10 ms·

What? Just because of reputation? What are you even talking about... Have you ever heard of "innocent until proven guilty"? The burden of proof is on the accus

What? Just because of reputation? What are you even talking about... Have you ever heard of "innocent until proven guilty"? The burden of proof is on the accuser. We should be shown evidence, or Carlsen should apologize.

vasco 4y ago
Turns out if someone acts in a way for years people start to believe they'll act the same way later on. Crazy.
NotYourLawyer 4y ago
It’s not a court of law, and the kid has cheated before.
eschatology 4y ago
It's just a principle, used in some laws in some legal systems in some countries — nothing dictates all accusations made on the planet has to abide by "innocent until proven guilty" principle. Nothing dictates that burden of proof is always on the accuser, especially in the internet where there isn't really any authority or agreements on subjects like this. It's just a statement/opinion by grandparent and it baffles me why presumption of innocence is even brought up like it's something to be held everywhere.
- concinds 4y ago
  > If the chess community decides to trust Magnus and his credentials without any proof, that's their prerogative, the concept of criminal innocence doesn't come into play at all here. "Innocent until proven guilty" is not just a legal concept but a social norm. I'm a big Carlsen fan, but that same logic, applied to other domains, has led to witch-hunts throughout history, or character assassination/reputational damage when someone is accused of something but those accusations are never tested in court. Coming back to chess, this isn't a casual situation with your friends, but a professional environment with norms and with money on the line. Imagine the same thing at your workplace. Random non-experts taking sides here is inappropriate. Even many other Grandmasters have opinions on these accusations (true or false), but are refusing to state them publicly, preferring to let it play itself out, due to their respect for norms. Magnus is entitled to his opinion and to expressing them, but treating them as facts rather than accusations is just strange. Chess cheating expert Ken Regan thinks Niemann didn't cheat. "Innocent until proven guilty" obviously applies.
  - lordnacho 4y ago
    > "Innocent until proven guilty" is not just a legal concept but a social norm. I think the question is whether it ought to be a social norm. What do you think of Prince Andrew? Hasn't been proven guilty. Should we just go about our business with him as usual? What about everyone else who settles a case? I think of "Innocent until proven guilty" as a sort of viral trope. People think it's the norm, so when the question comes up, this phrase appears in their minds and is the first thought on justice. But I'm not sure it's a good norm, at least I have yet to hear arguments about why we should follow it, especially outside of the legal realm.
    - bombcar 4y ago
      As a moral principle it’s kind of vague but you can take it as “when in doubt assume the best of people” which can work as an anti-prejudice tool. But just because the bar is set so high for criminal guilt doesn’t mean we can or should use it elsewhere. And much of personal interactions are basically “guilty until proven innocent” because the risk (even if minor) isn’t worth it. Most people have no problem being told they can’t share a bathroom stall with you even if you’d share one with a spouse. Even civil cases have a lower bar, and many personal interactions are way lower. And while I do have a problem with “do one crime and never be hirable again for anything” I do not have a problem with certain crime blocking certain types of work, and/or subjecting you to additional scrutiny.
    - concinds 4y ago
      Upvoted you, people shouldn't downvote perfectly fine comments. > What do you think of Prince Andrew? Hasn't been proven guilty. Should we just go about our business with him as usual? What about everyone else who settles a case? We have circumstantial evidence that he did it; testimonies from victims, who have made credible claims, etc. There's also a difference between making sure you're not victimized (e.g. being careful around alleged abusers, or Carlsen being suspicious about a suspected cheater), but that doesn't apply to internet gossipers. And the public's reaction to Prince Andrew would be different if he was a nobody, who was publicly vilified by the most influential people, with zero evidence available to the public; compared to him being a powerful person, who is publicly protected by the most influential people, with plenty of circumstantial public evidence. I think he's guilty, but there's context to my belief. What irks me is when people take sides in "he said she said" conflicts (i.e. with zero public evidence) between two people they've never met. "Innocent until proven guilty only applies to courts!" is reasoning I've seen far too often regarding accusations published in some random tweet, and it's really quite ugly.
wheresmycraisin 4y ago
Yes, when it's something that's unprovable (if done well enough), reputation can play a role, esp. if it's golden boy v.s. admitted past cheater. And Carlsen didn't technically accuse him and Niemann is not technically on trial, so "innocent until proven guilty" is irrelevant. Magnus's goal seems to be to get Niemann disinvited from tournaments. He's taking such drastic measures for a reason at the expense of his own hard earned rep, and given his benevolence as world champion you have to trust his judgement.
