Accusation against Alejandro Ramirez

[NickFaulks]

Also, this comment does not explain how a player can be suspended from the national federation for an extended amount of time, without any consequence at the global level.

Isn't that a choice that the national federation has made?

Yes. I think Paolo would like FIDE to go in over their heads, and I am just saying that this would not be a small step to take.

[Paolo Casaschi]

Also, this comment does not explain how a player can be suspended from the national federation for an extended amount of time, without any consequence at the global level.

Isn't that a choice that the national federation has made?

Yes. I think Paolo would like FIDE to go in over their heads, and I am just saying that this would not be a small step to take.

I would expect FIDE to have some oversight on the activities of the federations.
If a national federation were to allow a tournament organizer to submit fake result to inflate some player rating or titles, would FIDE just let this happen in order not to interfere with the federation or would they do something about it?
Again, a matter of priorities: protecting ratings and titles is a higher priority than preventing sexual harassment?

[Chris Goodall]

That may not make them guilty beyond reasonable doubt (the criminal threshold) but in all likelihood it exceeds the civil threshold (balance of probabilities) which should be sufficient for bodies such as the USCF.

Presumably the USCF can make the same calculation as you, and they know any casual observer can make the same calculation. So what do they have to gain from doing any investigating? Give the people what they're asking for, and write down that the reason is because they asked for it. The investigation will either a) confirm the decision to suspend, while creating a paper trail for the suspended players' lawyers to discover and pick holes in, or b) cast doubt on the decision to suspend and turn the entire chess world against you.

If nothing else this saga has been a brilliant illustration of pluralistic ignorance. Everyone involved in chess believes that everyone involved in chess should do better at tackling abusive men.

[NickFaulks]

If a national federation were to allow a tournament organizer to submit fake result to inflate some player rating or titles, would FIDE just let this happen in order not to interfere with the federation or would they do something about it?

You try to do something about it, but without the cooperation of the federation this is fraught with difficulties. Successes have been sparse and ultimately the only real sanction is to suspend that federation, at least in the sense of curtailing their rights to submit results.

It is easy for people here to say ok then, let's suspend USCF from FIDE. Can you accept that those who have to press that red button would consider it to be a very big step?

[Paul Cooksey]

I came to make a point on revolution versus reform too. If the USCF is beyond salvaging, the red button should be pressed. But in my opinion, only then.

Sabrina has posted she is setting up a gofundme. My initial reaction is we do not need to press the red button regarding the ECF. But of course I have seen nothing to indicate the ECF has handled investigations badly. If it has I might change my mind.

[Roger Lancaster]

That may not make them guilty beyond reasonable doubt (the criminal threshold) but in all likelihood it exceeds the civil threshold (balance of probabilities) which should be sufficient for bodies such as the USCF.

Presumably the USCF can make the same calculation as you, and they know any casual observer can make the same calculation. So what do they have to gain from doing any investigating? Give the people what they're asking for, and write down that the reason is because they asked for it. The investigation will either a) confirm the decision to suspend, while creating a paper trail for the suspended players' lawyers to discover and pick holes in, or b) cast doubt on the decision to suspend and turn the entire chess world against you.

I can't seriously believe that you're suggesting that chess federations should suspend people without as much as an investigation. For starters, all it would take is half-a-dozen people to concoct a false story - which could have been shown to be false on even a cursory investigation - and bingo, the alleged wrongdoer is suspended.

[Tim Spanton]

Also, this comment does not explain how a player can be suspended from the national federation for an extended amount of time, without any consequence at the global level.

Yes, I do agree with that, provided the suspension is for an identified reason such as we are discussing, rather than simply because the player has fallen out with their federation ( which does happen ).

Avoiding something like that and guarantee some transparency in their member organizations should be in my view a higher priority than banning transgender players while looking into transgender issues.
Again to the point of my initial post today, FIDE seems to have their priorities wrong.

Transgender players are not being banned; they are being told they cannot play in women-only events.

[Roger Lancaster]

The transgender issue is certainly interesting but I can't believe it really belongs to this thread.

[IM Jack Rudd]

I'll split off the trans posts when I get to a computer.

[Paolo Casaschi]

Transgender players are not being banned; they are being told they cannot play in women-only events.

That only works if you assume that transgender women are not really women.
Otherwise, you are left with a small group of women singled out and banned from women-only events.

[Chris Goodall]

I can't seriously believe that you're suggesting that chess federations should suspend people without as much as an investigation. For starters, all it would take is half-a-dozen people to concoct a false story - which could have been shown to be false on even a cursory investigation - and bingo, the alleged wrongdoer is suspended.

It's the only way to be on the right side of history. Unfair? Maybe, but as Paolo says - priorities. Being a victim of sexual harassment is more unfair. I observe that you haven't carried out any investigation into Ramirez or Gareyev, but you still felt able to pronounce them guilty on the balance of probabilities. Those are the situations I'm talking about.

[Roger Lancaster]

I observe that you haven't carried out any investigation into Ramirez or Gareyev, but you still felt able to pronounce them guilty on the balance of probabilities.

Not to be confused with what I actually said (please note first 4 words) which was " ... but in all likelihood it exceeds the civil threshold (balance of probabilities) ...".

[Chris Goodall]

I observe that you haven't carried out any investigation into Ramirez or Gareyev, but you still felt able to pronounce them guilty on the balance of probabilities.

Not to be confused with what I actually said (please note first 4 words) which was " ... but in all likelihood it exceeds the civil threshold (balance of probabilities) ...".

If something is true in all likelihood then it is true on the balance of probabilities; likelihood is a kind of probability.

[Roger Lancaster]

Chris. If person A says, "It's 50% likely that such-and-such is the case" and I agree 100% with his statement, I'm concurring in the view that it's 50% likely. If instead I say "It's 50% likely that person A is correct", that's something different - it attaches a 25% probability as to the root cause.

[Chris Goodall]

Ah, Friday afternoons.

"It's 50% likely that there is a 50% probability of X" can imply any probability from 25% to 75% for X, depending on what the probability of X is in the other 50% of cases that your statement doesn't cover. Your example has a hidden assumption that it's zero.

But even if you established that "in all likelihood" meant 70%, and "probably" also meant 70%, you wouldn't get away with telling a court "in all likelihood, it's probably true" and expecting them to conclude that you assigned it a 49% probability, and therefore you thought it was probably false.

Do you consider Ramirez to be probably guilty, or merely probably probably guilty?