PDA

View Full Version : ACF National Conference



shaun
19-12-2004, 05:44 PM
Are all states able to send delegates who reside in their states and/or are members of their state associations? Or are we going to see some states sacrifice good governance by casting around for anyone willing to represent them?
If it is the latter I for one would prefer a state association accept that their commitment to the ACF isn't that great, and just turn up with a lesser number of delegates than they are entitled.

Kevin Bonham
19-12-2004, 10:51 PM
I'm pleased to say that this time around Tasmania will be represented (by moi). However the casting-around bit (which we've done sometimes in preference to not being represented at all) is not so bad if you give your delegate clear instructions on how to vote on different matters likely to come up during the conference.

Have not heard of any other states that are struggling for numbers - did you have anyone in mind?

Garvinator
19-12-2004, 11:02 PM
CAQ should have all three delegates there will all four votes to cast.

firegoat7
19-12-2004, 11:04 PM
How does a Victorian chessplayer become a member of their state association?
:hmm:
Like i have said before-: ChessVictoria is the recognised body of affiliated clubs, its structure is not like other states. It will be interesting to see if clubs nominate delegates to attend, on behalf of CV (somehow I won't hold my breath), obviusly the CV executive is eligable. But what about certain notorious individuals? Will Jammo or guru be there? and on what grounds would they base their legitimacy if they were?

Cheers FG7

JGB
20-12-2004, 05:59 AM
. But what about certain notorious individuals? Will Jammo or guru be there?

Cheers FG7

naah, but maybe Jammmo, or Jammmmmo will be there. ;) :lol:

Garvinator
20-12-2004, 08:52 AM
naah, but maybe Jammmo, or Jammmmmo will be there. ;) :lol:
if jammmo, jamo, jammo and jammmmmmmo are there, then they will have their required delegates ;)

arosar
24-12-2004, 09:23 AM
Hey, I was walking to work this morning and suddenly, for whatever reason, I remembered a game played between Andrew Allen and Solomon at the 1999 Aus Open.

Anyone know where Allen is now? He also used to look after our BB all those moons ago.

AR

Paul S
27-12-2004, 03:36 PM
Here is my prediction of how the votes will go at the upcoming ACF National Conference for the position of ACF President.

Denis Jessop 22 votes versus Cordover 0 votes.

Anyone else care to predict the final result?

WhiteElephant
27-12-2004, 03:58 PM
Here is my prediction of how the votes will go at the upcoming ACF National Conference for the position of ACF President.

Denis Jessop 22 votes versus Cordover 0 votes.

Anyone else care to predict the final result?

Will the votes be made public?

jenni
27-12-2004, 04:19 PM
Here is my prediction of how the votes will go at the upcoming ACF National Conference for the position of ACF President.

Denis Jessop 22 votes versus Cordover 0 votes.

Anyone else care to predict the final result?
One would think Lord Voldemort would have to get a few? However my prediction is a large majority for Denis - I like certain bets. :)

(I think you are not supposed to mention his name, so I have done a bit of editing.....)

Alan Shore
27-12-2004, 05:12 PM
One would think Lord Voldemort would have to get a few? However my prediction is a large majority for Denis - I like certain bets. :)

(I think you are not supposed to mention his name, so I have done a bit of editing.....)

Cordover Cordover Cordover! I'm not afraid and neither should anyone else be! (A take on a Harry Potter quote).

Seriously, we've said this before. His name is not an expletive, it was only starter who began (as you'd expect) this whole 'unmentionable one' nonsense. He's banned from this board and that should be the end of it, not having ridiculous censorship of his name itself. :rolleyes:

Please re-edit the name back jenni. After all:


Fear of a name only increases fear of the thing itself.

jenni
27-12-2004, 05:29 PM
Oh all right - I went and read Kathick's directive and it doesn't say we can't mention him at all, just not in a negative sense. Of course implying he is going to get 0 votes, might be construed as negative, but then again maybe not....

I'll put it back in (but only becasue you can quote Harry Potter so well).

ursogr8
27-12-2004, 08:04 PM
Cordover Cordover Cordover! I'm not afraid and neither should anyone else be! (A take on a Harry Potter quote).

Seriously, we've said this before. His name is not an expletive, it was only starter who began (as you'd expect) this whole 'unmentionable one' nonsense. He's banned from this board and that should be the end of it, not having ridiculous censorship of his name itself. :rolleyes:

Please re-edit the name back jenni. After all:

hi BD

How are you enjoying the season to be friendly and merry?
You and I are as one on this censorship thing.
Glad to find some common ground after all this time.
PaulS. is probably wrong...I mean...David would vote for himself I expect.


starter

Bill Gletsos
27-12-2004, 08:28 PM
hi BD

How are you enjoying the season to be friendly and merry?
You and I are as one on this censorship thing.
Glad to find some common ground after all this time.
PaulS. is probably wrong...I mean...David would vote for himself I expect.
Unless he ends up being a CV Delegate he doesnt have a vote.

ursogr8
27-12-2004, 08:59 PM
^^
Bill

You know, you have a fantastic ability to look at my posts and see that I have made assumptions,and to rightfully challenge those assumptions.
Now that you have pointed it out I can see that
> I assumed the GURU would go to the National conference
> I assumed the GURU would get one of the prized VICTORIAN delegate positions
> I assumed the GURU would vote for himself in the Prez. election.

Errr...just which one are you doubtful about.

starter

ursogr8
27-12-2004, 09:05 PM
How does a Victorian chessplayer become a member of their state association?
:hmm:
Like i have said before-: ChessVictoria is the recognised body of affiliated clubs, its structure is not like other states. It will be interesting to see if clubs nominate delegates to attend, on behalf of CV (somehow I won't hold my breath), obviusly the CV executive is eligable. But what about certain notorious individuals? Will Jammo or guru be there? and on what grounds would they base their legitimacy if they were?

Cheers FG7

hi firegoat7

Not sure I get your drift here. Are you angling for a 'delegate role' for yourself at the National Conference? If so, PM me and I will make a few calls on your behalf.

I think it is more likely that there will be a shortage of delegates and the default option will be 'whoever is johnny-on-the-spot'.

starter

Bill Gletsos
27-12-2004, 09:12 PM
^^
Bill

You know, you have a fantastic ability to look at my posts and see that I have made assumptions,and to rightfully challenge those assumptions.
Now that you have pointed it out I can see that
> I assumed the GURU would go to the National conference
> I assumed the GURU would get one of the prized VICTORIAN delegate positions
> I assumed the GURU would vote for himself in the Prez. election.

