Mt Buller CD, Junior Development Fund, etc.

[Bereaved]

Hello, Everyone,

I wonder why it is necessary to concern ourselves with the means of the supposed remuneration for CD's, or what is the appropriate label for an organiser who has so patently failed to fulfill his financial obligations, as to now wonder not only what is the ACF to do in this instance, but what means are being set in place to ensure that such mismanagement of an event is not repeated?

That it seems that George Howard is being subsidised by the ACF is demonstrated by the $12 cheque still in my wallet.

The reason that the cheque is unbanked is that I had no desire for a souvenir of my time on the mountain to be anything but the CD that I had payed for. As such the cheque is something of no moment, and really we still are to actually hear if there has been a resolution of the accounts for the festival in total.

Question 1: About the $4000 junior development fund? ( This one seems to be really off the radar at the moment...)

Question 2: About STML's paid for rewrites of the Website for the event?

Question 3: About the production of a full set of accounts for the event in question?

Question 4: Does the ACF plan to recover the cost of these CD repayments from GH?

Question 5: Have any measures been set in place to avoid a repeat of these unfortunate happenings?

Would be delighted for a response or comment from anyone,

Take care and God Bless, Macavity

PS the CD's are a dead issue now to me, but there are still many unanswered questions.

PPS Oh, and Denis, dearie, was interesting that prior to your piece on ways to reform Australian chess and its structure in the ACF bulletin, you had a go at the whole of the bulletin board...as a member of the said bulletin board, does that also reflect on the comments that you make here?

PPPS: the cheque was handed to me by Charles Zworestine as he rushed past me in the lobby of the second floor, in Brisbane, without any stopping to apologise or anything else similar...again it was such a kodak moment, and an apt conclusion that the settling of outstanding accounts was performed with exactly the same attention to detail as the event in total

[eclectic]

it's like a love affair gone wrong ...

[Denis_Jessop]

Hello, Everyone,

I wonder why it is necessary to concern ourselves with the means of the supposed remuneration for CD's, or what is the appropriate label for an organiser who has so patently failed to fulfill his financial obligations, as to now wonder not only what is the ACF to do in this instance, but what means are being set in place to ensure that such mismanagement of an event is not repeated?

That it seems that George Howard is being subsidised by the ACF is demonstrated by the $12 cheque still in my wallet.

The reason that the cheque is unbanked is that I had no desire for a souvenir of my time on the mountain to be anything but the CD that I had payed for. As such the cheque is something of no moment, and really we still are to actually hear if there has been a resolution of the accounts for the festival in total.

Question 1: About the $4000 junior development fund? ( This one seems to be really off the radar at the moment...)

Question 2: About STML's paid for rewrites of the Website for the event?

Question 3: About the production of a full set of accounts for the event in question?

Question 4: Does the ACF plan to recover the cost of these CD repayments from GH?

Question 5: Have any measures been set in place to avoid a repeat of these unfortunate happenings?

Would be delighted for a response or comment from anyone,

Take care and God Bless, Macavity

PS the CD's are a dead issue now to me, but there are still many unanswered questions.

PPS Oh, and Denis, dearie, was interesting that prior to your piece on ways to reform Australian chess and its structure in the ACF bulletin, you had a go at the whole of the bulletin board...as a member of the said bulletin board, does that also reflect on the comments that you make here?

PPPS: the cheque was handed to me by Charles Zworestine as he rushed past me in the lobby of the second floor, in Brisbane, without any stopping to apologise or anything else similar...again it was such a kodak moment, and an apt conclusion that the settling of outstanding accounts was performed with exactly the same attention to detail as the event in total

Question 1: George has promised to pay this amount this year. Whether we ever see it is another matter. The only way to establish a legal entitlement to the money is to go to court which is not the preferred course for many reasons. Before he pays that sum, George has promised to pay the relevant FIDE rating fees and ACF admin fees, which you didn't mention, but we are still waiting for these too.

Question 2: I have no knowledge of the arrangements about the website, financial or otherwise, except that I understand that they were made between George and STML and STML claims to be owed money as a result. The latter I know of only because STML has said so on this Forum.

Question 3: A full and final set of accounts would be the last step after all outstanding financial matters had been settled.

Question 4: Yes.

Question 5: The measures we already have available are adequate. This was an exceptional case partly, I think, because GH was also ACF President at the time.

Re PPS: No. I always know what I' m talking about and do so deliberately and rationally. For further discussion on this topic you could refer to another place, as they say in the Australian Parliament, but not unless you are a masochist.

Re PPPS: I received the cheques in Brisbane from Norm Greenwood and intended to hand them out personally to those who were there but this became impracticable as I did not know most of the people involved and for most of the time they were there they were playing their games. Charles, who knew them all and had easier access to them as an arbiter, kindly agreed to hand them out. You referred to this as a "kodak moment" in your case but may it not rather have been a "decisive moment" (Cartier Bresson) or, if you prefer, an "indecisive moment" (Elliott Erwitt)?

Incidentally, as you post under a pseudonym, I have no idea who you are and you are therefore lucky that I'm answering this post at all as in future I shall be inclined to ignore pseudonymous posters.

If you have some reservation about the worth of your $12 cheque you could of course take the charitable option of donating the money to the Olympiad Fund. Several people, including me, already have.

DJ

[Alan Shore]

Incidentally, as you post under a pseudonym, I have no idea who you are and you are therefore lucky that I'm answering this post at all as in future I shall be inclined to ignore pseudonymous posters.

