3 ms·

> What logic is this? If you commit one crime, now forever you must prove your innocence? That's dumb. You are typically not given an opportunity to prove your

> What logic is this? If you commit one crime, now forever you must prove your innocence? That's dumb. You are typically not given an opportunity to prove your innocence, once you have a criminal record. If you apply for a job or apartment and fail the background check, it is usually kthxbye. This is unfortunate in many ways, but it is how the world works.

roflyear 4y ago
Doesn't make it right, and that's not always true, anyway. Plenty of crimes can be expunged etc.. or aren't criminal acts. You're just twisting the argument around, go troll somewhere else.
- throwaway81523 4y ago
  I always understood "typically" and "usually" to mean something different from "always true". They mean what they say. Whether that is good or bad, it is reality, and if you are calling for a large scale refactoring of how the world works, well, you have a big task in front of you. I can tell you that the Niemann stuff is red-hot drama in the chess world (look on r/chess, for example) and there is a range of views. One current reality of the chess world is that federations and playing sites usually won't sanction players for misconduct that is not under their jurisdiction. In Niemann's case, that meant his record of cheating on chess.com didn't stop him from playing in the Sinquefield Cup or in the current Julius Baer tournament. There are several grandmasters complaining about this. They want federations and sites to coordinate with each other, so cheating in one place gets you banned from all of them. Again, whether that's good or bad is up to you, but it's sort of like someone committing a string of crimes in one country and getting to start over in another one. That just doesn't work any more.
  - roflyear 4y ago
    It is not typical for you to have to prove your own innocence, even after committing a crime. That's silly to say.
    - throwaway81523 4y ago
      > It is not typical for you to have to prove your own innocence That is what I said, I think. The question of proving your innocence usually doesn't come up. Private parties simply decide to do business with someone else instead of you, game over. Niemann is currently not under any USCF or FIDE sanctions afaik, and there are lots of open tournaments that anyone can play in as long as they are not under sanctions, so Niemann is unconditionally allowed to play in those. The Sinquefield and Baer tournaments are closed invitationals and some people are of the view that people with cheating records shouldn't receive invitations to those sorts of events. That is an intermediate view, between people saying an online cheating record shouldn't affect OTB playing opportunities, and other people saying cheating anywhere should mean getting banned everywhere. Your view on the rights and wrongs of this are up to you. I don't claim special wisdom. I can observe that other people's views are all over the place. I do know that your expectations should be formed by seeing what happens in reality, rather than by what you would prefer to see happen.

roflyear 4y ago

Doesn't make it right, and that's not always true, anyway. Plenty of crimes can be expunged etc.. or aren't criminal acts. You're just twisting the argument around, go troll somewhere else.

throwaway81523 4y ago
I always understood "typically" and "usually" to mean something different from "always true". They mean what they say. Whether that is good or bad, it is reality, and if you are calling for a large scale refactoring of how the world works, well, you have a big task in front of you. I can tell you that the Niemann stuff is red-hot drama in the chess world (look on r/chess, for example) and there is a range of views. One current reality of the chess world is that federations and playing sites usually won't sanction players for misconduct that is not under their jurisdiction. In Niemann's case, that meant his record of cheating on chess.com didn't stop him from playing in the Sinquefield Cup or in the current Julius Baer tournament. There are several grandmasters complaining about this. They want federations and sites to coordinate with each other, so cheating in one place gets you banned from all of them. Again, whether that's good or bad is up to you, but it's sort of like someone committing a string of crimes in one country and getting to start over in another one. That just doesn't work any more.
- roflyear 4y ago
  It is not typical for you to have to prove your own innocence, even after committing a crime. That's silly to say.
  - throwaway81523 4y ago
    > It is not typical for you to have to prove your own innocence That is what I said, I think. The question of proving your innocence usually doesn't come up. Private parties simply decide to do business with someone else instead of you, game over. Niemann is currently not under any USCF or FIDE sanctions afaik, and there are lots of open tournaments that anyone can play in as long as they are not under sanctions, so Niemann is unconditionally allowed to play in those. The Sinquefield and Baer tournaments are closed invitationals and some people are of the view that people with cheating records shouldn't receive invitations to those sorts of events. That is an intermediate view, between people saying an online cheating record shouldn't affect OTB playing opportunities, and other people saying cheating anywhere should mean getting banned everywhere. Your view on the rights and wrongs of this are up to you. I don't claim special wisdom. I can observe that other people's views are all over the place. I do know that your expectations should be formed by seeing what happens in reality, rather than by what you would prefer to see happen.