Errr...just which one are you doubtful about.

starter
Your comprehension skills arent very good are they. :hand:
It is obvious that my post #14 can only possibly be relevant to your "I assumed the GURU would get one of the prized VICTORIAN delegate positions" option.

ursogr8
27-12-2004, 09:22 PM
^^
So, Bill
Why did you post #14?
As it stands, it is a tautology, pure and simple.
What was the point?
starter

Bill Gletsos
27-12-2004, 10:10 PM
^^
So, Bill
Why did you post #14?
As it stands, it is a tautology, pure and simple.
What was the point?
starter
My point was for him to vote for himself he would need to be a CV delegate.
What evidence do you have that he is a CV delegate.

Maybe its just me, but you seem to be trying to raise stupidity to an art form.

ursogr8
28-12-2004, 06:12 AM
My point was for him to vote for himself he would need to be a CV delegate.
What evidence do you have that he is a CV delegate.

Maybe its just me, but you seem to be trying to raise stupidity to an art form.

Bill
As I said a post or two back; usually a confusion between two posters is a consequence of different assumptions. That is why I threw out a few for you to react to.
Now I can I can see the difference in our positons....I assumed (knowing the parlous state of VICs usual efforts to provide delegates <in the correct number, not quality>, I could not imagine that he would not fill one spot, if he wanted to. And given that he would want to vote, then I am sure he would seek to be a delegate. So, you see, I regarded it as a GIVEN that he would be a delegate.
But you are correct, extraneous circumstances could intervene.

Btw, I have copped an idiot and stupid tag over this little attempt at clarification. I can't improve from here, so we are stuck with that as fixture. What about you change your lexicon in the new year and that should be more pleasant all round?


starter

arosar
28-12-2004, 08:01 AM
I declare starter's statement to be sound and valid. Sometimes Bill just over analyses I think.

AR

Bill Gletsos
28-12-2004, 11:19 AM
I declare starter's statement to be sound and valid. Sometimes Bill just over analyses I think.
But AR in this case I made no analysis, just a straightforward statement.
Starter in post #13 made a statement based only on supposition when he said that the Guru would vote for himself. This statement was misleading as the average reader may consider it a statement of fact when it was only supposition.
I said in post #14 the Guru wouldnt be able to vote unless he was a CV delegate. That is a simple statement of fact.

It is starter himself who starts the analysis in post #15 and appears to still have a comprehension problem in post #18.

Bill Gletsos
28-12-2004, 11:48 AM
Bill
As I said a post or two back; usually a confusion between two posters is a consequence of different assumptions.
I made no assumption. My statement was one of fact in that he could not vote unless he was a delegate. That statement wasnt open to debate.

That is why I threw out a few for you to react to.
Now I can I can see the difference in our positons....I assumed (knowing the parlous state of VICs usual efforts to provide delegates <in the correct number, not quality>, I could not imagine that he would not fill one spot, if he wanted to. And given that he would want to vote, then I am sure he would seek to be a delegate. So, you see, I regarded it as a GIVEN that he would be a delegate.
You assume its a GIVEN based on no actual facts just multiple suppositions.
I stated that he wouldnt get to vote unless he was a CV delegate. It neither assumes he is or isnt a delegate. It is simply a statement of fact.


But you are correct, extraneous circumstances could intervene.
I do happen to know who 2 of the 5 CV delegates are.
That leaves only 3 spots available to the Guru.
Now unless CV has explicitly selected their delegates then I assume that it will be left to GW to determine who the remaining delegates will be.
Now ask yourself, would GW appoint the Guru as a delegate.?


Btw, I have copped an idiot and stupid tag over this little attempt at clarification. I can't improve from here, so we are stuck with that as fixture.
You know aht they say about it walking and talking like a duck.


What about you change your lexicon in the new year and that should be more pleasant all round?
I dont recall you publically suggesting that Matt should stop being crude and vulgar on the BB and be more pleasant.

As such your opinion means little.

firegoat7
28-12-2004, 12:02 PM
Now unless CV has explicitly selected their delegates then I assume that it will be left to GW to determine who the remaining delegates will be.
Now ask yourself, would GW appoint the Guru as a delegate.?




Astutely observed Bill.
Of course confusion remains as to whether their is a difference between CV and GW opinion, which of course, opens up questions about democracy in Victorian chess circles.

ursogr8
28-12-2004, 01:33 PM
I made no assumption. My statement was one of fact in that he could not vote unless he was a delegate. That statement wasnt open to debate.

Bill
No point of difference here mate. It was my assumption that turned out to be questionable, by you.


You assume its a GIVEN based on no actual facts just multiple suppositions.

Yep. That was the root-cause.



I stated that he wouldnt get to vote unless he was a CV delegate. It neither assumes he is or isnt a delegate. It is simply a statement of fact.

Yes. A bit tautological though.



I do happen to know who 2 of the 5 CV delegates are.
That leaves only 3 spots available to the Guru.

You always have your finger on the pulse Bill.



Now unless CV has explicitly selected their delegates then I assume that it will be left to GW to determine who the remaining delegates will be.
Now ask yourself, would GW appoint the Guru as a delegate.?

Thanks for the invite to comment Bill.
I think it a lay-down misere that GW would ask the GURU to fill a vacancy.
To be clearer. Yes.



You know what they say about it walking and talking like a duck.

I have n. p. recognising I am over the hill, Bill. What I do ask is that you refrain from assuming name-calling will improve me. Mate, I have peaked out and on the decline. Keep it positive, not negative my friend.



I dont recall you publically suggesting that Matt should stop being crude and vulgar on the BB and be more pleasant.

Well, I don't have to answer this sentence because we have agreed to detente on 'default condoning'.

I am reminded of Graham Marsh's remarks when a media person asked him to comment about Rodney Marsh's excesses. he said "I am not my brother's keeper", :P


As such your opinion means little.

Maybe so Bill. But you can't bring yourself to do what K. did and put me on IGNORE. ;)


regards
starter

ursogr8
28-12-2004, 01:46 PM
Astutely observed Bill.
Of course confusion remains as to whether their is a difference between CV and GW opinion, which of course, opens up questions about democracy in Victorian chess circles.

fg7
And which of course 'opens up questions as to why affiliated voters decline to cast a vote, or stand for office'.
The MCC is the second largest club in Victoria, but apparently declines to participate in the CV AGM. Why?

starter

Bill Gletsos
28-12-2004, 02:22 PM
Thanks for the invite to comment Bill.
I think it a lay-down misere that GW would ask the GURU to fill a vacancy.
To be clearer. Yes.
I always thought jammo was the guru's mentor.
GW always seemed more circumspect with regards any support.
As such your view on this would differ from mine.

Paul S
28-12-2004, 02:24 PM
Well, it looks like it will be Jessop 21 versus Cordover 1 (instead of 22-0). Still a thrashing.

Cat
28-12-2004, 10:41 PM
Hey, I was walking to work this morning and suddenly, for whatever reason, I remembered a game played between Andrew Allen and Solomon at the 1999 Aus Open.

Anyone know where Allen is now? He also used to look after our BB all those moons ago.

