Breaking the Silence

While a member of the US Chess Executive Board from 2009-2016, I never heard about any of this. If it was discussed, the discussions did not include everyone. As a Licensed Mental Health Professional during that period, I would have been duty bound to report allegations of abuse to local authorities. Hopefully they/we are now more proactive and the recent decision to mandate Safe Play training for all tournament directors is a good start
Michael Atkins, US NTD and International Arbiter

RE: "guilty until proven innocent" and "this isn't a law court".

Can you people explain to me how and why would USC ban Gareyev for one year and lifetime ban Ramirez under "Violations of US Chess Safe Play Guidelines" reason if nothing is true and nothing can be proven?

More than fair enough reasons to not advertise their events and I have found the deliberate inaction of USChess and STLCC in recognizing problems (if not enabling problems) of harassment in the cases discussed to be disgusting, but not sure what was meant in terms of providing support to US Chess/STLCC (in the past or in future) does this mean lichess will not allow broadcasts of their official events for the foreseeable future, and what would result in a change of lichess policy toward sanctioned organizations? As it seems that USChess and STLCC are finally taking some? proactive measures to deal with the problem, what further actions in terms of policy by sanctioned organizations will make things better, besides providing a safer environment by properly vetting their employees and involving authorities when incidents occur.

@BlockMyPremove said in #113:
> A woman must have wrote it.
Bigot

@Deadban said in #112:
> RE: "guilty until proven innocent" and "this isn't a law court".
>
> Can you people explain to me how and why would USC ban Gareyev for one year and lifetime ban Ramirez under "Violations of US Chess Safe Play Guidelines" reason if nothing is true and nothing can be proven?

Let me ask you a question:
Do you think lichess should have the power to ban people for cheating?
If not, you basically say that online chess should be a cesspool where the amount of cheaters would be through the roof, the top of the rating distribution would be inaccessible to anyone who is not cheating and nobody would be likely to have any fun at all.
If you do think they should be able to, how do you think they make those decisions? Do you think they have video evidence of cheaters consulting Stockfish on their phones during games? Or do you think maybe they use circumstantial evidence like statistical likelihood, browser behaviour etc.? Might they, (shock, horror) even rely on member reports to choose players to examine more closely for possible cheating?
Now, is there a conceivable situation where lichess makes a wrong call and bans someone wrongfully? I’m sure that’s possible. But does it enable the site to run in the first place by attracting players, including those at the top of the game, to play there? Yes it does. And do people get a chance to appeal the ban decisions and offer evidence in their defence? Yes indeed. And finally, is being banned from lichess a dreadful punishment comparable to being sent to prison? Not quite. Does that make it okay to make judgements when there is a high degree of confidence but not complete certainty (which, by the way, does not exist in court either, you should read up on it, might affect your unwavering confidence in the court system a bit)? I would say so, especially considering the enormous benefit for the whole community.

Okay, if you were able to follow along this far, I’ll trust you to think of the possible implications this little analogy might have for the case at hand. (Although based on all you’ve contributed to the discussion so far I am not sure if that trust might not be slightly optimistic)

Lichess spreading rumors and spreading false, unproven accusations.

Classic anarcho-leftist virtue signalling.

Big shame.

@lessi17 said in #116:
> Let me ask you a question:
> Do you think lichess should have the power to ban people for cheating?
Let me ask you a question:
Do you think lichess should have the power to ban people for being reported for cheating by one hundred players?

@lessi17 said in #116:
> Let me ask you a question:
> Do you think lichess should have the power to ban people for cheating?
> If not, you basically say that online chess should be a cesspool where the amount of cheaters would be through the roof, the top of the rating distribution would be inaccessible to anyone who is not cheating and nobody would be likely to have any fun at all.
> If you do think they should be able to, how do you think they make those decisions? Do you think they have video evidence of cheaters consulting Stockfish on their phones during games? Or do you think maybe they use circumstantial evidence like statistical likelihood, browser behaviour etc.? Might they, (shock, horror) even rely on member reports to choose players to examine more closely for possible cheating?
> Now, is there a conceivable situation where lichess makes a wrong call and bans someone wrongfully? I’m sure that’s possible. But does it enable the site to run in the first place by attracting players, including those at the top of the game, to play there? Yes it does. And do people get a chance to appeal the ban decisions and offer evidence in their defence? Yes indeed. And finally, is being banned from lichess a dreadful punishment comparable to being sent to prison? Not quite. Does that make it okay to make judgements when there is a high degree of confidence but not complete certainty (which, by the way, does not exist in court either, you should read up on it, might affect your unwavering confidence in the court system a bit)? I would say so, especially considering the enormous benefit for the whole community.
>
> Okay, if you were able to follow along this far, I’ll trust you to think of the possible implications this little analogy might have for the case at hand. (Although based on all you’ve contributed to the discussion so far I am not sure if that trust might not be slightly optimistic)

You misunderstood my comment fully.

@Sarg0n said in #101:
> I have talked too many girls in the scene, they all confirmed.
>
> I don’t second any of my male fellows. Shame on you, you Alejandro Gareevs.

What are the scientific proofs about all these yabbing blah blah. I haven't seen one sexually exclusive video.