Breaking the Silence

@qu0thraven said in #730:
> @h2b2
>
> I literally never said that. :/
>
> I made and make no claims about whether or not police reports were filed because that isn't really the issue here. But of course it is possible that they were?

soz, your name ended up in my quote, my bad. you didn't didn't say that.

i was able to edit it

Why does a chess federation or a chess website have to "deal" with a male assaulting a female or another male at a car park or a restaurant? Isn't this the police's and judges' business? The press must react too.
But the local chess club, the hairdresser's? Restaurants, dentists, trains and buses? Do they all have to ban Alejandro Ramirez? Are you sure they all have enough in them to be judges?

Will there be a trial with proper judges, the police, the witnesses, the victims and the press? Am i too "old-school"?

@Pashut said in #707:
> new.uschess.org/news/us-chess-statement-misconduct-allegations
>
> Please explain: how is this not reasonable?

you don't believe victims allegations, so to be consistent you shouldn't believe the statement.

> First, Mr. Ramirez is not employed by US Chess.

irrelevant. doesn't help their position.

> Second, US Chess has no record of any reported allegations regarding Mr. Ramirez’s conduct prior to 2020.

you should be saying "show me the evidence". To be consistent, you shouldn't believe this statement. Also the wording is interesting, they aren't saying they didn't receive any reports, just that they don't have any records of reports.

> Additionally, other than submitting freelance articles and appearing on a podcast, Mr. Ramirez has had no meaningful engagement with US Chess since the allegations were made to US Chess in 2020.

so he had engagement, but according to us chess, it wasn't meaningful. Again you should be saying "show me the evidence" he had no engagement.

> Third, Mr. Ramirez was selected as the coach of the 2022 Women’s Olympiad Team; however, as is standard practice for our Olympiad teams, that decision was made by the team independently of US Chess.

irrelevant that they didn't select him, they appointed and paid him.

@Pashut said in #734:
> Stop trolling. :)

not trolling. I accidentally make logical fallacies. I'd love to get better and not make them. it's much easier to get better when mistakes are known.

> Given how big this thing got, imho the police would come out in 2 seconds flat saying "we received a complaint and we're investigating". Police has PR departments and spokespersons too, you know...

It's big in chess, I doubt people outside of chess are talking about it. Some may have read the wsj and thought, that's terrible, and forgotten 5 minutes latter.

> But if it really makes you happy to consider this a disputed fact too, go ahead. It only serves to prove what I've said before: this case is predicated on uncertainty, on disputed facts. More reason to wait before jumping to conclusions, not less.

wait until the number of victims goes from 10 to 20? would 20 victims be enough? or maybe there's no limit? wait until an assault happens in front of someone and there's a witness? but hang on, how can we believe the witness is telling the truth? maybe we could wait until it happens in front of 4 witnesses?

ughhhh. who cares just play chess if you like it lol

This is messed up

To the „innocent until proven guilty“ community resp. no evidence:

Let those innocent guys continue coaching girls?

@getting_there said in #736:
> Why does a chess federation or a chess website have to "deal" with a male assaulting a female or another male at a car park or a restaurant? Isn't this the police's and judges' business? The press must react too.
> But the local chess club, the hairdresser's? Restaurants, dentists, trains and buses? Do they all have to ban Alejandro Ramirez? Are you sure they all have enough in them to be judges?
>
> Will there be a trial with proper judges, the police, the witnesses, the victims and the press? Am i too "old-school"?

There is a difference whether an organization decides not to let an individual against who several allegations of sexual harassment had been made become coach of a women's team or whether a hairdresser refuses to serve a customer for the same reason. A huge, almost grotesque difference.

The first instance is about protecting players in your care from potentially severe harm. Yes, you do have a responsibility towards people that you might sanction due to multiple allegations given that your actions can have severe consequences for them and there may be a liability as well. But you also have a responsibility to players and what risks you might expose them to by putting them in prolonged close proximity to people against who multiple allegations had been made. If ethical considerations are the guideline it should have been a straightforward decision.

This is not the same as the tragic picture you paint where individuals are completely ostracised from everyday life and can't even get a haircut and can't get to a dentist either by bus or train which would be useless anyway given that the dentist won't serve them anyway. I don't think it's an apt comparison at all.

I hope that this matter of harassment is FULLY investigated.
If Proved to be TRUE the chess player must be prosecuted by the standard laws.
If proved to be FALSE than is the other party that must be prosecuted .