AR

He's alive & well, living on the Gold Coast. He doesn't play any chess anymore, but he does still frequent the BB under a cunning alias.

ursogr8
29-12-2004, 07:17 AM
I always thought jammo was the guru's mentor.
GW always seemed more circumspect with regards any support.
As such your view on this would differ from mine.


:naughty: Bill

I did not even hint that GW would have the GURU as delegate for any other rational reason than that there is likely to be a vacancy and that the GURU would be an adequate, available, candidate to fill the vacancy.At no stage did I use the word mentor.
We have different views on this only if your differ > on, being the reason.

You originally asked "Now ask yourself, would GW appoint the Guru as a delegate.?"

I responded with certainty "Yes". And the reason for certainty is GWs strength in adopting rational reason, not mentorship.

starter

Bill Gletsos
29-12-2004, 11:43 AM
:naughty: Bill

I did not even hint that GW would have the GURU as delegate for any other rational reason than that there is likely to be a vacancy and that the GURU would be an adequate, available, candidate to fill the vacancy.
Maybe, maybe not.
He might feel its better to be one delegate short.


At no stage did I use the word mentor.
I dont believe I suggested you did.


We have different views on this only if your differ > on, being the reason.

You originally asked "Now ask yourself, would GW appoint the Guru as a delegate.?"

I responded with certainty "Yes". And the reason for certainty is GWs strength in adopting rational reason, not mentorship.
The problem was, you gave absolutely no reason for you unequivocal yes.
I assumed that this was because you believed GW supported the Guru.
I see now that this was not your reasoning.

ursogr8
29-12-2004, 11:57 AM
He might feel its better to be one delegate short.

I ran it by the other lone representative of the Punter's Club. He advised you not to bet on it Bill.



I dont believe I suggested you did.
^
Then it is hard to reconcile with >

I always thought jammo was the guru's mentor.
GW always seemed more circumspect with regards any support.
As such your view on this would differ from mine.

So what view is different from mine?
I think it is a certainty that GW will fill an otherwise vacancy with the GURU as delegate, if the GURU is available.



The problem was, you gave absolutely no reason for you unequivocal yes.
I assumed that this was because you believed GW supported the Guru.
I see now that this was not your reasoning.

The wheel has come a full circle. You are now the one making incorrect assumptions

regards
starter

Bill Gletsos
29-12-2004, 12:17 PM
I ran it by the other lone representative of the Punter's Club. He advised you not to bet on it Bill.
Perhaps.


So what view is different from mine?
I think it is a certainty that GW will fill an otherwise vacancy with the GURU as delegate, if the GURU is available.
That is where we differ.



The wheel has come a full circle. You are now the one making incorrect assumptions
True, but it was your fault for originally not providing a reason, thereby encouraging speculation. ;)

ursogr8
29-12-2004, 12:21 PM
True, but it was your fault for originally not providing a reason, thereby encouraging speculation. ;)

Think I might just store this ^ posting principle away in my Bill_file. ;)

starter

Bill Gletsos
29-12-2004, 12:44 PM
Think I might just store this ^ posting principle away in my Bill_file. ;)
Mind you, if what you had said was an actual fact then you wouldnt need to have given a reason. ;)

ursogr8
29-12-2004, 12:58 PM
Mind you, if what you had said was an actual fact then you wouldnt need to have given a reason. ;)

Mind you, if what you had assumed was an actual fact then you wouldn’t need to be stone-walling. ;)

ursogr8
29-12-2004, 03:56 PM
He might feel its better to be one delegate short.


Then again, he might feel it wise to not be one delegate short, but require all Mexican delegates to vote as directed; even in the Prez. vote.
:hmm: :uhoh:

starter

Garvinator
29-12-2004, 04:05 PM
Then again, he might feel it wise to not be one delegate short, but require all Mexican delegates to vote as directed; even in the Prez. vote.
:hmm: :uhoh:

starter
but which direction is that ;)

ursogr8
29-12-2004, 04:53 PM
but which direction is that ;)

:eek: :doh: :rolleyes:
gg''
In the direction that he voted when the motion for the current Mt B. was put forward.

starter

ursogr8
29-12-2004, 07:15 PM
Of course confusion remains as to whether their is a difference between CV and GW opinion, which of course, opens up questions about democracy in Victorian chess circles.

fg7

I think I share your misgivings about the democracy deficiency in Victoria.
Not because I agree with your contention that GW nominates the delegates (as I posted originally in response to your post...this is easily solved by MCC putting fwd a few candidates).
What I object to is being directed how to vote, as a bloc.
We might as well write our x proxies for one Mexican to table, and the rest of us attend the Lightning instead.
Count me in if you want to object to bloc voting. It is an insult.

starter

Paul S
29-12-2004, 09:22 PM
What I object to is being directed how to vote, as a bloc.
We might as well write our x proxies for one Mexican to table, and the rest of us attend the Lightning instead.
Count me in if you want to object to bloc voting. It is an insult.
starter

Things must have changed in the last 2 years!

When I was at the January 2003 ACF Conference, I got the impression that the Vics were independently minded. For example, on Jammo's ACF Commission proposal, the Vics voted 3-2 in favour of it (whereas NSW voted as a bloc 7-0 against).

ursogr8
30-12-2004, 01:29 PM
Things must have changed in the last 2 years!

When I was at the January 2003 ACF Conference, I got the impression that the Vics were independently minded. For example, on Jammo's ACF Commission proposal, the Vics voted 3-2 in favour of it (whereas NSW voted as a bloc 7-0 against).

PaulS

Things have certainly changed in the past 2 years.
Apparently, no problems getting enough delegates for Mexico this year. Sorry firegoat...you and I are too late, and probably the GURU too (?).
But, as the delegates are now under direction, they are effectively only proxies, not delegates. Better to play in the Lightning I say.

starter

Bill Gletsos
30-12-2004, 01:57 PM
PaulS

Things have certainly changed in the past 2 years.
Apparently, no problems getting enough delegates for Mexico this year. Sorry firegoat...you and I are too late, and probably the GURU too (?).
The Guru is not a CV Delegate.

ursogr8
30-12-2004, 02:08 PM
The Guru is not a CV Delegate.

hi Bill,
Nice day down here in Melbourne btw.
Would have been wonderful for day 5 of the cricket.
I will look around for a weather-cam shot.

Btw, thanks for leaving off the emoticon. ;)

regards
starter

Bill Gletsos
30-12-2004, 02:35 PM
Btw, thanks for leaving off the emoticon. ;)
I was just being informative.

ursogr8
30-12-2004, 04:59 PM
I was just being informative.

Bill

Not only informative, but accurate as well. :clap:


Just musing, ...but if the vote goes 22-0 as Paulie suggests, then
> why would VICTORIA want proxy delegate discipline?
>> why is no Mexican defending this backroom cabal?


starter

cincinnatus
30-12-2004, 11:13 PM
What I object to is being directed how to vote, as a bloc.
We might as well write our x proxies for one Mexican to table, and the rest of us attend the Lightning instead.
Count me in if you want to object to bloc voting. It is an insult.


