@Pashut said in #89:
>
@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?
I think the article does say this, though perhaps not as directly. It talks about the need for both organizations to publicly admit what lichess (and others) see as their past mistakes, and they talk about not trusting the leadership that allowed a certain environment to exist. I think the article may actually call for leadership change, but I don't know if that was explicitly stated or not. The lawyer stuff is speculation on my part, but it just makes me think that USChess and STLCC can't respond the way lichess and others want them to without opening themselves up to financial and organizational damage. Some could argue those organizations deserve that, but I'm just trying to explain why I think USChess or STLCC won't take steps that are satisfactory to lichess.