Imagine being so egocentric that saving some clicks to see a broadcast is more important than showing solidarity with victims of sexual abuse.
@new_player_123 said in #9:
> The history is full of examples with sports being misused for politics.
> The people in power always assumed, that their political beliefs were "the one and only true". And it was always a sad day for sports.
>
> Analogous with Lichess' history of political activism.
This is very well said. It's an abuse of authority and exploitation of lichess users's trust to propagate their political agenda. The truth is no one knows the full details about Jen Shahade's case as it is still under investigation. But lichess single-handedly decided it's now the judge of truth. Very disappointing. Lichess is no longer a neutral platform when it starts filtering broadcasts, cancelling people, it's a spit in the face of so many who trusted this site to be a provider of chess. Nothing more and nothing less.
> The history is full of examples with sports being misused for politics.
> The people in power always assumed, that their political beliefs were "the one and only true". And it was always a sad day for sports.
>
> Analogous with Lichess' history of political activism.
This is very well said. It's an abuse of authority and exploitation of lichess users's trust to propagate their political agenda. The truth is no one knows the full details about Jen Shahade's case as it is still under investigation. But lichess single-handedly decided it's now the judge of truth. Very disappointing. Lichess is no longer a neutral platform when it starts filtering broadcasts, cancelling people, it's a spit in the face of so many who trusted this site to be a provider of chess. Nothing more and nothing less.
@tscr said in #12:
> Hey Mr Single Digit IQ: "why am I paying the price for it" in this context means why should the lichess users be affected by this instead of USCF. It doesn't mean why am I paying dollars for lichess.
I would like to thank you very much for taking the trouble to explain your rough statement to me personally.
> Hey Mr Single Digit IQ: "why am I paying the price for it" in this context means why should the lichess users be affected by this instead of USCF. It doesn't mean why am I paying dollars for lichess.
I would like to thank you very much for taking the trouble to explain your rough statement to me personally.
@tscr said in #13:
> This is very well said. It's an abuse of authority and exploitation of lichess users's trust to propagate their political agenda. The truth is no one knows the full details about Jen Shahade's case as it is still under investigation. But lichess single-handedly decided it's now the judge of truth. Very disappointing. Lichess is no longer a neutral platform when it starts filtering broadcasts, cancelling people, it's a spit in the face of so many who trusted this site to be a provider of chess. Nothing more and nothing less.
Lichess wasn't a neutral platform before either. Also, we still allow all user-created broadcasts - also from STL and USCF tournaments, we just don't feature them on lichess.org/broadcast. So feel free to create your own broadcast instead of complaining about the voluntary(!) broadcast team not creating the broadcast for you.
> This is very well said. It's an abuse of authority and exploitation of lichess users's trust to propagate their political agenda. The truth is no one knows the full details about Jen Shahade's case as it is still under investigation. But lichess single-handedly decided it's now the judge of truth. Very disappointing. Lichess is no longer a neutral platform when it starts filtering broadcasts, cancelling people, it's a spit in the face of so many who trusted this site to be a provider of chess. Nothing more and nothing less.
Lichess wasn't a neutral platform before either. Also, we still allow all user-created broadcasts - also from STL and USCF tournaments, we just don't feature them on lichess.org/broadcast. So feel free to create your own broadcast instead of complaining about the voluntary(!) broadcast team not creating the broadcast for you.
@tscr said in #13:
> This is very well said. It's an abuse of authority and exploitation of lichess users's trust to propagate their political agenda.
Wow, you're full of it aren't you? The reality of it is that internet communities, like all communities, have they own standards for what is morally acceptable and what isn't. This really is no different from real life social groups. Abide by the standards of a group, the group will accept you. Don't, the group will spit you out. But there really is no point in complaining about it. Don't like this group? Leave.
> This is very well said. It's an abuse of authority and exploitation of lichess users's trust to propagate their political agenda.
Wow, you're full of it aren't you? The reality of it is that internet communities, like all communities, have they own standards for what is morally acceptable and what isn't. This really is no different from real life social groups. Abide by the standards of a group, the group will accept you. Don't, the group will spit you out. But there really is no point in complaining about it. Don't like this group? Leave.