But, as the delegates are now under direction, they are effectively only proxies, not delegates. Better to play in the Lightning I say.


Things must have changed in the last 2 years!
When I was at the January 2003 ACF Conference, I got the impression that the Vics were independently minded. For example, on Jammo's ACF Commission proposal, the Vics voted 3-2 in favour of it (whereas NSW voted as a bloc 7-0 against).
Only one delegate from each Association can hold a second proxy vote.

I, too, am surprised to hear that the CV delegates are now under direction, since as recently as January 2004 (Adelaide) GW talked against bloc voting.

By the way, the delegates have to have been nominated "(in writing) ... not less than seven days before the date on which the Conference is scheduled to start" (ACF Constitution, Clause 10.i.), so presumably they each (and anyone else they care to tell) will know who they all are tomorrow (31 Dec.). This clause is often "bent" however, to suit the Council, as it was for the CAWA delegate at Adelaide 2004.

Bill Gletsos
30-12-2004, 11:53 PM
Bill

Not only informative, but accurate as well. :clap:


Just musing, ...but if the vote goes 22-0 as Paulie suggests, then
> why would VICTORIA want proxy delegate discipline?
>> why is no Mexican defending this backroom cabal?


starter
But isnt the CV executive elected at your AGM by the club delgares to run CV as they see fit.
As such does that not mean that if the executive decide to vote as a block, that is their decision. Even if the CV executive decides to split its vote say 3-2 then if the delegates are not all members of the CV executive, is it not correct that the CV executive direct them how to vote.

Since the CV constitution is not available on the CV web site its a bit hard to know if I have made any false assumptions, however if I have I'm sure you will enlighten me. ;)

ursogr8
31-12-2004, 06:53 AM
But isnt the CV executive elected at your AGM by the club delgares to run CV as they see fit.

Good morning Bill

You always come at questions from the legalistic and rules point of view.

Consider to the contrary, an individual (call him Bert) who stands at the AGM and says I offer to represent your (all affiliated players) interest if you vote me onto the Executive. And let us add a hypothetical that 3 candidates for ACF Secretary are known; they are v1, v2, and T. Further let us add the hypothetical that the AGM (of club delegates) decide to indicate their preferred preference for ACF voting; and that they indicate 5%, 48%, 47% as their preference.
A week later, the Executive meet and decide to bloc vote for v1 (who is a drinking mate of all the Executive, bar Bert). Bert is in a quandary; to represent his constituency (the club delegates who voted him in at the AGM) he feels he should vote v2. But the Executive is directing him to vote v1; as per your.

Personally, I think if a delegate is elected to represent a constituency's interest then I think he should be free to exercise his judgement. The only time I would feel he should feel comfortable being directed by an Executiive is if a STATE issue is significant and threatening to the welfare of the whole. For example, the ACF Commission issue.


For the current, 2005 vote, given Paulie' forecast of 22-0 then a free vote for delegates would have left democracy in place, but without a directed deficiency.




As such does that not mean that if the executive decide to vote as a block, that is their decision. Even if the CV executive decides to split its vote say 3-2 then if the delegates are not all members of the CV executive, is it not correct that the CV executive direct them how to vote.

There is a non-Executive member who should feel really cranky about being told how to vote this time.


Since the CV constitution is not available on the CV web site its a bit hard to know if I have made any false assumptions, however if I have I'm sure you will enlighten me. ;)

Nice link of argument to previous Bill. And yes, if the Cat and Dog ACT says XXX (as Gazza's usually do :rolleyes: ) then XXX must prevail...on this occasion...because we are all good corporate citizens in Mexico. But that would mean I would have to MOVE at the 2005 AGM to replace XXX with WWW, to re-establish fairness of representation.

starter

ps A logical consequence of supporting bloc voting would be for the ACF to change its rules to allow Gazza to carry the bloc proxies into the ACF National Conference and let the other Mexican delegates play chess in the Lightning ( or in one case...to remain in Melbourne and swim laps of the pool).

Bill Gletsos
31-12-2004, 06:23 PM
Good morning Bill

You always come at questions from the legalistic and rules point of view.

Consider to the contrary, an individual (call him Bert) who stands at the AGM and says I offer to represent your (all affiliated players) interest if you vote me onto the Executive. And let us add a hypothetical that 3 candidates for ACF Secretary are known; they are v1, v2, and T. Further let us add the hypothetical that the AGM (of club delegates) decide to indicate their preferred preference for ACF voting; and that they indicate 5%, 48%, 47% as their preference.
As you note thats a hypothetical that didnt happen.


A week later, the Executive meet and decide to bloc vote for v1 (who is a drinking mate of all the Executive, bar Bert). Bert is in a quandary; to represent his constituency (the club delegates who voted him in at the AGM) he feels he should vote v2. But the Executive is directing him to vote v1; as per your.
But since your hypothetical didnt happen, then surely the executive is free to determine how any CV delegates will vote on the issues.


Nice link of argument to previous Bill. And yes, if the Cat and Dog ACT says XXX (as Gazza's usually do :rolleyes: ) then XXX must prevail...on this occasion...because we are all good corporate citizens in Mexico. But that would mean I would have to MOVE at the 2005 AGM to replace XXX with WWW, to re-establish fairness of representation.
That presumes that the representation was previously unrepresenative. That may well not be the case.


ps A logical consequence of supporting bloc voting would be for the ACF to change its rules to allow Gazza to carry the bloc proxies into the ACF National Conference and let the other Mexican delegates play chess in the Lightning ( or in one case...to remain in Melbourne and swim laps of the pool).
Since all delegates are selected by their associations there is possibly no reason why a state should not be allowed to have one delegate exercise all its voting rights if the association so chooses.

ursogr8
31-12-2004, 07:38 PM
As you note thats a hypothetical that didnt happen.

Bill
I made up the hypothetical to make the issue interesting. The hypothetical was essentially this question: >

'An individual is elected to the CV Committee to represent the voters who put him/her there (probably about 50 Club delegates). How can he do that if he later becomes directed by an Executive (less than 10) whose members may not even belong to the affiliated Clubs.'

Can you not agree Bill that such an individual should be given a free vote in the interest of representing the people who put him there?




Since all delegates are selected by their associations there is possibly no reason why a state should not be allowed to have one delegate exercise all its voting rights if the association so chooses.

Thanks Bill
This is informative.
Next year I will hand my proxy to Gazza and proceed straight to the Lightning. It seems to me being a delegate is pointless.

regards
starter

Garvinator
31-12-2004, 07:45 PM
Thanks Bill
This is informative.
Next year I will hand my proxy to Gazza and proceed straight to the Lightning. It seems to me being a delegate is pointless.

regards
starter
here is a better suggestion, instead of complaining on here about possible bloc voting and being directed against your will to do so, why not tell GW that you agree with him and you will not vote the way you are being directed as you have a club to represent.

