Page 86 of 109 FirstFirst ... 3676848586878896 ... LastLast
Results 1,276 to 1,290 of 1627
  1. #1276
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    38,707
    I've placed account Seven, another Axiom hydra, on ignore and shoutbox-ignore for blaming me for something I had nothing to do with, namely Garvin's lack of recent posting on the forum. If a different Axiom hydra cares to apologise (properly) I'll reverse it.

    Alex correctly notes the real reason - Garvin lost the CAQ Presidency by a heavy margin and from what I have heard didn't take it very well. Don't think that he is even playing anymore.
    Last edited by Kevin Bonham; 31-07-2012 at 12:15 AM.

  2. #1277
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    38,707
    Firegoat is foaming at the mouth because when JaK enquired about why only five moves of a game were showing I wrote:

    Common Tornelo problem - people not entering the full game. David did include some kind of solution by allowing a checkbox to show game entry is complete but perhaps there could be something stronger (eg game shows as "incomplete" in the viewer if such a box isn't checked.)

    He claims this reflects "a general negativity towards Tornelo, which is unwarranted." It is his claim that is unwarranted. Really the problem, as I said, is with people not entering the full game when using the program, and I was suggesting that the program has already been beneficially tinkered with to deal with this issue but perhaps more could be done.

    However, even a 5 move coverage is 100% better then the publicity the ACF provide for the event.
    False. The ACF publicises the event through the GP website and it was also publicised in some issues of the Newsletter prior to the editor's recent retirement.

    but worse, they hinder great products like Tornelo from achieving their full potential by refusing to co-operate with its development.
    I assume this refers to our refusal to supply SP files to Tornelo.

    This has been gone over often enough and it has been made clear often enough that the ACF would be placing its main funding stream, admin fees, at risk if it assisted a private operator to run a comparable rating service.

    A great amount of volunteer work goes into compiling and preparing ratings files at national, state and club level. These people do this volunteer work so that events can be rated by a unified national system (either because it is what they want or what their players want), not so that the fruits of their work can be given away to a private business with an at times antagonistic relationship to official chess bodies. If organisers want to send their files to Tornelo as well as the ACF, that's up to them.

    I've used Tornelo to run a tournament myself and it's a very promising program with a lot of good features. That doesn't mean we should give data away to it.

  3. #1278
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    38,707
    More goatfroth has been vomited forth over there. His latest claim is

    The Acfs virtual non coverage of Best in the West is clearly inferior to Chess Kids Tornelo coverage of the same event.

    but this is a major shift from his previous

    However, even a 5 move coverage is 100% better then the publicity the ACF provide for the event.

    ...firstly because he is now talking about the whole Tornelo coverage not just 5 moves of one game, and secondly because he concedes that there was some ACF publicity. Despite having agreed with me while insincerely not admitting it, he continues to call me a liar for no reason. He even calls me dishonest for claiming that publicity (even on a limited scale) is publicity, which shows again that his own thinking is so defective that he can't even grasp the concept that a thing is the same as itself.

    It is not the ACF's responsibility to provide coverage of tournaments as they happen. This is the responsibility of tournament organisers.

    Furthermore, he is lying, yet again, if he disagrees that the Tornelo coverage is better then lame attempts provided by the ACF.
    And this is strawmanning, yet again, because I said nothing of the sort.

    Firegoat refers to my comments about the possibility of commercial organisations outcompeting the ACF by offering rating services as "fairy tales" that are "not creditable". I would suggest to firegoat that ChessGuru himself would know far more about whether this is possible than he would, and remind firegoat that ChessGuru has explicitly discussed this possibility (without naming any specific organisation that would do it) in his public postings.

    I'm not saying CG's intentions aren't altruistic but we know from the past that his actions can be very double-edged, that he does not always get on with the ACF and that he has a long way to go to rebuild trust if he wants us to consider joint ventures with him.