@tscr said in #3:
> you're right lichess.org/blog/ZNTniBEAACEAJZTn/breaking-the-silence
>
> who makes these dumb decisions?
I could speculate about who is being dumb here but I won't because that might be considered disrespectful. Although I will say I have great respect for the people who make the decisions here at Lichess. Also great admiration that they actually took a public stance against the two institutions that appeared to have been ignoring very serious allegations of sexual abuse and assault from multiple women and underaged girls for many years, not "just" one woman and one allegation as you seem to imply.
So your minor inconvenience at having to search for broadcasts for a minute or two is more significant than the years of suffering and ill-treatment these women and girls allegedly went through (and are still going through)?
> I thought lichess was supposed to be a chess platform not a political activism bullshit... really disappointed right now.
It is a chess platform but one that cares about the welfare, safety and well-being of women in chess enough to not look the other way and do nothing, like you would have had them do. Standing up to organisations that don't seem to care at all about women is not "political activism bullshit" it is basic human decency and humanity. If you are disappointed that the caring and brave staff at Lichess made this decision then it says far more about you than them to be honest.
@tscr said in #13:
> This is very well said. It's an abuse of authority and exploitation of lichess users's trust to propagate their political agenda. The truth is > no one knows the full details about Jen Shahade's case as it is still under investigation. But lichess single-handedly decided it's now the judge of truth. Very disappointing. Lichess is no longer a neutral platform when it starts filtering broadcasts, cancelling people,
Lichess can broadcast or not broadcast what they want, they are not the government...
I can however think of a situation not too far from this topic that was an exploitation of trust that some girls and women had in authority figures like but it has nothing to do with Lichess and their broadcast decisions.
Often no one except the victim and their attacker know the full details, given the typical lack of witnesses, small reporting percentages, and even smaller conviction rates for this sort of thing, but with this many corroborating allegations from so many witnesses spanning so many years, it seems highly unlikely to me that they are all somehow fabricated.
It is a big reach to say that caring about women is "an abuse of authority and exploitation of lichess users's trust to propagate their political agenda." Now THAT sounds more like BS to me.
> it's a spit in the face of so many who trusted this site to be a provider of chess. Nothing more and nothing less.
I think you will find from the overwhelming response to the Lichess "Breaking The Silence" blog in the forums, (with the associated discussion reaching almost 1000 posts before having to be shut down due to disruptive posters) that more people felt that the inactivity and general behaviour of the two organisations was a spit in the face of all the alleged victims.
@tscr said in #5:
> loepare if you have a problem with a US Chess Federation policies, I suggest you take it up to them and go protest at their institutions or write to them directly. You're not solving a problem here, you're creating new ones by ruining the user experience for lichess users. Not linking the broadcasts is just a silly inconvenience for everyone, please tell me how that's going to improve anything. Imagine ruining your website by for example taking out the menu bar because you hate some political figure. Unbelievably stupid and ineffective.
I'm sorry if you feel that a silly inconvenience for you is more important than listening to and taking action on behalf of the many survivors of sexual assault. You said it's not solving a problem, or improving anything. And yet now there are literally tens of thousands of users here at Lichess who are now more aware of the issues. And the organisations themselves will be under enormous pressure to review their attitudes, systems, and culture and do a lot better in the future because the whole chess world is watching.
I am pretty sure Lichess has not done this out of hate for anyone or any political figures, that is a plainly ridiculous suggestion. So no, not stupid, and not ineffective.
> you're right lichess.org/blog/ZNTniBEAACEAJZTn/breaking-the-silence
>
> who makes these dumb decisions?
I could speculate about who is being dumb here but I won't because that might be considered disrespectful. Although I will say I have great respect for the people who make the decisions here at Lichess. Also great admiration that they actually took a public stance against the two institutions that appeared to have been ignoring very serious allegations of sexual abuse and assault from multiple women and underaged girls for many years, not "just" one woman and one allegation as you seem to imply.