Unless you are scared to tell GW what you really think or are just trying to fill some air time.

I am sick of hearing this issue regarding CV bloc voting and blaming GW cause for all the wasted typing time, it could be better and more productively spent, by either telling him that you dont agree with him and wont do what he says, or not being a delegate and making it known to all and sundry as to why you wont be a delegate.

Or a bigger action would be to vote him off the CV council. But that would require actually getting your hands dirty and maybe looking bad for a few days :doh:

ursogr8
31-12-2004, 08:07 PM
here is a better suggestion, instead of complaining on here about possible bloc voting and being directed against your will to do so, why not tell GW that you agree with him and you will not vote the way you are being directed as you have a club to represent.

Well, well gg''
There is a tone about your whole post that doesn't sound like you? Sort of an exasperation about it? Reading this thread is not compulsory by the way.
Now, calmly...above...where you wrote agree...did you mean disagree?


Unless you are scared to tell GW what you really think

No. In fact, I think sometimes he asks me questions because I give the contrary view. We call it a sounding board in Mexico




or are just trying to fill some air time.

Well, yes...totally guilty on this front mate. Just filling in time till the Mt B results go up and I can calculate the last competitive index for 2004.


I am sick of hearing this issue regarding CV bloc voting and blaming GW cause for all the wasted typing time, it could be better and more productively spent, by either telling him that you dont agree with him and wont do what he says, or not being a delegate and making it known to all and sundry as to why you wont be a delegate.

Mate. I only heard on 29/12 that bloc voting is required; have not you been following this thread.
Next time I see him I will tell him I don't like bloc voting.


Or a bigger action would be to vote him off the CV council.
Now this is forgetful of you. I pointed out to fg7 and his West Bromwich Albion mate, at length, that Gazza was our hardest and best worker in Mexico. I can still disagree with individual decisions.


But that would require actually getting your hands dirty and maybe looking bad for a few days :doh:

What is the agenda on this sentence gg''?

HNY
starter

Bill Gletsos
31-12-2004, 08:47 PM
Bill
I made up the hypothetical to make the issue interesting. The hypothetical was essentially this question: >

'An individual is elected to the CV Committee to represent the voters who put him/her there (probably about 50 Club delegates). How can he do that if he later becomes directed by an Executive (less than 10) whose members may not even belong to the affiliated Clubs.'

Can you not agree Bill that such an individual should be given a free vote in the interest of representing the people who put him there?
Let him state he will not be part of any block vote.
In that case if the CV executive decide to block vote anyway they can just not pick him as a delegate and pick delegates who will vote as instructed.



Thanks Bill
This is informative.
Next year I will hand my proxy to Gazza and proceed straight to the Lightning. It seems to me being a delegate is pointless.
Not possible as the Constitution does not allow it.

Ian Rout
31-12-2004, 08:57 PM
So what happens if a delegate fails to vote as directed? Can the delegation leader or State body over-ride the delegate's vote, or sack the delegate before the next agenda item? Or is it all too late, apart from not selecting the delegate next time if the same faction is still in power?

I understand that that there have been rare cases of voters in the US Electoral College not voting for "their" man, which may be (very roughly) analogous.

Garvinator
31-12-2004, 08:59 PM
Well, well gg''
There is a tone about your whole post that doesn't sound like you? Sort of an exasperation about it? Reading this thread is not compulsory by the way.
Now, calmly...above...where you wrote agree...did you mean disagree? actually it is very much like me, tired of ppl whinging about things but doing nothing really about it. Yes I do mean disagree.


Well, yes...totally guilty on this front mate. Just filling in time till the Mt B results go up and I can calculate the last competitive index for 2004. that wont be happening till tomorrow morning at least as all other members of the organising/arbiting team have decided to go to the nye party before finishing the tasks required. :(



Mate. I only heard on 29/12 that bloc voting is required; have not you been following this thread.
Next time I see him I will tell him I don't like bloc voting. briefly following but not in explicite detail, just that it sounds very much the same arguments that fg7 makes about cv structure and I would rather something really be done about it instead of complaining about it in a forum that will result in nothing at all. I know I am not forced to read this thread, but it seems to be the only thread that is discussing anything half worthwhile and relevant to myself.



Now this is forgetful of you. I pointed out to fg7 and his West Bromwich Albion mate, at length, that Gazza was our hardest and best worker in Mexico. I can still disagree with individual decisions. not at all, i remember this conversation and thread, just that i believe that everyone doing small amounts in areas they are good at is better than one person doing everything. When one person does everything, there is no real infrastructure for when that person does leave, especially if they depart suddenly.


What is the agenda on this sentence gg''? the agenda is a wide one that i am tired of ppl bitching everywhere except in the official channels that can actually change things, but when someone does raise their complaints by the official channels, they get blackballed etc(not sure right word, you can work it out).

Spiny Norman
31-12-2004, 09:22 PM
starter, how is this any different to a party room vote in Canberra (either Libs or Labor, take your pick)?

Everyone goes behind closed doors and the arguing takes place there. But once the arguments have been put and the party room votes there is concensus at least to the external viewer.

Once you get into the Parliament, you vote as one. Its all about solidarity. I've had a bit to do with the Lib side of things at grassroots and they are always on the lookout for sensible, articulate voices who will put an alternate viewpoint. That is encouraged. But not in the Parliament, only in the party room.

Maybe chess has grown up the same way. One observation: not voting as a bloc looks a bit silly to me. 3 for, 1 against, 1 abstention ... or whatever ... makes us Mexicans look as though we can't make our minds up. If other states ARE voting in blocs we have to play that game too or simply become irrelevant in the voting because those that work in blocs weild much more power.

ursogr8
31-12-2004, 09:52 PM
Let him state he will not be part of any block vote.
In that case if the CV executive decide to block vote anyway they can just not pick him as a delegate and pick delegates who will vote as instructed.

hi Bill
HNY by the way.
Yes, I realised late in the afternoon that as a President you would be keen on party discipline, and hence a block vote.
What you have said has in fact happened in Mexico this year.
So be it you say. Or 'tough titties the man from the GONG would say.

My point is that someone elected by 50 Club delegates to represent them in a vote for ACF Prez. (in which STATE interests I would have thought is not a factor) is denied the chance to represent his constituency, unless he votes with the cabal.
But clearly I am in the minority thinking this way judging by the (b) heavy weights are willing to equate democracy with party discipline

starter

ursogr8
31-12-2004, 09:59 PM
So what happens if a delegate fails to vote as directed?

If I was the delegate, and received a direction, then I would hand back my baton. When I offer to be a delegate I offer to represent people.