    No choice is given to any chess club run by volunteers who organise events to use Tornelo within the ACF system.
    A misleading claim at best. I have used Tornelo to run an ACF GP event myself - advertising details, live coverage, game entry and so on. What we have not done to this point is decided to give away all our ratings data to a private operator with an unpredictable and sometimes antagonistic history towards us.

    I see a single, unified, strong national rating list for serious OTB tournament players as an important priority. The ACF should not take even the smallest risk of getting into a situation where there are multiple such ratings lists with many events being rated by one agency and many by another.

    There is a lot of other foaming and twaddle and irrelevance in firegoat's latest post that I've ignored.

  4. #1279
    CC Grandmaster Garrett's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    the City
    Posts
    3,195
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham

    However, even a 5 move coverage is 100% better then the publicity the ACF provide for the event.

    ...firstly because he is now talking about the whole Tornelo coverage not just 5 moves of one game, and secondly because he concedes that there was some ACF publicity.
    If you do 2 things to advertise an event, and I do 4 things, then it sounds reasonable to say that I have done 100% more than you. It does not mean you have done nothing.

  5. #1280
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    38,707
    Quote Originally Posted by Garrett
    If you do 2 things to advertise an event, and I do 4 things, then it sounds reasonable to say that I have done 100% more than you. It does not mean you have done nothing.
    But if A does 1 thing to promote an event, then for A to have done 100% more than B using that usage, then B would have had to do half a thing. In fact, where firegoat claimed that one extremely trivial thing done by A (Tornelo) was 100% better than the ACF promotion of the whole tournament, I was able to show that B (the ACF) had done two things to promote the tournament.

    The goat is not a great mathematician nor a great literalist and I believe that where he said " even a 5 move coverage is 100% better then the publicity the ACF provide for the event." his meaning was 5 moves of one game was something while the ACF's publicity was nothing, ie he was expressing the 100% as a proportion of the greater term rather than the lesser. Being also very aggressive, he may well deny this, but if so I would disregard his denial.

  6. #1281
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    38,707
    Alex has posted a question which is reasonable at least polite but I'll answer it here anyway since this is where the comment he responded to was posted:

    The ACF has a financial interest in keeping its ratings monopoly. I understand that. But does that mean it is in the best interests of Australian chess players that there only be one national ratings list?

    I don't see a problem with Tornelo ratings becoming common place. Especially if a person's Tornelo rating works out to be fairly close to their ACF Rating.
    The problem arises if you reach a situation where some people are submitting results to one list and some are submitting results to another. The accuracy of a list is determined by two things - the quality of the rating system and the amount of data it has to work with. If some games were being rated by Tornelo only, some by the ACF only, some by both then each list would be somewhat less accurate than a single list is now.

    Multiple lists also create a lot of confusion for organisers and players. Even confusion between FIDE and ACF ratings is sometimes a problem, but if we had multiple different national ratings the problem would be much worse.

    Even as it is, just from the existence of Tornelo as tournament software that processes estimate ratings and "rates" tournaments in so doing (though the rating changes get scrubbed eventually if the event is never ACF rated) we get poor confused souls like this. If there were true rival national rating systems we'd be getting dozens of those.
    Last edited by Kevin Bonham; 19-08-2012 at 10:17 PM.

  7. #1282
    CC Grandmaster Denis_Jessop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    3,333
    I'm not sure how reasonable Alex's question really is. In my view it would be just plain dumb to have more than one Australian ratings list and it would definitely not be in the best interests of Australian chess.

    DJ
    ...I don't want to go among mad people Alice remarked, "Oh, you can't help that," said the Cat: we're all mad here. I am mad. You're mad." "How do you know I'm mad?" said Alice. "You must be," said the Cat ,"or you wouldn't have come here."

  8. #1283
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    38,707
    Yeah I was cutting him a bit of slack there as I do think he has turned a corner in his attitudes to me and this site lately. Plus there was a contrast in that he asked his question politely while firegoat was off frothing like his usual abrasive loon self again. Multiple rating lists would indeed be a spectacularly awful idea.

