@getting_there Thanks for explaining your point of view.
I'll answer one more time and then I'll let it rest as I feel the debate has become quite repetitive.
According to an article in Forbes Magazine that references a WSJ article, eight (8) women have accused him of improper conduct.
www.forbes.com/sites/anafaguy/2023/03/07/eight-women-accuse-chess-grandmaster-ramirez-of-sexual-misconduct-report-says/Yes, these are allegations. By eight (!) people nevertheless, according to the article.
Coming back to the court analogy, witness statements are an accepted form of evidence in court, so these statements are evidence, they're not in some separate unconnected category of 'allegations' for which there is of yet no evidence. No, there _is_ evidence, there may or may not be enough to convince an observer, but these allegations, these statements _are_ valid evidence.
Do you think there has to be video recording of an incident or 'independent witnesses' (whatever that is) or a court verdict for any of this to lead to any consequences? Shouldn't it matter when the numbers grow?
Before taking action against an accused individual where you cannot be _certain_ of the truth there certainly has to be considered the case that the person might be innocent and the consequences of your decision for them.
But there also has to be considered the effect on people other than the accused person in case they're not innocent. I think this decision should be made on the balance of probability and on the effects of both cases.
It's not an easy decision, for sure, but there's no way around it and there's no need to apply a "beyond reasonable doubt" standard.
Let's say there have been allegations at a bank that one person has been falsifying accounts by eight different people who would be in a position to witness it in case it happened. Should the company sit tight and not do anything and perhaps even give that person additional responsibilities with more access to accounts? Or should the bank perhaps give the person forced leave or even let go of them? Is that an option at all?
I think there is a clear difference between women reporting sexual harassment and people in totalitarian regimes denouncing their neighbours anonymously to powerful intelligence agencies. To me, this comparison too is unfortunately not a good one. I understand that you're arguing that this is where this could lead to. But I disagree, the two situations are entirely different.
Your point of comparison is a situation where there is an unjust system in which allegations are made. The only proper solution in that case is that the system should be dismantled and that any allegations made within the system are therefore tainted.
In your comparison the original behavior by the accused person basically is almost irrelevant as the entire system is unjust by definition and the people working with it by making allegations within it are accomplices.
Sexual harassment accusations within clubs or companies or institutions in modern democracies are a completely different matter.
To explain a bit further why this is an inaccurate comparison, we could just as well imagine comparing it to somebody making anonymous statements to authorities on the activities of organized crime or whistleblowers talking about bad corporate or government conduct. These are also anonymous allegations. But if I were to make this comparison, the accusers would look good almost by definition and you could protest that this is a different situation and you might be right. Your comparison on the other hand makes them look bad almost regardless of the accuracy or otherwise of their allegations.
There can also be repercussions for people making accusations against people in positions of power. That also should be taken into account when considering that an allegation can be made anonymously and when judging people who choose to make anonymous statements. That doesn't mean that they shouldn be weighted less than accusations by people willing to put their name behind them.
Any serious allegation has the potential to upend the life of the person who has been accused. Does that mean that allegations should never have consequences? I don't get it and if that's the point I completely disagree.
I think it's also important to understand that by the nature of sexual misconduct there's usually not going to be any video evidence available and often not even any additional witnesses other than two people.
I disagree with the idea of a gender separation between men and women in order to avoid the risk. Sexual harassment and sexism are the problems, not proximity of men and women as such.
> From a chess club ban to a restaurant ban there is a straight path. Why? If we spread the culture of "acting" out of "good intentions", then a restaurant or a haidresser's must think they ought to ban a "bad man" just out of decency, just because everyone does it, even chess web sites.
But it wouldn't be because somebody is a "bad man". It would be because there are serious allegations by several people. And not just being a member, but being in positions of power and responsibility. This is not like some random customer at a hairdresser about who somebody has heard "evil rumors". I think this is completely downplaying it.
By the way, if multiple women accused a member of a random chess club of sexual misconduct, there should definitely be consequences for that person even if there is never a trial.
Yes, it's possible that they all set out to harm an innocent person as part of some conspiracy against that person. But that is very unlikely - unless there is evidence to back up that conspiracy theory.
Otherwise bringing up that scenario just looks like an attempt to discredit the people making the allegations.
Also, this kind of situation cannot even be excluded in court: Witnesses may be lying, evidence may be manipulated, court convictions can be unjust. There is no absolute certainty ever. Does this mean no decision can ever be made?