Ian, your question is valid; it just wouldn't happen to me because I would declare my dilemma to the State President.




Can the delegation leader or State body over-ride the delegate's vote, or sack the delegate before the next agenda item? Or is it all too late, apart from not selecting the delegate next time if the same faction is still in power?


Again, good questions that deserve discussion. Personally i don't think the delegate should let the embarassment happen.


I understand that that there have been rare cases of voters in the US Electoral College not voting for "their" man, which may be (very roughly) analogous.

Just because political parties have discipline does not mean that Club delegates should have the same ethics, in my (rather solitary it seems) view.


starter

ursogr8
31-12-2004, 10:06 PM
actually it is very much like me, tired of ppl whinging about things but doing nothing really about it. Yes I do mean disagree.

gg''
I think only BD has called me a whinger; must be a QLD thing?

Actually, I thought I was defending a point of view and ethics...but if you see it as whinging then....................then...................the n....................look away now.




briefly following but not in explicite detail, just that it sounds very much the same arguments that fg7 makes about cv structure and I would rather something really be done about it instead of complaining about it in a forum that will result in nothing at all. I know I am not forced to read this thread, but it seems to be the only thread that is discussing anything half worthwhile and relevant to myself.

fg7's main issues have been
> COI of the commericals on the EXECUTIVE
>> how to get tournaments allocated to MCC
>>> Gazza has been there too long
>>>> artefacts in the backroom at MCC.

Nothing to do with block voting.
You judge if you have been paying attention.




not at all, i remember this conversation and thread, just that i believe that everyone doing small amounts in areas they are good at is better than one person doing everything. When one person does everything, there is no real infrastructure for when that person does leave, especially if they depart suddenly.

We all agree that it would be better if we had more volunteers at STATE level.


the agenda is a wide one that i am tired of ppl bitching everywhere except in the official channels that can actually change things, but when someone does raise their complaints by the official channels, they get blackballed etc(not sure right word, you can work it out).
I can't speak for the general populus you address. personally I put all my views to Gazza. I think he does a great lot of work.

starter

ursogr8
31-12-2004, 10:08 PM
starter, how is this any different to a party room vote in Canberra (either Libs or Labor, take your pick)?

Everyone goes behind closed doors and the arguing takes place there. But once the arguments have been put and the party room votes there is concensus at least to the external viewer.

Once you get into the Parliament, you vote as one. Its all about solidarity. I've had a bit to do with the Lib side of things at grassroots and they are always on the lookout for sensible, articulate voices who will put an alternate viewpoint. That is encouraged. But not in the Parliament, only in the party room.

Maybe chess has grown up the same way. One observation: not voting as a bloc looks a bit silly to me. 3 for, 1 against, 1 abstention ... or whatever ... makes us Mexicans look as though we can't make our minds up. If other states ARE voting in blocs we have to play that game too or simply become irrelevant in the voting because those that work in blocs weild much more power.

Frosty
If you have to use an analogy (Federal politics) to make your point then to be honest I think you are lazy on this question.
Go and let off some crackers with kids in the back-yard.

HNY
regards
starter

ursogr8
31-12-2004, 10:19 PM
gg''

Listen mate....you know that thread you started on post-counts, and obsessions. As the thread owner, and as the year is coming to an end.........what about say listing the top 10 posters and their counts?


While you are at it...a few differentials too.
Eg...between 2nd and 3rd.

HNY
regards
starter

ps......see I can post on interesting topics without whinging. ;)

Bill Gletsos
01-01-2005, 12:18 AM
So what happens if a delegate fails to vote as directed? Can the delegation leader or State body over-ride the delegate's vote, or sack the delegate before the next agenda item?
The ACF constitution recognises who is authorised to appoint a states delegates. It would seem reasonable that the person authorised to appoint the delegates can also un-appoint them and the constutution does not restrict this from happening.

Bill Gletsos
01-01-2005, 12:37 AM
hi Bill
HNY by the way.[/quote
HNY to you too.

[QUOTE=starter]Yes, I realised late in the afternoon that as a President you would be keen on party discipline, and hence a block vote.
Actually there have been times when I have been the NSW ACF Council delegate and I have recommended to the NSWCA Council that NSW do not block vote at a National Conference. One case was on a vote regarding the ACF admin fee. If I recall the NSWCA Council decided to require our delegates to vote 5-2 in favour of the fee.


What you have said has in fact happened in Mexico this year.
So be it you say. Or 'tough titties the man from the GONG would say.

My point is that someone elected by 50 Club delegates to represent them in a vote for ACF Prez. (in which STATE interests I would have thought is not a factor) is denied the chance to represent his constituency, unless he votes with the cabal.
Unless that someone went and asked the 50 delegates how they would want him to vote on the matter then he is only voting as he believes. Thats no different from the other members of the CV executive.
In fact how would this delegate who only has one vote at a CV executive meeting vote if 30 of the 50 delegates said vote for A and 20 said vote for B.
If he votes A he is ignoring 40% of his backers. If he votes B he is ignoring 60%. Either way he is failing to represent part of his constituency.
What happens when the remainder of the CV executive want to vote for B.

I would argue that the person has put his view at the meeting but was unable to convince a majority of other CV executive members to support either his view or that CV should vote proportionally instead of as a block.
In the end thats how democracy works.

ursogr8
01-01-2005, 07:18 AM
Actually there have been times when I have been the NSW ACF Council delegate and I have recommended to the NSWCA Council that NSW do not block vote at a National Conference. One case was on a vote regarding the ACF admin fee. If I recall the NSWCA Council decided to require our delegates to vote 5-2 in favour of the fee.

Bill
Thanks for your response. There is no doubt you are in the majority. And many feel like you say 'if a delegate doesn't like being directed then he shouldn't be a delegate'. And look, on the 5-2 example you give, I think that was fair enough.......if I recall Graham G travelled Australia explaining it all...and then at STATE level there were briefing sessions and various votes to test the concept......so I would probably feel comfortable that 5-2 expressed the will of the constituency.

But if it was sprung on you at the 30/12 for a vote in a far away place on 1/1, do you feel the same?



Unless that someone went and asked the 50 delegates how they would want him to vote on the matter then he is only voting as he believes.

Yes, that is what is called 'being representatitive', but not having a plebiscite on each and every issue'.


Thats no different from the other members of the CV executive.

Correct...they are each representative.


In fact how would this delegate who only has one vote at a CV executive meeting vote if 30 of the 50 delegates said vote for A and 20 said vote for B.

Under my code of behaviour, he would listen to the arguments being put by other STATES, and he would factor in what he has heard and seen voted at his own State, and then he would exercise JUDGEMENT in the national vote. That is what is expected of him by the 50. (Not to alterntively take direction from a cabal).



If he votes A he is ignoring 40% of his backers. If he votes B he is ignoring 60%. Either way he is failing to represent part of his constituency.