  9. #1284
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    38,707
    User The Seeing, another Axiom hydra, has been placed on ignore for making a false claim that I made a veiled threat to ban Mrs Jono. As I have recently demonstrated, when I want to threaten people I don't bother hiding it, because I need to make sure they can't say they haven't been Told.

    User griller, another Axiom hydra, placed on shoutbox ignore.

    Quote Originally Posted by firegoat7
    Thank you very much for pointing out that I am an abrasive loon. What would be your suggestion for me being less abrasive?
    Stop posting on the internet.

  10. #1285
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    38,707
    Firegoat in complaining about ratings refers to complainants as including:

    4) Former players, on the inactive list, who are returning to chess.
    There is no "inactive list" for ACF ratings. When players have been inactive for a very long time their old rating now expires, although it is still listed on the master list. Thus, for instance, Peter Parr does not have a current ACF rating; he only has a former rating which is listed as expired.

    The point of this is that players coming back after a very long time without any tournaments no longer have to worry about losing points, because they actually have no points to lose until they play again and get a new rating.

  11. #1286
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    38,707
    Alex has posted some forum stats on the question of chess vs non-chess content. He doesn't specifically attack us, but he does refer to "non-chess discussion which is often unnecessary and prone to flame wars which suck oxygen away from chess topics." This echoes a theme he has pushed in criticising our forum in the past.

    Alex writes:

    Our largest forum is Chess Tournaments in Australia which has over 10,000 posts! That's almost twice as many posts as our second largest forum, Non-Chess Related Discussion.[..] So of the 21,000 posts for these top three forums, nearly 16,000 of them are from the chess discussion related forums.
    and concludes

    I think these stats re-affirm our predominant purpose as a chess forum, and show that we haven't indulged in non-chess discussion [..]
    This all ignores the fact that quite a lot of the non-chess discussion on their forum occurs not in their main non-chess section but in News and Contemporary Issues, Reverse Engineering Reality and Adventures at Chess Chat.

    When these are considered their non-chess section is 31.1% of their forum. Ours is 32%, and we could also add the 1337 Lounge (0.9%), non-chess posts in the Coffee Lounge (2.3%), and deleted non-chess posts in storage (0.5%) for a total of 35.7%. It's not a big difference.

    Also each forum has a proportion of posts that are posts about forum administration, feedback and so on. This stuff takes up 8.3% of their forum but only 4% of ours (including our mods' section.) Once that is taken into account the percentages of chess content on each forum are almost identical. Both forums are about 60% chess-related.

    The reason their tournament news forum is so far ahead in their list of most active forums is simply that tournament news is a much greater proportion of their forum's chess content than ours. (Incidentally, the 44 longest threads in that section refer to events held in Victoria or to Victorian clubs.)
    Last edited by Kevin Bonham; 25-08-2012 at 02:52 PM.

  12. #1287
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    38,707
    There is a thread over there in which firegoat attempts to give the ACF a report card based on his reading of the Statement of Purpose in the ACF constitution. As he's provided no evidence for any of his assessments (and I don't think he even understands the meaning of most of the Statement) there is not much point in engaging with most of them but I did think this should be singled out:

    Quote Originally Posted by firegoat7
    b. The Federation shall not be carried on for the purpose of trading or securing pecuniary profit to its members. Fail
    That means he is saying that the ACF has been either trading or else securing pecuniary profit for its members.

    On this basis I would ask firegoat (and also J2G who gave the same assessment) :

    (i) What evidence if any do they have of the ACF engaging in trade? (Note that setting fees or levies, for instance for services such as ratings, is not trading and is explicitly authorised in the Constitution.)

    (ii) What evidence if any do they have of the ACF securing pecuniary profit for members? (Note that, for instance, reimbursement of expenses is not "pecuniary profit" and is not covered by this clause.)

    (iii) What do they understand to be the meaning of "members" in the ACF constitution anyway?