- FartyMcFarter 4y ago
  You definitely don't have to trust his judgment. People change, he could be paranoid at the moment for all we know. Magnus should explain his actions to the organisers and the public, or just not enter tournaments.
  - wheresmycraisin 4y ago
    If it becomes known that Magnus was having mental health issues (wouldn't be the first chess genius to have such things), then sure, my opinion may change. He most certainly did talk to the organizers. Why he has not made a public statement is beyond me, but I wouldn't be surprised if commercial interests and law suits are involved.
  - manojlds 4y ago
    His biggest challenge is next generation of younger prodigies like Pragg. He clapped at the end of their game in appreciation of Pragg. He's not paranoid about being usurped and knowing him through the years, he is going to take that as a challenge.
    - H8crilA 4y ago
      - manojlds 4y ago
        I am not supporting Magnus on his actions here. Just that this behaviour is a massive outlier for him.
throwawaylinux 4y ago
> What? Just because of reputation? What are you even talking about... Is this a troll or some kind of rhetorical question? OP explained exactly his reasoning and clearly they said it was because of reputation. > Have you ever heard of "innocent until proven guilty"? It is not a court and Hans is not being tried on criminal charges, so what does that have to do with anything? Legal systems also have other standards for evidence such as balance of probability. > The burden of proof is on the accuser. We should be shown evidence, or Carlsen should apologize. What exact accusation did Carlsen make? A verbatim quote with complete context will be sufficient.
honkdaddy 4y ago
"Innocent until proven guilty" is generally used in when talking about the state and punitive decision making, not a social norm. If my three best friends accused someone of trying to rob them, I'd be comfortable believing them even if they didn't get the altercation on camera. Would the police? Depends on the country, because as you said, the robber would be (and should be) considered innocent until the state can explicitly prove their guilt. I don't think we should live in a society where people can be imprisoned by relying on accusations alone, of course hard evidence should be required, but I don't mind living in a society where people are free to use the shared knowledge of their own community to reach epistemological conclusions. If the chess community decides to trust Magnus and his credentials without any proof, that's their prerogative, the concept of criminal innocence doesn't come into play at all here.
pfortuny 4y ago
The "if I talk I am in big problem" video is exactly the most he can say without forcing him to go to an unwinnable (because the burden of the proof is on him and it is practically impossible) trial. What can he do if he is completely convinced of the other player cheating. He can only let the other player win and at the same time make clear that he is not going to play against him. That is the only legal and honest way to deal with what you perceive is a cheating opponent. What else can you do? Get a libel trial? He has not said that the other player does not cheat. But he is not going to play against him. It is not so easy as to say: "hey, this player cheats". OK: he has no proof. Perfect, he is willing to lose and keep his mouth shut. But he has said something: "I cannot say anything without getting into an unsolvable trouble".
- jackmott 4y ago
Lapsa 4y ago
who's accusing?
rasz 4y ago
>Have you ever heard of "innocent until proven guilty"? why would you need proof when Niemann already admitted to cheating in the past?
- Andrew_nenakhov 4y ago
  Because whatever a person did as a child playing online on a second-rate chess site is hardly relevant for a top-level over the board tournament with strict anti-cheating measures. It is simply immoral to deny any kind of redemption to any person who has ever made a mistake. For a person so ready to cast stones, are you yourself without any sin? Should the errors you once made follow you for the rest of your life? I'd say people should put up some evidence of Niemann's cheating, how exactly he was receiving information on best possible moves, or just shut up about it. Or dial the anti-cheating measures to eleven, strip the players naked, put them in a Faraday-cage without spectators and cameras, and see how they do.
  - krisoft 4y ago
    > people should put up some evidence of Niemann's cheating, how exactly he was receiving information on best possible moves, Do you see how absolutely impossible to do this, don't you?
    - Andrew_nenakhov 4y ago
      I believe that cheating in over the board tournaments is hardly possible with all the security measures that are now taken by event organizers. If you suspect cheating you must come up with some explanation how exactly it is happening.
      - tiagod 4y ago
        Do they Xray their clothing and shoes? Is there an anal inspection of sorts? Do they ban all RF devices and run wide-spectrum spectrum analysers?
lvl102 4y ago
Burden of proof is on the accuser? That only applies in legal sense. Fortunately, we don’t live in a world bound by lawyers.
peteradio 4y ago
Ya did Carlsen even read him his rights before he booked him danno?
rodary 4y ago
> Have you ever heard of "innocent until proven guilty"? In the criminal court of law, that's the burden of proof. This is not it.

vasco 4y ago

Turns out if someone acts in a way for years people start to believe they'll act the same way later on. Crazy.