No. He is just failing to have a national vote that goes 0.6:0.4.
What he can achieve is to represent the 50 as I described in the previous para.


What happens when the remainder of the CV executive want to vote for B.
This is a hypothetical you are putting. Do you realise that Bill? You refused my hypothetical yesterday. :(
And I am discounting yours until you specify additional conditions. (Has there been consultation like the Graham G example above? Is there a STATE benefit from voting A or B...or is this just a national issue essentially).


I would argue that the person has put his view at the meeting but was unable to convince a majority of other CV executive members to support either his view or that CV should vote proportionally instead of as a block.
In the end thats how democracy works.

Well, not exactly Bill.
Sometimes votes are also 'free conscience' instead of proportional, or Block.

regards
starter

ps I wish Chesslover were here to argue this political stuff.
ps I hope you have not read this far gg''; this is not a good topic for you. :uhoh:

Spiny Norman
01-01-2005, 07:47 AM
Frosty
If you have to use an analogy (Federal politics) to make your point then to be honest I think you are lazy on this question.

I am just disagreeing with the proposition that because 50 members voted for you to represent them with a certain point of view that this point of view must flow through all levels of the democratic process until it results in your sinigle vote being cast at the national conference.

If you think that's lazy, that's up to you. :hand:

ursogr8
01-01-2005, 09:04 AM
I am just disagreeing with the proposition that because 50 members voted for you to represent them with a certain point of view that this point of view must flow through all levels of the democratic process until it results in your sinigle vote being cast at the national conference.

If you think that's lazy, that's up to you. :hand:

Steve

I don't have a problem you disagreeing with me. And you are in good company.

What I had a problem with is the style of argument you used. When you introduce an analogy in as a debating point, it is a pain. This because the central debate nearly always diverges into peripheral debate about whether the analogy is relevant. And frankly that is usually boring and inefficient. (Now I know you like efficiency. ;) )

I retract the word lazy. Apology. And I substitute the word inefficient.

Keep posting.

regards
starter

ps I know you like posters to try to find points of agreement. I have set it as a personal NYR.

Ian Rout
01-01-2005, 09:43 AM
Just because political parties have discipline does not mean that Club delegates should have the same ethics, in my (rather solitary it seems) view.
starter
I wasn't suggesting the Electoral College as necessarily telling us anything, just a more interesting analogy than a parliament in that the EC voters are sent there to determine a small number of issues which are known in advance.

I don't have a strong view on the question at hand (chess is hard enough without trying to follow ACF politics too) but the discussion does raise the question of whether there is any longer a need for delegates - could each State just have a certain number of votes and phone them in?

Spiny Norman
01-01-2005, 02:37 PM
(Now I know you like efficiency. ;) )
<snip>
Keep posting.


Trevor, the Happy New Year is reciprocated! I think I was negligent in failing to acknowledge that last time ... sorry.

I do like efficiency, so in the interests of efficiency I will be as focused as possible without resorting to analogies.

My question:

Is there an online resource, or a document in anyone's possession, that outlines the decision-making structure/processes that lead up to the ACF National Conference on a state-by-state basis? I have tried a few Google searches, but all they tend to show up is discussion threads on this board and I am unsure as to whether I can rely upon all the opinions expressed in those somewhat wide-ranging discussions.

I'm hoping I don't have to read a bunch of state constitutions to acquire this information. From what I have gleaned here over the past few months it seems that each state has its own process and structure. If no such document exists, perhaps it would be worthwhile getting someone to do a quick summary (spending 10 minutes, no more) and then post it here so that others (from other states) can add their comments/corrections.

I've looked at the ACF Constitution (http://www.auschess.org.au/constitution/) and noted that each state gets 1 delegate per million of population. It makes no mention there of how they are to be selected, only that they are appointed by the states. Clubs are not mentioned in that context, only states, so I would assume that the ACF intends this to be a state forum with proportional representation.

There were two clauses that got my attention:


ii. in the event of a State Association being represented by fewer than the maximum number of representatives to which it is entitled, one representative of that Association may cast one additional vote on each question;

iii. if a State Association is represented by fewer than the maximum number of representatives to which it is entitled and that Association has not notified the Federation of the name of the representative authorised by it to cast an additional vote in accordance with clause 10.l.ii, the convenor shall determine which of the representatives of that Association shall be entitled to cast such additional vote;

So it seems quite likely that the ACF founders anticipated that states might only send a single delegate who would then exercise a block vote for that state ... and they have also left open the option of multiple delegates voting different ways.

EDIT: I withdraw that ... the state gets "one additional vote" ... so if two members are missing then it seems that only one vote would be made available to another delegate to exercise, not two votes. Is that correct?

What's the right way to go? To answer a question with a question:

What is the vision/agenda of the state in question? If we're talking about Victoria, presumably we want to influence national chess policy in ways that are beneficial to Victoria.

In the normal course of events I don't think there's any point going to a national conference and delivering a message (via our votes on a motion) that "about 60% of our people are in favour and 40% against". This might change on odd occasions when a conscience vote is warranted, or where the ACF requests that the states use their votes proportionally for some specific reason.

Instead we should go there and deliver the strongest possible message "this is what Chess Victoria wants".

ursogr8
01-01-2005, 05:07 PM
I do like efficiency, so in the interests of efficiency I will be as focused as possible without resorting to analogies.

My question:

.................


Instead we should go there and deliver the strongest possible message "this is what Chess Victoria wants".

Steve

Good to see you back on air.

I have no ideas on the questions you ask. But, just watch, some will have good access to resources.

The issue on this thread started on Block votes for an election which at the time looked to go 22-0, for ACF Prez.
For the life of me I can't see why we would want a VIC position on that when a free vote is much less controversial. And no-one has posted why we should block vote as STATE, any STATE, on that question. Just high-minded appeals to 'that is how we do democracy'.

But, the issue is all over now.

regards
starter

Bill Gletsos
01-01-2005, 05:31 PM
Steve

Good to see you back on air.

I have no ideas on the questions you ask. But, just watch, some will have good access to resources.

The issue on this thread started on Block votes for an election which at the time looked to go 22-0, for ACF Prez.
For the life of me I can't see why we would want a VIC position on that when a free vote is much less controversial. And no-one has posted why we should block vote as STATE, any STATE, on that question. Just high-minded appeals to 'that is how we do democracy'.
It is fairly simple.
A state association may feel that the best respresentative for ACF prez is A instead of B. To try and ensure that A is elected it is best for that state to block vote in favour of candidate A.

Spiny Norman
01-01-2005, 05:42 PM
For the life of me I can't see why we would want a VIC position on that when a free vote is much less controversial. And no-one has posted why we should block vote as STATE, any STATE, on that question. Just high-minded appeals to 'that is how we do democracy'.

On that particular question (i.e. the presidency) you may be right and there might be no tangible benefit to a state-by-state block vote. But this might be due to my complete lack of understanding of the backroom politicking of the process.

