Breaking the Silence

@SixtySecondsOfHell said in #838:
> They can be sued for "failure to warn" or "negligent hiring."

By who? And on what basis? If a criminal court does not convict this guy of a crime, then civil lawsuits as a result of these allegations will likely not succeed.

>He could sue for libel if the allegations are false, so it is legit to act on them. There is recourse.

Who could he sue for libel? There are broad protections from the first amendment here, and there are a lot of factors that determine whether or not a libel suit is possible. And this is assuming that all suits are operating in US courts.

Just because there is civil legal recourse against something doesn't mean that it's "legit to act on them".

@SixtySecondsOfHell said in #839:
> Maybe I'm not smart enough to understand what people say here but why is it so bad to make the game safer without altering it and by making it easier for everyone to compete?

I have been trying to keep up with this thread, because a lot of smart people are exchanging ideas, and that's always a good thing. I noticed that you mentioned this a few times.

I don't think that anyone wants an unsafe environment. I just don't think that it's clear that the environment is unsafe in the first place, as these are just a bunch of allegations. Or at least, that the environment is any more dangerous than your average day. Players of any sport or game are not going to want things to change unless there is a compelling reason to do so, and I think that a lot of people just don't see the danger that you do.

People also generally don't want to participate in a system in which all of your work and reputation can be destroyed by allegations alone, and with no due process. I think that is why the organizations dragged their feet on doing anything. It wasn't until they faced a lot of social pressure that they really did anything. They know that these kinds of actions cause long-term damage to the reputation of the organization and the way that they handle "justice".

If there were a series of arrests and convictions surrounding the game and a bunch of players, I would be taking a different stance here.

@ClappingQueens said in #842:
> I have been trying to keep up with this thread, because a lot of smart people are exchanging ideas, and that's always a good thing. I noticed that you mentioned this a few times.
>
> I don't think that anyone wants an unsafe environment. I just don't think that it's clear that the environment is unsafe in the first place, as these are just a bunch of allegations. Or at least, that the environment is any more dangerous than your average day. Players of any sport or game are not going to want things to change unless there is a compelling reason to do so, and I think that a lot of people just don't see the danger that you do.
>
> People also generally don't want to participate in a system in which all of your work and reputation can be destroyed by allegations alone, and with no due process. I think that is why the organizations dragged their feet on doing anything. It wasn't until they faced a lot of social pressure that they really did anything. They know that these kinds of actions cause long-term damage to the reputation of the organization and the way that they handle "justice".
>
> If there were a series of arrests and convictions surrounding the game and a bunch of players, I would be taking a different stance here.

Allegations run the risk of libel lawsuits. Has even one of these women been sued for libel?

I've played OTB both in the 1980s when few women played (and those who did were pretty much left alone as they were so rare), and recently, which is a completely new world. A woman, or a young girl, who plays OTB chess, has a target on her back that is put there by the way tournament chess is structured. Telling me to tell any daughter I have to avoid this danger, or that her disgust at being forced to share a chessboard for several hours, sitting directly across a table from someone who repulses her, should be dismissed as irrelevant isn't going to accomplish much.

I'm talking about DANGER here, the kind of DANGER that results in things like sexual assaults of minors. It is not okay to run events where underaged girls are sitting ducks for the type of social outliers who permeate the chess world, and whose behavior is often seriously disturbing in its intensity. If I have a fourteen year-old who looks like a cheerleader I'm not going to put her in proximity to boys she'd run from anywhere else. If you think there aren't girls or women who see this, I'd say you just don't hear from them because they wrote off chess the second they saw it. Real life isn't the Queen's Gambit.

Let's just say there's enough evidence here to call Child Protective Services, which some have been doing very silently for years rather than just arguing on the internet. There's a ton of probable cause here and you can be sure the authorities are well aware of the problems. Don't think people haven't been spoken with.

step away these people have made it an active battle ground!

@ClappingQueens said in #841:
> By who? And on what basis? If a criminal court does not convict this guy of a crime, then civil lawsuits as a result of these allegations will likely not succeed.
>
>
>
> Who could he sue for libel? There are broad protections from the first amendment here, and there are a lot of factors that determine whether or not a libel suit is possible. And this is assuming that all suits are operating in US courts.
>
> Just because there is civil legal recourse against something doesn't mean that it's "legit to act on them".

Look up "failure to warn" or "negligent hiring." Lots of lawsuits based on it and a search would describe them better than I could, but yes it's a thing.

I'm rather shocked LiChess is allowing this discussion without "moderating" it.

That's not a bad thing.

@SixtySecondsOfHell said in #843:
> Allegations run the risk of libel lawsuits. Has even one of these women been sued for libel?

