Breaking the Silence

@Gingersquirrelnuts -- But they DID react, as the article clearly points out.

> Her allegations sparked a swift and severe backlash against Ramirez, who was forced to resign from the Saint Louis Chess Club (STLCC), before being permanently banned by the United States Chess Federation (US Chess).

> In June 2022, Gareyev was banned from playing or attending US Chess national events for two years, and his US Chess membership was suspended for a year.

So what would Lichess expect them to do that they have not done already?

What if I told you (just hypothetically) that the creator of Lichess once pushed me against a wall, pinned my tiny hands and tried to passionately kiss me on the lips when I was just 18? What if (still hypothetically) I told you he did the same to 2 of my friends as well? Would you believe me and boycott Lichess?

PS: This didn't actually happen!!

@Pashut said in #82:
> @Gingersquirrelnuts -- But they DID react, as the article clearly points out.

Years later. Once they'd been publically shamed into taking action.

@Pashut said in #82:
> @Gingersquirrelnuts -- But they DID react, as the article clearly points out.
>
>
>
>
>
> So what would Lichess expect them to do that they have not done already?

It seems like lichess wants USChess and SLCC, regardless of what actions they took and are taking now, to admit they mishandled the situation in the past, and probably wants the individuals who they feel mishandled things to be dismissed and perhaps public humiliated. It seems to me that such a public admission would open both organizations to possible litigation, and my guess is that their lawyers have advised against such.

@Gingersquirrelnuts

In the case of Ramirez, the article clearly states that the allegations were made in February, and he's already out of STLCC and was banned by US Chess. According to my math, that is *not* "years later".

In any case, just to clarify:
1. Allegation(s) are made.
2. US Chess replies with a ban / sanctions.
3. Then Lichess comes out, *after* the ban, and ceases collaboration with US Chess, without even stating in the article what they would have expected US Chess' reply to be in the first place.

And that makes sense?

@Pashut
Read the timeline at the bottom of the article. There were reports as early as 2017, and that's just the ones we know about.

Yes, it is disgusting that such abusive behaviour could be allowed to continue for so long and that several organizations plus individuals choose to look the other way or to come up with a convenient reason why it was not their issue.

One of the issues here is that you really need to find an organization to help you effectively fight an organization. That way, you are not a lone individual trying to get the attention of organizations. I agree that it would probably not be easy with abuse allegations to recruit a supporting organization that would investigate and push the matter strongly and effectively.

When I was around 15, I was aware of abuse happening to other people in a church / school situation. I talked to someone that I thought that I could trust but before I got to say anything specific he got very upset and nasty with me and threw me out of his office. "The bastard already knows" I realized. My inept efforts to address the situation as an individual failed. I was quietly crushed into helpless silence and complicit submission.

When I was in my thirties, I had a situation where I refused to answer some of the super-nosy questions on a special long-form detailed census. I got raised up several level with increased veiled threats and it finally dawned on me that I really needed some big help. I contacted a privacy organization that was leading resistance to the long-form questions and was active in the news. When another guy phoned with more direct threats, I mentioned that the privacy organization had agreed to help me fight them. He loudly dismissed this development as irrelevant but ... I never heard from them again.

@librocubiculartist -- Thanks for the answer, appreciate it. Imho, it would have been much better if Lichess itself would have stated that clearly in the article, don't you think?

Re. their admittance of mishandling -- I would have given them the same advice their lawyers (seemingly) did.

Just to put things in perspective: When a player does something against Lichess' TOS, Lichess (in the name of avoiding public shaming) doesn't even tell you in the notification who they are + they only say something "X violated TOS", and not the much stronger "X is a cheater". But when it comes to others making public declarations regarding a decision they made, it does expect them to do it. Hmmm... ;)

Sorry, I thought this was a chess website, not a political opinion site. SHUT UP

@Gingersquirrelnuts said in #87:
> @Pashut
> Read the timeline at the bottom of the article. There were reports as early as 2017, and that's just the ones we know about.

I think you misread the timeline. They did not make the allegations in 2017, but rather they alleged that the events happened in 2017 and other prior years. See date on Shahade's Twitter link from 2014, for example.

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?