So your minor inconvenience at having to search for broadcasts for a minute or two is more significant than the years of suffering and ill-treatment these women and girls allegedly went through (and are still going through)?
> I thought lichess was supposed to be a chess platform not a political activism bullshit... really disappointed right now.
It is a chess platform but one that cares about the welfare, safety and well-being of women in chess enough to not look the other way and do nothing, like you would have had them do. Standing up to organisations that don't seem to care at all about women is not "political activism bullshit" it is basic human decency and humanity. If you are disappointed that the caring and brave staff at Lichess made this decision then it says far more about you than them to be honest.
@tscr said in #13:
> This is very well said. It's an abuse of authority and exploitation of lichess users's trust to propagate their political agenda. The truth is > no one knows the full details about Jen Shahade's case as it is still under investigation. But lichess single-handedly decided it's now the judge of truth. Very disappointing. Lichess is no longer a neutral platform when it starts filtering broadcasts, cancelling people,
Lichess can broadcast or not broadcast what they want, they are not the government...
I can however think of a situation not too far from this topic that was an exploitation of trust that some girls and women had in authority figures like but it has nothing to do with Lichess and their broadcast decisions.
Often no one except the victim and their attacker know the full details, given the typical lack of witnesses, small reporting percentages, and even smaller conviction rates for this sort of thing, but with this many corroborating allegations from so many witnesses spanning so many years, it seems highly unlikely to me that they are all somehow fabricated.
It is a big reach to say that caring about women is "an abuse of authority and exploitation of lichess users's trust to propagate their political agenda." Now THAT sounds more like BS to me.
> it's a spit in the face of so many who trusted this site to be a provider of chess. Nothing more and nothing less.
I think you will find from the overwhelming response to the Lichess "Breaking The Silence" blog in the forums, (with the associated discussion reaching almost 1000 posts before having to be shut down due to disruptive posters) that more people felt that the inactivity and general behaviour of the two organisations was a spit in the face of all the alleged victims.
@tscr said in #5:
> loepare if you have a problem with a US Chess Federation policies, I suggest you take it up to them and go protest at their institutions or write to them directly. You're not solving a problem here, you're creating new ones by ruining the user experience for lichess users. Not linking the broadcasts is just a silly inconvenience for everyone, please tell me how that's going to improve anything. Imagine ruining your website by for example taking out the menu bar because you hate some political figure. Unbelievably stupid and ineffective.
I'm sorry if you feel that a silly inconvenience for you is more important than listening to and taking action on behalf of the many survivors of sexual assault. You said it's not solving a problem, or improving anything. And yet now there are literally tens of thousands of users here at Lichess who are now more aware of the issues. And the organisations themselves will be under enormous pressure to review their attitudes, systems, and culture and do a lot better in the future because the whole chess world is watching.
I am pretty sure Lichess has not done this out of hate for anyone or any political figures, that is a plainly ridiculous suggestion. So no, not stupid, and not ineffective.
@QueenRosieMary - very well said.
@tscr Here is your nice contribution:
@tscr said in #3:
> [...]
> who makes these *** dumb *** decisions? I thought lichess was supposed to be a chess platform not a political activism bullshit... really disappointed right now.
@tscr said in #5:
> . Unbelievably *** stupid *** and ineffective.
@tscr said in #7:
> Jennifer Shahade did the right thing though when wrote to USCF. Imagine if she came home and burned down her kitchen in protest. That would be analogous to what lichess is doing here. You should protest to the person you have an issue with instead of *** ravaging your own website and taking it out *** on your users who have *** nothing *** to do with this.
@tscr said in #12:
> Hey Mr Single Digit IQ: "why am I paying the price for it" in this context means why should the lichess users be affected by this instead of USCF. It doesn't mean why am I paying dollars for lichess.
@tscr said in #13:
> [...]But lichess single-handedly decided it's now the judge of truth. Very *** disappointing ***.
You're in a league of your own in one department and I'll let you guess what it is. Too lazy to find the broadcast. Too lazy to read before accusing so many of being stupid idiots.