    Awarding a "Fail" grade on this point falsely implies that ACF officials have breached the Constitution by running the body for personal profit or as a business. Note that if we had done that, it probably would have been illegal.

    As the number of people involved in running the ACF is relatively small, such a claim is very capable of being found to have defamed every member of the ACF Executive and perhaps also the ACF Council.

    I will not be taking legal action myself, having voided my right to do so by having quoted the material in question, but I suggest that the false assessments be withdrawn, or failing that deleted, immediately.

  13. #1288
    CC Grandmaster Denis_Jessop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    3,333
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    There is a thread over there in which firegoat attempts to give the ACF a report card based on his reading of the Statement of Purpose in the ACF constitution. As he's provided no evidence for any of his assessments (and I don't think he even understands the meaning of most of the Statement) there is not much point in engaging with most of them but I did think this should be singled out:



    That means he is saying that the ACF has been either trading or else securing pecuniary profit for its members.

    On this basis I would ask firegoat (and also J2G who gave the same assessment) :

    (i) What evidence if any do they have of the ACF engaging in trade? (Note that setting fees or levies, for instance for services such as ratings, is not trading and is explicitly authorised in the Constitution.)

    (ii) What evidence if any do they have of the ACF securing pecuniary profit for members? (Note that, for instance, reimbursement of expenses is not "pecuniary profit" and is not covered by this clause.)

    (iii) What do they understand to be the meaning of "members" in the ACF constitution anyway?

    Awarding a "Fail" grade on this point falsely implies that ACF officials have breached the Constitution by running the body for personal profit or as a business. Note that if we had done that, it probably would have been illegal.

    As the number of people involved in running the ACF is relatively small, such a claim is very capable of being found to have defamed every member of the ACF Executive and perhaps also the ACF Council.

    I will not be taking legal action myself, having voided my right to do so by having quoted the material in question, but I suggest that the false assessments be withdrawn, or failing that deleted, immediately.
    I've just read FG7's nonsense on this and it is clear that he really does not know what he is talking about. Perhaps he could plead insanity as a defence to any defamation suit?

    Yesterday I saw a similar post relating to ACF officers on the Presidential thread but it seems to have disappeared. It was just a silly as this one.

    DJ
    ...I don't want to go among mad people Alice remarked, "Oh, you can't help that," said the Cat: we're all mad here. I am mad. You're mad." "How do you know I'm mad?" said Alice. "You must be," said the Cat ,"or you wouldn't have come here."

  14. #1289
    CC Grandmaster Garrett's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    the City
    Posts
    3,195
    Why don't you guys take your comment over there ?

    I just had a look at the thread in question and there have been some posts this afternoon. Perhaps they don't look at your thread over here and haven't seen your questions ?

    I know you guys might risk getting smacked all over the place in a debate, but why not take your comments over there ?

  15. #1290
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    38,707
    Quote Originally Posted by Garrett
    Why don't you guys take your comment over there ?
    This has been explained many times before.

    I don't post there under my own name mainly because of past incidents of posts being tampered with by site staff to maliciously alter their meaning without even logging the edit or leaving an edit stamp. I like to have control over what I publish and do not want to risk a situation in which words I did not say appear on the permanent record to have been posted by me.

    I would be less concerned about this if I was allowed to use hydra accounts over there as well as my real-name account but I am currently under an unretracted threat of permanent banning from the site if I do so. This is a situation that applies only to me and not to any other poster.

    I do use their shoutbox, where I am less concerned about the problem because shouts are more or less ephemeral.

    Perhaps they don't look at your thread over here and haven't seen your questions ?
    They do look at this thread frequently. Many posts made on this thread have been quickly responded to in the past. Of course, this does not guarantee they have yet seen my comments in this instance.

    I know you guys might risk getting smacked all over the place in a debate,
    No, you don't know that, since it is false. The risk would be zero.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-12-2007, 11:14 PM
  2. whats happening in the markets
    By Davidflude in forum Non-Chess
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 19-08-2007, 11:15 AM

Posting Permissions

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