View Poll Results: Do you agree with Burnie CC's "exclusivity clause"?

Voters
22. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    3 13.64%
  • No

    18 81.82%
  • Undecided

    1 4.55%
Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 58
  1. #1
    CC Grandmaster arosar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    5,046

    Burnie CC's Exclusivity Clause

    That other thread is getting a bit confusing with too many irrelevant banter. So let's get to the bottom of this via a poll. What do you all think of Burnie Chess Club's policy of "All public reporting rights to the event are reserved exclusively by the Burnie Chess Club"?

    Have your say! Yes, no, or undecided.

    Here's a backgrounder for those who haven't followed the debate: http://closetgrandmaster.blogspot.co...-responds.html

    AR
    Last edited by arosar; 24-11-2006 at 04:02 PM.

  2. #2
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    12,336
    I think the outcome of this poll is evident
    Interested in Chess Lessons?
    Email webbaron!@gmail.com for more Info!

  3. #3
    CC International Master WhiteElephant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    1,965
    I am undecided. It doesn't sound like great publicity for the BCC but it is hard to judge without knowing the full circumstances behind it.

  4. #4
    CC Candidate Master PhilD707's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Burnie International Airport
    Posts
    359
    Quote Originally Posted by WhiteElephant
    I am undecided. It doesn't sound like great publicity for the BCC but it is hard to judge without knowing the full circumstances behind it.


    Spot on W.E.

    One problem with your poll (AR) is that the full facts have not been revealed hence people cannot make a fully informed judgement on the issue.

    The second problem is that if I were to give the full background to the incident I would almost certainly be banned and the evidence I put forward would then be stripped from the record by the presiding magistrates of ChessChat.
    This is the nature of the judge, jury and chief prosecutor status of KB and BG.
    You cannot win a case under those circumstances.
    It's Catch 22 mate.

  5. #5
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    5,667
    It's a load of bollocks.

    It would still be a load of bollocks even if there was some raving lunatic running around slagging off the BCC at every opportunity. There is no such lunatic, which makes this particular rule a humungous load of bollocks.

  6. #6
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,488
    Quote Originally Posted by PhilD707
    One problem with your poll (AR) is that the full facts have not been revealed hence people cannot make a fully informed judgement on the issue.

    The second problem is that if I were to give the full background to the incident I would almost certainly be banned and the evidence I put forward would then be stripped from the record by the presiding magistrates of ChessChat.
    This is the nature of the judge, jury and chief prosecutor status of KB and BG.
    You cannot win a case under those circumstances.
    It's Catch 22 mate.[/SIZE][/FONT]
    This is complete nonsense. You have already had opportunity to reveal the facts in as much detail as you like when the issue was covered on TCG, where Bill and I have no power to ban you.

    Your clause is irregular so if you want support for it the onus is on you to justify that support.

    If you cannot do so without defaming people or otherwise breaking the board rules that's your problem.

  7. #7
    CC Candidate Master PhilD707's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Burnie International Airport
    Posts
    359
    Quote Originally Posted by pax
    It's a load of bollocks.

    It would still be a load of bollocks even if there was some raving lunatic running around slagging off the BCC at every opportunity. There is no such lunatic, which makes this particular rule a humungous load of bollocks.
    Very classy argument mate
    Are you hoping to become a moderator one day?

  8. #8
    CC Candidate Master PhilD707's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Burnie International Airport
    Posts
    359

    A man of many hats

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    This is complete nonsense. You have already had opportunity to reveal the facts in as much detail as you like when the issue was covered on TCG, where Bill and I have no power to ban you.

    Your clause is irregular so if you want support for it the onus is on you to justify that support.

    If you cannot do so without defaming people or otherwise breaking the board rules that's your problem.
    Brave words from the Judge, foreman of the Jury and the Chief Prosecutor.


  9. #9
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,488
    I reported on the Tasmanian Championships in March 2006 and my report can be found here.

    Phil took extensive offence to that report, leading to the tournament condition in question. I'll let him explain why if he wishes and can do so in a non-defamatory way, but suggest he carefully ensures that his account of his reasons accurately matches those he originally gave. Any discrepancy will be given short shrift.

  10. #10
    CC Grandmaster arosar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    5,046
    Quote Originally Posted by PhilD707

    Spot on W.E.

    One problem with your poll (AR) is that the full facts have not been revealed hence people cannot make a fully informed judgement on the issue.

    The second problem is that if I were to give the full background to the incident I would almost certainly be banned and the evidence I put forward would then be stripped from the record by the presiding magistrates of ChessChat.
    This is the nature of the judge, jury and chief prosecutor status of KB and BG.
    You cannot win a case under those circumstances.
    It's Catch 22 mate.
    Phil,

    I'm sorry to say this straight up, but it is a really stupid, poorly thought out policy. You see, all this comes down to your personal differences with Kevo.