Obviously you've not read the thread on this specific subject
lichess.org/forum/general-chess-discussion/blog-ZNTniBEAACEAJZTn?page=1
lichess.org/forum/general-chess-discussion/blog-ZNTniBEAACEAJZTn?page=94
, neither this
lichess.org/blog/ZNTniBEAACEAJZTn/breaking-the-silence
, neither on what is happening in STLCC and USCF.
>On 20 July, IA Judit Sztaray announced on Twitter that all four women on the US Chess Accessibility and Special Circumstances Committee (including Sztaray) had resigned their positions in June in protest at the actions of US Chess, including its failure to seriously consider “suggestions to remedy sexual assault within its ranks.”
@tscr said in #3:
> [...]
> who makes these *** dumb *** decisions? I thought lichess was supposed to be a chess platform not a political activism bullshit... really disappointed right now.
@tscr said in #5:
> . Unbelievably *** stupid *** and ineffective.
@tscr said in #7:
> Jennifer Shahade did the right thing though when wrote to USCF. Imagine if she came home and burned down her kitchen in protest. That would be analogous to what lichess is doing here. You should protest to the person you have an issue with instead of *** ravaging your own website and taking it out *** on your users who have *** nothing *** to do with this.
@tscr said in #12:
> Hey Mr Single Digit IQ: "why am I paying the price for it" in this context means why should the lichess users be affected by this instead of USCF. It doesn't mean why am I paying dollars for lichess.
@tscr said in #13:
> [...]But lichess single-handedly decided it's now the judge of truth. Very *** disappointing ***.
You're in a league of your own in one department and I'll let you guess what it is. Too lazy to find the broadcast. Too lazy to read before accusing so many of being stupid idiots.
Obviously you've not read the thread on this specific subject
lichess.org/forum/general-chess-discussion/blog-ZNTniBEAACEAJZTn?page=1
lichess.org/forum/general-chess-discussion/blog-ZNTniBEAACEAJZTn?page=94
, neither this
lichess.org/blog/ZNTniBEAACEAJZTn/breaking-the-silence
, neither on what is happening in STLCC and USCF.
>On 20 July, IA Judit Sztaray announced on Twitter that all four women on the US Chess Accessibility and Special Circumstances Committee (including Sztaray) had resigned their positions in June in protest at the actions of US Chess, including its failure to seriously consider “suggestions to remedy sexual assault within its ranks.”
@loepare said in #14:
> Lichess wasn't a neutral platform before either.
That`s the point. Lichess has a history of being misused for political activism.
Because power tends to corrupt, societies have developed mechanisms to keep it in check.
However there aren't any for free, open source platforms designed solely to improve the chess experience for the global community.
Therefore, the unelected individuals in in charge here have no boundaries. A flaw, hopefully gets fixed someday.
> Lichess wasn't a neutral platform before either.
That`s the point. Lichess has a history of being misused for political activism.
Because power tends to corrupt, societies have developed mechanisms to keep it in check.
However there aren't any for free, open source platforms designed solely to improve the chess experience for the global community.
Therefore, the unelected individuals in in charge here have no boundaries. A flaw, hopefully gets fixed someday.
@new_player_123 said in #19:
> That`s the point. Lichess has a history of being misused for political activism.
All internet communities, be it free or commercial, have moral standards and rules. In that sense it's very similar to the real world. The fact that you happen to have other moral standards doesn't mean it's political activism.
> Therefore, the unelected individuals in in charge here have no boundaries. A flaw, hopefully gets fixed someday.
I most certainly hope it doesn't get 'fixed'. I hope that all people who think objecting to sexism is political activism leave this platform immediately.
> That`s the point. Lichess has a history of being misused for political activism.
All internet communities, be it free or commercial, have moral standards and rules. In that sense it's very similar to the real world. The fact that you happen to have other moral standards doesn't mean it's political activism.
> Therefore, the unelected individuals in in charge here have no boundaries. A flaw, hopefully gets fixed someday.
I most certainly hope it doesn't get 'fixed'. I hope that all people who think objecting to sexism is political activism leave this platform immediately.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.