Breaking the Silence

@SixtySecondsOfHell said in #881:
>
> Classic Sea Lion response.

It is not a "Sea Lion" response: You are making a claim without evidence, so the burden of proof lies upon you. Calling other people demanding to provide such evidence "sea lions" is an ad hominem that attempts to shift the burden of proof to these other people. Repeatedly making the same claim, without providing any evidence, does not make said claim true.

@Shiren said in #73:
> I remember when legal matters were between the individual and the court system, instead of the individual and every single other person and organization on the planet.
>
> We are turning into a species of blank, soulless mutually-policing robots, and everyone is too flat-out dumb to understand why life today is so awful compared to how it used to be.

Tell me. Those were good old days for the prey or the predator?

@jort93 said in #76:
> This is really mostly a matter of police and the courts. It's simply a crime, this matter has nothing at all to do with the game of chess.
>
> It's not really something the US Chess Federation or Saint Louis Chess Club need to speak up about. Banning them for life seems the appropriate measure. It's not their duty to slander the person, they are not the police, they are not the court, they can't decide about their guilt. They are not the press either, so they don't need to speculate in public either. Banning someone and cooperating with the police is really all an organisation like that can reasonably do.

Until the victim is your daughter, your niece, your gf or friend?

@Roadto2_1k said in #901:
> It is not a "Sea Lion" response: You are making a claim without evidence, so the burden of proof lies upon you. Calling other people demanding to provide such evidence "sea lions" is an ad hominem that attempts to shift the burden of proof to these other people. Repeatedly making the same claim, without providing any evidence, does not make said claim true.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning

There are some pretty good sealioners here

> The sealioner feigns ignorance and politeness while making relentless demands for answers and evidence (while often ignoring or sidestepping any evidence the target has already presented), under the guise of "I'm just trying to have a debate", so that when the target is eventually provoked into an angry response, the sealioner can act as the aggrieved party, and the target presented as closed-minded and unreasonable

@Pashut said in #91:
>[...]
> Regardless of all this however, I'm still confused: What, in your opinion, should US Chess have done? Ban the players immediately upon hearing the allegations? Are you suggesting they should have acted also on allegations we haven't heard of?

Do you think it should be mandatory for Lichess to do business with US Chess and STLCC?

Believe me if US Chess really want to know they'll know. ;-)

Also don't you think the text has been rubber stamped by a(some) lawyer(s)?

@Blindest_bandit said in #96:
> 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

So your only criteria for the coach of your daughter chess team is to not be a rapist? You should not post the on the internet 'cause the wolves could take notes. ;-)

@bfchessguy said in #904:
> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning
>
> There are some pretty good sealioners here

I have read this Wikipedia article and my honest opinion is that the term is an excuse used to shift the burden of proof onto the other person in a debate. [Footnote]

But even so, independently of whether the people here are „sealioning“ or not, this does not change that calling others sealions without addressing their questions does not constitute an argument in favor of one’s own position, but is instead simply an ad hominem attack. (Of course it also doesn’t constitute an argument against one‘s own position. I am just saying that I find many of the claims by SixtySecondsOfHell to be controversial, and it would be unfortunate if they become „facts not in evidence“ here because we are afraid to ask him to fulfill his burden of proof).

—-

[Footnote] If I were to decide, I would delete this Wikipedia article, but there have already been two deletion discussions with the decision for the article to remain. I am a moderately active editor on the German Wikipedia, but I must say that overall even though there are many excellent Wikipedia articles, there are also some that I find to be quite „insert adjective of garbage here“. I am glad that there is no equivalent of the article on the German Wikipedia.

@Roadto2_1k said in #907:
> I have read this Wikipedia article and my honest opinion is that the term is an excuse used to shift the burden of proof onto the other person in a debate.[...]

Not sure I understands your answer. Was just trying to say that we all know some posters here who are pretty good at avoiding answering to questions. Even me is guilty of that sometimes, and pretending I am doing this for a healthier debate is a joke. ;-)

Footnote: Wikipedia has shortcomings. Tough I think sealioning is some sort of Ad nauseam or argumentum ad infinitum. That is one of the tools for trolling.

@bfchessguy said in #906:
> So your only criteria for the coach of your daughter chess team is to not be a rapist? You should not post the on the internet 'cause the wolves could take notes. ;-)
Well, without evidence (evidence presented within the framkework of a trial not a flurry of copy paste emails in a lousy blog of an opaque and weakened credibility website as lichess) and a decision taken in Court with all the guarantees of a legal process it can be difamation. Specially for these kind of crimes the legal authorities cannot be skipped without paying the price which is the complete loss of credibility ( to say the least) of who makes the accusations and that includes lichess which would do well to step aside and refrain from dedicating efforts and the money from donors who may not approve those steps and may feel betrayed in the primarily reasons of the donations, many here may question lichess that they did not engage into a pseudo-feminist website but rather one about chess. Lichess should improve their own transparency (or rather lack of it) explicitly stated in their TOS rather than claiming transparency to others, that would no doubt add up credibility to this website and not the other way around. It seems lichess (and its members) have now become puppets of ideologies which have found a vehicle for their propaganda in this website together with an army of zombie-soldiers (users) which they want to serve their cause, as if there were not designated official institutions to deal with these matters. DO NOT STAIN THE BOARD.

@Artem-Kozirev said in #909:
> Well, without evidence (evidence presented within the framkework of a trial not a flurry of copy paste emails in a lousy blog of an opaque and weakened credibility website as lichess) and a decision taken in Court with all the guarantees of a legal process it can be difamation. [...]

(sic)

Are you the victim?

If the answer is yes well then hire a lawyer and get back to me after professional advice.

If the answer is no why do you feel threatened by me? lol