    If you have a problem with Kevo, then take it up with him directly. If he says something stupid in public, like publishing a bad report, then challenge him publicly. If the report is defo, then you can resort to the standard mechanism - sue the bastard.

    You complain about chess reports that are subjective. Well, my friend, good chess reports are always subjective. A purely objective report is a boring read. To be honest with you, I read that report in question by Kevo and I really can't see the problem you saw. Anyone else see it?

    These conditions you set for Kevo are insulting:

    "Please ensure that the email does not contain personal comment.
    ...
    I'll review your notes and any annotations containing personal subjective comment about persons other than yourself will be stripped out, (moderated if you like), as will any remark that casts the BCC, or Chess in Tasmania, or any other entrant of the event in a poor light."

    Mate, I understand the role of an editor but if you said those things to me, I'd tell you to FO!

    AR
    Last edited by arosar; 24-11-2006 at 07:17 PM.

  11. #11
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    5,667
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    I reported on the Tasmanian Championships in March 2006 and my report can be found here.
    From that thread:
    An unusual and somewhat contentious "sudden death clause" allowing the organisers to remove the increments after four hours if games running overtime threatened to disrupt the event, was not actually used - although it could have been had the T. Hendrey - Chadwick game occured in a morning session or had some other games threatening to go for 100+ moves not been curtailed by errors.
    and in reply to another post:

    The tournament conditions actually required players to record all moves despite the increment being +25 not +30 and this was not changed despite the organisers being informed that it violated FIDE laws. Some players actually intended to defy it if their clocks got low enough, but it never came to that.

    Looks like pretty tame criticism (and entirely warranted on the face of it). Is that really the source of all your angst Phil?

  12. #12
    CC Grandmaster Basil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Subtropical Brisbane, Australia
    Posts
    11,232
    Quote Originally Posted by pax
    Is that really the source of all your angst Phil?
    Yes. It's a reasonably well documented disorder. Its common name is 'Newsletter Fetter'. Prevalent in Queensland. Spreading throughout Orstraaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaalia (belch) at an alarming rate. Particularly contagious among those flirting on the perimeters of chess state associations. Afflictees collectively known as the Myopic Misericordiae. No known cure. Does improve with robust and broad life experiences.
    Last edited by Basil; 24-11-2006 at 07:46 PM.
    There is no cure for leftism. Its infestation of the host mostly diminishes with age except in the most rabid of specimens.

  13. #13
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    5,667
    Oh, there is also this in another thread:

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    I find Phil's views on adjudication so bizarre that I am not sure I can see any purpose in debating them here, unless I see any actual risk of anyone else here taking them seriously. Phil is well aware of my views on the matter.
    which was in response to Phil himself raising the matter of adjudication.

    For those who aren't aware, there was a clause which allowed the arbiter to declare the game drawn after 100 moves if the schedule was running behind, or to adjudicate a win if a win could be 'demonstrated'.

    In my view, it was extraordinarily diplomatic of Kevin not to mention this matter in the original report.

    It seems that bizarre tournament conditions are a bit of a specialty of PhilD.

  14. #14
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,488
    Quote Originally Posted by pax
    For those who aren't aware, there was a clause which allowed the arbiter to declare the game drawn after 100 moves if the schedule was running behind, or to adjudicate a win if a win could be 'demonstrated'.
    In fairness to Phil (not that I am generally unfair to him) something resembling this - not exactly in the form you have it there - was merely a very late proposal made by Phil, which was abandoned after it was advised that the ACF would not rate adjudicated games, and therefore was not applied in the Tasmanian Championships.
    Last edited by Kevin Bonham; 24-11-2006 at 08:08 PM.

  15. #15
    CC Candidate Master PhilD707's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Burnie International Airport
    Posts
    359
    Quote Originally Posted by pax
    Oh, there is also this in another thread:



    which was in response to Phil himself raising the matter of adjudication.

    For those who aren't aware, there was a clause which allowed the arbiter to declare the game drawn after 100 moves if the schedule was running behind, or to adjudicate a win if a win could be 'demonstrated'.

    In my view, it was extraordinarily diplomatic of Kevin not to mention this matter in the original report.

    It seems that bizarre tournament conditions are a bit of a specialty of PhilD.
    Hi,
    You (whoever you are), seem to oscillate between "bollocks" based discussion and serious debate but OK, I'll go with you on this one.

    In my view if two two contestants have not sorted out their differenes after slogging through 100 moves, then in a tournament that must run to some sort of schedule,
    an arbiter can rasonably ask of the contestants if either of them is still playing for a win?
    The odds are that neither of them will be able to demonstrate a conclusive winning strategy.
    If not well then
    "Game over guys, 1/2 point each, well done both of you, now lets draw the next round. There's 26 other entrants here waiting for it."
    Heresy or common sense?
    You be the judge.

    "They all laughed at Christopher Columbus when he said the world was round."


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Tasmanian Championships Burnie report
    By Kevin Bonham in forum Completed Tournaments
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 11-03-2004, 07:28 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •