Breaking the Silence

@Bulletkrieg said in #118:
> 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?

By 100 players who saw them pull their phone out to cheat and who report them, using their real names and putting their reputation on the line?
Yes, yes I do.

@lessi17 said in #122:
> By 100 players who saw them pull their phone out to cheat and who report them, using their real names and putting their reputation on the line?
> Yes, yes I do.
Then you are not smart. And thank god, that's not how lichess decides who is a cheater and who isn't.

@Deadban said in #119:
> You misunderstood my comment fully.

Oh do please explain, I am sure it will all make sense.

@lessi17 said in #124:
> Oh do please explain, I am sure it will all make sense.

I'm subtly implying that if those players were banned under that reason it is because the organization must have something concrete against them, otherwise I don't see how they could take such a strong stance in the first place, for Ramirez especially.

@Bulletkrieg said in #123:
> Then you are not smart. That's not how lichess decides who is a cheater and who isn't.

Oh really? I had no idea, maybe that’s why I said “based on statistical methods, browser behaviour etc.” in my original comment.
But this was me saying that similarly to victim statements and witness statements and considering the reputation of the people in question, these methods can not provide “proof” but merely circumstantial evidence.
If you believe circumstantial evidence should never be sufficient to make a decision that may affect someone negatively then I am afraid nothing much would happen in our legal systems.

@heroku said in #121:
> What are the scientific proofs about all these yabbing blah blah. I haven't seen one sexually exclusive video.

A: Someone has kissed me against my will.

B: Show me scientific proof of that!

@lessi17 The verdict is for the court to decide after evaluating all the evidence, it's as simple as that.
And then if the suspect is found guilty, we can gather here and celebrate his deserved ban and jail time.
Right now in the absence of any concrete evidence this article just screams wokism and virtue signaling which is another L for lichess.

@Deadban
Yep, infortunately you can't accuse random people of stuff that cant be proven. What a shame tho

@Bulletkrieg said in #130:
> @lessi17 The verdit is for the court to decide after evaluating all the evidence, it's as simple as that.
> And then if the suspect is found guilty, we can gather here and celebrate his deserved ban jail time.
> Right now in the absence of any concrete evidence this article just screams wokism and virtue signaling which is another L for lichess.

I'll just keep asking because I'm so curious:
What do you mean by evidence? What kind of evidence could there be that has not already been presented?
And just in case you don't realise this: a court can't ban someone from chess tournaments, only chess federations can do that. So if that is the goal, why would someone go to court?

@lessi17 said in #132:
> What do you mean by evidence?
The evidence that can be admitted in court.