I'm saying is that allegations such as seriously should be tried in a judicial court, not the court of public opinion which tends to inevitably swing on one side regardless of the facts.
i don't understand. we aren't in a court. we are on a LIchess forum. why are you suggesting a judicial process? if you banned your in-laws from coming over because they pooped on your floors, would you need a judicial process?
If you cheat at chess, repeatedly, your membership of a chess organisation can be revoked without the need for your cheating being proven in court, so why do some of you seem to think that multiple credible and independent accusations of sexual assault would require a court to prove guilt before an organisation is allowed to revoke membership?
Does it really make sense that a chess cheater should be suspended/banned but not a credibly accused rapist or sexual abuser?
C'mon now guys. Think.
Does it really make sense that a chess cheater should be suspended/banned but not a credibly accused rapist or sexual abuser?
C'mon now guys. Think.
@LFC2020 said in #43:
> Your example is a completely different situation, excrement on a floor /= SA
correct my friend, and so is a Lichess stance different from execution of a lawful process...
> Your example is a completely different situation, excrement on a floor /= SA
correct my friend, and so is a Lichess stance different from execution of a lawful process...
<Comment deleted by user>
<Comment deleted by user>
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.