Good luck... you're the 37th most regular poster here and of the top 37 only 7 (yourself included) post under their real names. So unless this extends to knowing who certain posters are under their pseudonyms much will be going unanswered.. but perhaps you should clarify, for example, do you know who I am, cloaked in my 'veil of secrecy'? I'll give you a hint though - I shook hands with you in Canberra nearly a year ago.

[Denis_Jessop]

Good luck... you're the 37th most regular poster here and of the top 37 only 7 (yourself included) post under their real names. So unless this extends to knowing who certain posters are under their pseudonyms much will be going unanswered.. but perhaps you should clarify, for example, do you know who I am, cloaked in my 'veil of secrecy'? I'll give you a hint though - I shook hands with you in Canberra nearly a year ago.

Hi Dion

Yes, I know who you are and I now know who Macavity is (and what he looks like). I was applying a principle put to me by a Canberra colleague the other night of not replying to anonymous posts and confining myself to matters of fact. I think that that is a good way to avoid spending countless hours here that could be better spent elsewhere. In fact many of the anonymous posters are known anyway so the use of a pseudonym by them is a bit unnecessary.

DJ

[Alan Shore]

I was applying a principle put to me by a Canberra colleague the other night of not replying to anonymous posts and confining myself to matters of fact.

I wouldn't say the black and white way of thinking is necessarily so good - rather, respond to posts you think are worth responding to on the merit of the content. Of course at times we can fall into the trapdoor of flamebait but you can always pull the plug on that any time yourself. The trick is distinguishing between genuine queries and trolling tactics.

I think that that is a good way to avoid spending countless hours here that could be better spent elsewhere.

Yeah.. it can be a bit of a time chasm but I see it as a kind of nice social atmosphere and a place where poignant questions can be answered. For others it can be a verbal venting or battle of wits on useless flamewars but there's no call to get involved in them.

In fact many of the anonymous posters are known anyway so the use of a pseudonym by them is a bit unnecessary.

It's part of an internet culture - it's fun for many people to use a pseudonym, partly because posts made on BB's are not always representative of what people may say IRL but also to add to the novelty of personal customisation or even the pseudo-emulation of figures, fictional or otherwise they may like or identify with.

[WhiteElephant]

I have to say I have no problem with Denis's comments about this BB. Much of what is said here is factually inaccurate, tongue-in-cheek, gossippy, lighthearted verbal jousting, etc etc. Not that there is anything wrong with that, I personally log on here for entertainment - it is something which amuses me to pass the time. Occasionally I learn something interesting about tournaments, chess events, and other things related to the industry. Some posters in particular are in the know about many things (like Jenni and Libby), and other posters are just fascinating personalities, like MS and macavity. However, a lot of the stuff here is bitching and moaning, and you have to enter this place at your own peril, with a thick skin. I think Denis is correct in not officially endorsing this place and I have no problem with his personal opinion about it either.

[jenni]

Agreed - I post here mainly for fun, although from time to time there are some interesting ideas put forward. It is a useful way of trying out a new idea, or getting feedback, but you really do have to be prepared to dismiss the bitching etc, without getting upset about it. Something all of us fail to do from time to time when tired or stressed about other things.

It is also wonderful for getting tournament results and background gossip. Often crosstables go up on here before making it to the official sites.

[eclectic]

of not replying to anonymous posts
DJ

as for me ...

[being one of those still (seemingly?) anonymous posters here]

were i to want to comment officially on australian chess matters it would be via a letter and with my name and signature attached

[Denis_Jessop]

Agreed - I post here mainly for fun, although from time to time there are some interesting ideas put forward. It is a useful way of trying out a new idea, or getting feedback, but you really do have to be prepared to dismiss the bitching etc, without getting upset about it. Something all of us fail to do from time to time when tired or stressed about other things.

It is also wonderful for getting tournament results and background gossip. Often crosstables go up on here before making it to the official sites.

Obviously there are a lot of fun postings and the like on the BB. Equally obviously my remarks in my President's Report, given the context, were related only to matters of interest to the ACF. I specifically mentioned this thread but another example was the thread on the qualifications for entry to the Australian Championship which was a bear garden at best.

The bottom line is that if posters want to say something effective about ACF matters they have to do so in an informed, considered and rational manner. If they don't, the ACF will ignore them. They would also be wasting their own time and shitting me to death (Ormond College, University of Melbourne argot, circa 1955) as well.

DJ

[firegoat7]

The bottom line is that if posters want to say something effective about ACF matters they have to do so in an informed, considered and rational manner.

Complete bollocks. A-there is no bottom line. B-Comments can be effective without being informed,considered or rational. That is just reality.

If they don't, the ACF will ignore them.

That is the ACF's choice, but it does not mean that patrons have to adopt a style of posting that suits the ACF. Quite simply you are out of liine, in that regard.

They would also be wasting their own time and shitting me to death (Ormond College, University of Melbourne argot, circa 1955) as well.

That is a value judgement that can only be measured by the subjective individual. As for your own claims, well that is also your problem.

cheers Fg7

[PHAT]

The bottom line is that if posters want to say something effective about ACF matters they have to do so in an
[1] informed,
[2] considered and
[3] rational manner. If they don't, the ACF will ignore them.

Nice one Den.

1. If a person was FULLY informed, many of their queeries/complaints would not NEED to be made. eg "When will GH cough up the juniors' $4k quid?"

2. I am pretty sure that I have never read a letter of complaint that was not "considered." Thus, that particular caviet is superfluous.

3. It does not matter an iota wheather or not the persons "manner" is rational. What matters is that they have their real concerns adressed. If the ACF is not prepared to deal with real or imagined problems, then it is being aloof, pretentious, and clearly out of touch.