NotYourLawyer 4y ago

It’s not a court of law, and the kid has cheated before.

eschatology 4y ago

It's just a principle, used in some laws in some legal systems in some countries — nothing dictates all accusations made on the planet has to abide by "innocent until proven guilty" principle. Nothing dictates that burden of proof is always on the accuser, especially in the internet where there isn't really any authority or agreements on subjects like this. It's just a statement/opinion by grandparent and it baffles me why presumption of innocence is even brought up like it's something to be held everywhere.

concinds 4y ago
> If the chess community decides to trust Magnus and his credentials without any proof, that's their prerogative, the concept of criminal innocence doesn't come into play at all here. "Innocent until proven guilty" is not just a legal concept but a social norm. I'm a big Carlsen fan, but that same logic, applied to other domains, has led to witch-hunts throughout history, or character assassination/reputational damage when someone is accused of something but those accusations are never tested in court. Coming back to chess, this isn't a casual situation with your friends, but a professional environment with norms and with money on the line. Imagine the same thing at your workplace. Random non-experts taking sides here is inappropriate. Even many other Grandmasters have opinions on these accusations (true or false), but are refusing to state them publicly, preferring to let it play itself out, due to their respect for norms. Magnus is entitled to his opinion and to expressing them, but treating them as facts rather than accusations is just strange. Chess cheating expert Ken Regan thinks Niemann didn't cheat. "Innocent until proven guilty" obviously applies.
- lordnacho 4y ago
  > "Innocent until proven guilty" is not just a legal concept but a social norm. I think the question is whether it ought to be a social norm. What do you think of Prince Andrew? Hasn't been proven guilty. Should we just go about our business with him as usual? What about everyone else who settles a case? I think of "Innocent until proven guilty" as a sort of viral trope. People think it's the norm, so when the question comes up, this phrase appears in their minds and is the first thought on justice. But I'm not sure it's a good norm, at least I have yet to hear arguments about why we should follow it, especially outside of the legal realm.
  - bombcar 4y ago
    As a moral principle it’s kind of vague but you can take it as “when in doubt assume the best of people” which can work as an anti-prejudice tool. But just because the bar is set so high for criminal guilt doesn’t mean we can or should use it elsewhere. And much of personal interactions are basically “guilty until proven innocent” because the risk (even if minor) isn’t worth it. Most people have no problem being told they can’t share a bathroom stall with you even if you’d share one with a spouse. Even civil cases have a lower bar, and many personal interactions are way lower. And while I do have a problem with “do one crime and never be hirable again for anything” I do not have a problem with certain crime blocking certain types of work, and/or subjecting you to additional scrutiny.
  - concinds 4y ago
    Upvoted you, people shouldn't downvote perfectly fine comments. > What do you think of Prince Andrew? Hasn't been proven guilty. Should we just go about our business with him as usual? What about everyone else who settles a case? We have circumstantial evidence that he did it; testimonies from victims, who have made credible claims, etc. There's also a difference between making sure you're not victimized (e.g. being careful around alleged abusers, or Carlsen being suspicious about a suspected cheater), but that doesn't apply to internet gossipers. And the public's reaction to Prince Andrew would be different if he was a nobody, who was publicly vilified by the most influential people, with zero evidence available to the public; compared to him being a powerful person, who is publicly protected by the most influential people, with plenty of circumstantial public evidence. I think he's guilty, but there's context to my belief. What irks me is when people take sides in "he said she said" conflicts (i.e. with zero public evidence) between two people they've never met. "Innocent until proven guilty only applies to courts!" is reasoning I've seen far too often regarding accusations published in some random tweet, and it's really quite ugly.

wheresmycraisin 4y ago

Yes, when it's something that's unprovable (if done well enough), reputation can play a role, esp. if it's golden boy v.s. admitted past cheater. And Carlsen didn't technically accuse him and Niemann is not technically on trial, so "innocent until proven guilty" is irrelevant. Magnus's goal seems to be to get Niemann disinvited from tournaments. He's taking such drastic measures for a reason at the expense of his own hard earned rep, and given his benevolence as world champion you have to trust his judgement.