The bar for being awarded libel damages is pretty high, as I alluded to earlier. And if there is a pending criminal investigation as a result of the allegations in question, then his attorneys probably recommended that he wait until those are resolved before filing any civil suit. I am not sure if there are any criminal investigations going on around this case.

>A woman, or a young girl, who plays OTB chess, has a target on her back that is put there by the way tournament chess is structured.

How, specifically, is tournament chess structured so that it puts "a target on her back"? I'm genuinely curious.

>Telling me to tell any daughter I have to avoid this danger, or that her disgust at being forced to share a chessboard for several hours, sitting directly across a table from someone who repulses her, should be dismissed as irrelevant isn't going to accomplish much.

You should absolutely recommend, to anyone that you love, to avoid danger. I didn't think that this was debatable.

>I'm talking about DANGER here, the kind of DANGER that results in things like sexual assaults of minors. It is not okay to run events where underaged girls are sitting ducks for the type of social outliers who permeate the chess world, and whose behavior is often seriously disturbing in its intensity. If I have a fourteen year-old who looks like a cheerleader I'm not going to put her in proximity to boys she'd run from anywhere else. If you think there aren't girls or women who see this, I'd say you just don't hear from them because they wrote off chess the second they saw it. Real life isn't the Queen's Gambit.

How is this danger specific to chess or to chess tournaments? Would you let your fourteen year old cheerleader daughter ride the subway by herself? Go to a football game? Supervise and protect your children until they can protect themselves. The issue that you bring up is real, but it has nothing to do specifically with chess.

>Let's just say there's enough evidence here to call Child Protective Services, which some have been doing very silently for years rather than just arguing on the internet. There's a ton of probable cause here and you can be sure the authorities are well aware of the problems. Don't think people haven't been spoken with.

Ok then fill me in. What is the evidence that they have, and what is the probable cause?

@SixtySecondsOfHell said in #846:
> I'm rather shocked LiChess is allowing this discussion without "moderating" it.
>
> That's not a bad thing.

Cheers. I Agree 100%

@SixtySecondsOfHell said in #845:
> Look up "failure to warn" or "negligent hiring." Lots of lawsuits based on it and a search would describe them better than I could, but yes it's a thing.

Dude, failure to warn is when a manufacturer fails to warn a consumer about dangers surrounding a product.

Negligent hiring is when a company fails to properly assess someone's skills, fitness, or background for a job. For example, hiring a trucker without the proper driver's license, and then that trucker gets in some kind of accident. Equating allegations to this doesn't make sense, but if he was convicted of these crimes, and they kept him anyway, then I think it would make a lot more sense.

> How, specifically, is tournament chess structured so that it puts "a target on her back"? I'm genuinely curious.\

Yes, let me give a blueprint on how to stalk minors just so I can win an internet argument. I'll stick to informing the good guys, thanks.

What is obvious is that female players have no privacy and it's too easy to know in advance where they'll be, plus the inherently (but fake) social nature of chess encourages interaction and "respect for all" means the popular girls have to be nice to the boys they generally ignore, but cannot in the chess world. Do you think it's an accident that so few females play? They've written about the dangers, not me. There are opponents who disgust me and that's not even sexual. OTB chess is just way too personal in 2023, and it's no longer necessary. E-sports thirve because they offer safety.


>
> You should absolutely recommend, to anyone that you love, to avoid danger. I didn't think that this was debatable.
>
>
>
> How is this danger specific to chess or to chess tournaments? Would you let your fourteen year old cheerleader daughter ride the subway by herself? Go to a football game? Supervise and protect your children until they can protect themselves. The issue that you bring up is real, but it has nothing to do specifically with chess.

Chess is unique in that it's a shared, one-on-one activity with a member of the opposite sex. Know what's in that category? A DATE. A "platonic" or friendly date, but a date nonetheless. There are social-outcast males in the chess world who misinterpret civility for interest, and this "we're all a community" marketing to sell product isn't helping either.

Please tell me about this universe where beauty queens share tables with men they don't like for several hours without being paid again. A guy who gets paired against a beauty queen in a tournament game will feel like he hit the jackpot, and he definitely has a proximity he wouldn't otherwise have. This is a structural problem with OTB chess that an arcade setup can fix. Also I wouldn't want this boy knowing my daughter was entered three weeks in advance or that she'd be playing in a hotel out in the middle of nowhere because a bigoted TD only wanted rich white people with cars to play*

*any resemblance to actual tournaments with such gerrymandering is purely coincidental


> Ok then fill me in. What is the evidence that they have, and what is the probable cause?

Testimony is probabe cause. They can bug phones, rooms, get more evidence, subpoena text messages, etc.

Accusations are sufficient to justify what was done. The player has recourse if the women are lying. I was not there so I can't speak to this specific situation but my general belief is that chess is a sport first and entertainment second.