Why does Lichess get involved in personal matters?

It was important news in the chess world. We all want to see a safe environment in chess. We have a platform where we can help amplify the issue to the point action gets taken.

decisions that weighty are made carefully after lengthy debate and deliberation. Happy to stand by our decision.

@hangmysack said in #1:
> Ill start off by saying I love lichess. It is hands down the best site for playing chess. No one else comes even close. But i did not appreciate the way they got involved in ALLEGATIONS of sexual misconduct. Those are legal matters that need to be resolved in a court of law, not by lichess. The complete and utter disregard for the consequences of damaging a person's reputation over allegations that have not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt is completely unacceptable. Thank you for your time.

Were the 938 posts over 94 pages of forum "discussion" not enough for you the first time?

lichess.org/forum/general-chess-discussion/blog-ZNTniBEAACEAJZTn?page=1

Not going to say much else, I'm sure most people know my views on this by now.

@hangmysack The thing is lichess has full right to ban anyone on their platform. Now lichess does not want people who do bad things on their platform and hence they remove them. They are not saying they are guilty and throwing them in prison. They are saying they dont want them on the platform because of it.

@for_cryingout_loud said in #13:
> @hangmysack They are not saying they are guilty and throwing them in prison. They are saying they dont want them on the platform because of it.

Presumably, they only ban people who they think are guilty. If they are banning people who they think are innocent, that's even worse. So yes, they are saying they are guilty. And the only reason they are not throwing them in jail is because they do not have the power to do so. As far as having a "right" to ban, I agree, they can ban whoever they want. But publicly shaming people over alleged crimes that haven't been proven in court is wrong. They could literally be destroying an innocent person's life.

I agree with the OP that it's not the role of society to decide truth pending adjudication. These things SHOULD be resolved by courts, not Lichess, not the St. Louis chess club and certainly not social media. Imagine Bobby Fischer being alive now. He wouldn't even be allowed to stream chess online, let alone play in world tournaments.

I understand Lichess took position not for/against specific people, but on how allegations were ignored and not taken seriously. While I appreciate the sentiment, I don't think it has anything to do with chess.

@hangmysack said in #14:
> Presumably, they only ban people who they think are guilty. If they are banning people who they think are innocent, that's even worse. So yes, they are saying they are guilty. And the only reason they are not throwing them in jail is because they do not have the power to do so. As far as having a "right" to ban, I agree, they can ban whoever they want. But publicly shaming people over alleged crimes that haven't been proven in court is wrong. They could literally be destroying an innocent person's life.

I have not followed events, but agree on a thing.
I think Lichess have the right ban whoever they want, also for no reasons, but shaming? Absolutely not.

In my country you can ask compensation if someone shame you for something that is not factually true, and if Lichess did that it's a pretty bad thing.

I have to admit I am a bit sceptical, so can you please share a link where Liches supposedly shamed someone for things that are not factual?

@hangmysack Having just read the blog posted in a link in #8. I assume this is what your complaint in #1 is referring too?

It seems Lichess main concern is regarding the mishandling of sexual assault complains, giving to both the US Chess Federation and the Saint Louis Chess Club about some of their members from various players.

As well as those 2 organizations the lack of selfcriticism, and a lack of public acknowledgment, that they acted insufficient regarding such serious accusations.

Lichess writes about what those accusations are.
They provides a timeline for events regarding the accusations.
And eventually criticize the US chess Federation and STLCC for apparently not handling such accusations seriously.
Their blog seems to be concerning this.

But with that said, sometimes their wording becomes too subjective. To the point of judgemental.
For example:
"However, there is another side to Gareyev."
They should have phrased this differently, perhaps:
However, there is allegedly another side to Gareyev.
The first phrase is an accusation, since it states that the other side of him is factual. Where as my rephrase, states that there could be another side, but it's unknown if it's true or not.

I agree, that Lichess should not judge on accusations alone.
However what they wrote about in their blog is public information. And their (Lichess) main goal, I suspect, is to inform chess players, that there is people and organisations within the chess community, that not only listens to complaint about inappropriate actions, but also take them serious.
And Lichess want to uphold other chess organizations to their own standards of having a safe environment for everyone.

By this blog, Lichess encourages people to come forward, either publicly or anonymously, if they themselves have experienced or witnessed misbehavior from other people, especially, but not exclusively, from people in an authority position.

I agree their blog is not as objectively written, as I personally would have prefered it to be, but I don't think Lichess motive is to publicly shame any single person named in that blog.

It's most likely ment to encourage people to speak up, if something similar has happened to them.
To let them know, that they are not alone.
That there are people out there willing to listen.

It's all part of Lichess evil masterplan, of making the chess community a safe haven for everyone.

@NoManIsAn1sland sir, this is a Wendy's... by the way, your writing is a Masterclass in online toxicity.