FartyMcFarter 4y ago
You definitely don't have to trust his judgment. People change, he could be paranoid at the moment for all we know. Magnus should explain his actions to the organisers and the public, or just not enter tournaments.
- wheresmycraisin 4y ago
  If it becomes known that Magnus was having mental health issues (wouldn't be the first chess genius to have such things), then sure, my opinion may change. He most certainly did talk to the organizers. Why he has not made a public statement is beyond me, but I wouldn't be surprised if commercial interests and law suits are involved.
- manojlds 4y ago
  His biggest challenge is next generation of younger prodigies like Pragg. He clapped at the end of their game in appreciation of Pragg. He's not paranoid about being usurped and knowing him through the years, he is going to take that as a challenge.
  - H8crilA 4y ago
    - manojlds 4y ago
      I am not supporting Magnus on his actions here. Just that this behaviour is a massive outlier for him.

throwawaylinux 4y ago

> What? Just because of reputation? What are you even talking about... Is this a troll or some kind of rhetorical question? OP explained exactly his reasoning and clearly they said it was because of reputation. > Have you ever heard of "innocent until proven guilty"? It is not a court and Hans is not being tried on criminal charges, so what does that have to do with anything? Legal systems also have other standards for evidence such as balance of probability. > The burden of proof is on the accuser. We should be shown evidence, or Carlsen should apologize. What exact accusation did Carlsen make? A verbatim quote with complete context will be sufficient.

honkdaddy 4y ago

"Innocent until proven guilty" is generally used in when talking about the state and punitive decision making, not a social norm. If my three best friends accused someone of trying to rob them, I'd be comfortable believing them even if they didn't get the altercation on camera. Would the police? Depends on the country, because as you said, the robber would be (and should be) considered innocent until the state can explicitly prove their guilt. I don't think we should live in a society where people can be imprisoned by relying on accusations alone, of course hard evidence should be required, but I don't mind living in a society where people are free to use the shared knowledge of their own community to reach epistemological conclusions. If the chess community decides to trust Magnus and his credentials without any proof, that's their prerogative, the concept of criminal innocence doesn't come into play at all here.

pfortuny 4y ago

The "if I talk I am in big problem" video is exactly the most he can say without forcing him to go to an unwinnable (because the burden of the proof is on him and it is practically impossible) trial. What can he do if he is completely convinced of the other player cheating. He can only let the other player win and at the same time make clear that he is not going to play against him. That is the only legal and honest way to deal with what you perceive is a cheating opponent. What else can you do? Get a libel trial? He has not said that the other player does not cheat. But he is not going to play against him. It is not so easy as to say: "hey, this player cheats". OK: he has no proof. Perfect, he is willing to lose and keep his mouth shut. But he has said something: "I cannot say anything without getting into an unsolvable trouble".

jackmott 4y ago

Lapsa 4y ago

who's accusing?

rasz 4y ago

>Have you ever heard of "innocent until proven guilty"? why would you need proof when Niemann already admitted to cheating in the past?

Andrew_nenakhov 4y ago
Because whatever a person did as a child playing online on a second-rate chess site is hardly relevant for a top-level over the board tournament with strict anti-cheating measures. It is simply immoral to deny any kind of redemption to any person who has ever made a mistake. For a person so ready to cast stones, are you yourself without any sin? Should the errors you once made follow you for the rest of your life? I'd say people should put up some evidence of Niemann's cheating, how exactly he was receiving information on best possible moves, or just shut up about it. Or dial the anti-cheating measures to eleven, strip the players naked, put them in a Faraday-cage without spectators and cameras, and see how they do.
- krisoft 4y ago
  > people should put up some evidence of Niemann's cheating, how exactly he was receiving information on best possible moves, Do you see how absolutely impossible to do this, don't you?
  - Andrew_nenakhov 4y ago
    I believe that cheating in over the board tournaments is hardly possible with all the security measures that are now taken by event organizers. If you suspect cheating you must come up with some explanation how exactly it is happening.
    - tiagod 4y ago
      Do they Xray their clothing and shoes? Is there an anal inspection of sorts? Do they ban all RF devices and run wide-spectrum spectrum analysers?

lvl102 4y ago

Burden of proof is on the accuser? That only applies in legal sense. Fortunately, we don’t live in a world bound by lawyers.

peteradio 4y ago

Ya did Carlsen even read him his rights before he booked him danno?

rodary 4y ago

> Have you ever heard of "innocent until proven guilty"? In the criminal court of law, that's the burden of proof. This is not it.