For example, what is the history of the ACF Presidency? I've checked the ACF site but there doesn't appear to be a record of past-presidents, so I am unable to form a view as to whether it gets shared around, or whether its basically controlled by one state or another.

At any rate, if the ACF is intended to be a states forum as I suggested, then my view would be "that's just the way it is" unless there's a strong reason to take a delegate-by-delegate approach.

But as you say, its all moot now. I will be interested to read about the proceedings in due course ...

Garvinator
01-01-2005, 06:28 PM
It is fairly simple.
A state association may feel that the best respresentative for ACF prez is A instead of B. To try and ensure that A is elected it is best for that state to block vote in favour of candidate A.
also another scenario is that the delegates and council members of a state had an email discussion about who they think is the best candidate for the presidency and all agreed the same person.

Then it makes sense that it would be a 'bloc' vote with all votes going to the same person.

ursogr8
01-01-2005, 08:10 PM
also another scenario is that the delegates and council members of a state had an email discussion about who they think is the best candidate for the presidency and all agreed the same person.

Then it makes sense that it would be a 'bloc' vote with all votes going to the same person.

hi gg''

I approach posts to you on this thread with some trepidation.

Now let me see if I have got your post right before I comment,

Do you mean.....all 5 VIC delegates find from an e-mail exchange that their 'free votes', on an issue, are all going to the one side of the issue. So they decide to block vote on the issue; i.e the delegates are directed to vote that way on the issue?

starter

george
01-01-2005, 11:04 PM
Hi All,

The ACF Presidency election is for an individual who thinks they can make a very positive contribution to Australian Chess specifically initiating programs and maintaining existing chess programs which benefit Australian Chess
( Aussie Chessplayers) on the National level.
The job is quite complex with a large need of interpersonal skills , negotiating skills a large dose of patience and most important the mutual trust and respect of chess administrators around Australia , ACF Executive members and Council Delegates.

Simple really!!

Kindest Regards
George Howard

cincinnatus
02-01-2005, 07:42 PM
ACF Constitution

8.

c. President

Function: The President is the chief executive officer of the ACF.

Duties:

i. To chair Council meetings;

ii. To submit an annual report to Council and to the National Conference;

iii. To act as spokesman for the ACF;

iv. To ensure that the activities of the ACF are in accordance with the Constitution and By-Laws;

v. To ensure that the office-bearers carry out their duties;

vi. To make decisions on matters of urgency that arise between Council meetings, after consultation with as many Councillors as is reasonable in the circumstances;

vii. To abide by and carry out instructions of the Federation.

Garvinator
02-01-2005, 07:46 PM
and your point?

ursogr8
02-01-2005, 09:52 PM
and your point?

hi gg''

Not sure if your post is directed to the writer of #75 or the poster of #76?
Will wait with interest to see which responds to you.

In Cin.'s case I rarely can see the point of his posts immediately.
On this occasion I thought he was just responding #75 by quoting the cat and dog act 8c i to vii.

You ask what is the 'point' of #75 (or is that #76); but perhaps it is more relevant to ask what was the 'motive' of each post.
'Point', and 'Motive' do not always align.

Perhaps I can get the ball rolling by guessing that Cin's motive was to point out that we already have an adequate description of the ACF Prez. job, and it may be efficient to stick with that. With that in mind, what do we think the 'motive' of #75 was?


starter

Bill Gletsos
02-01-2005, 10:24 PM
hi gg''

Not sure if your post is directed to the writer of #75 or the poster of #76?
I think it is obvious that gg was referring to post #76.

ursogr8
03-01-2005, 07:41 AM
I think it is obvious that gg was referring to post #76.

Bill
Perhaps 'obvious' is at the high end of what I expected from you. I would agree with 'most likely'.

My post highlights that gg'' could equally as well asked the 'and your point?" of George's post. Because, to the reader, George's post appears just like a job description of sorts. And then Cin., in the readers eyes, gave the official job description.

However, what was the readers perspective is but one point of interest here. The motivation of Cin. and George invites speculation too. And that was my first post. I hope some of G. gg'', and Cin. comment.

starter

Bill Gletsos
03-01-2005, 10:32 AM
Bill
Perhaps 'obvious' is at the high end of what I expected from you. I would agree with 'most likely'.

My post highlights that gg'' could equally as well asked the 'and your point?" of George's post. Because, to the reader, George's post appears just like a job description of sorts. And then Cin., in the readers eyes, gave the official job description.
No, it is abundantly obvious gg was referring to cin's post as gg posted his question 4 mins after cin's post.

ursogr8
03-01-2005, 12:02 PM
No, it is abundantly obvious gg was referring to cin's post as gg posted his question 4 mins after cin's post.

If you want the upgraded abundantly obvious then stick with abundantly obvious .

It is clearly of more interest to muse on
> why did George post, at the hour he did.
>> why did gg'' see fit to ask CIN. why he posted, but not ask George (who posted less formally accurate, on the same topic).

starter

ps Are you studiously avoiding commenting on why they posted?

Bill Gletsos
03-01-2005, 12:44 PM
If you want the upgraded abundantly obvious then stick with abundantly obvious .

It is clearly of more interest to muse on
> why did George post, at the hour he did.
>> why did gg'' see fit to ask CIN. why he posted, but not ask George (who posted less formally accurate, on the same topic).

starter

ps Are you studiously avoiding commenting on why they posted?
I dont care why either posted.
However it is abundantly clear that gg's post was directed at cin.

ursogr8
03-01-2005, 03:28 PM
I dont care why either posted.
However it is abundantly clear that gg's post was directed at cin.

Bill

It is agreed then that you posted simply make clarify 6 words that were already abundantly clear . :rolleyes:

starter

Bill Gletsos
03-01-2005, 03:41 PM
Bill

It is agreed then that you posted simply make clarify 6 words that were already abundantly clear . :rolleyes:
It seems it wasnt abundantly clear to you since you said Not sure if your post is directed to the writer of #75 or the poster of #76?

ursogr8
03-01-2005, 04:05 PM
It seems it wasnt abundantly clear to you since you said Not sure if your post is directed to the writer of #75 or the poster of #76?

ok Bill,
No more Mr Nice Guy on this one.

1 You will see on post #75 that I specifically addressed it to gg''. Now, I thought we had an agreement that when I did that you would not butt in?

2 In addressing to gg'' I knew he had the wherewithall to see that I was gently chiding him for not asking the george the same question. I can write in that style to gg'' because he is not a literalist.

3 Of course it was abundantly clear; that is why I knew gg'' would look for the hidden chide.

All you have done is make clear 6 words that were abundantly clear anyway. And you have probably stopped G,gg'', and CIN from participating, unless I bump everything. :doh:


starter

Bill Gletsos
03-01-2005, 04:19 PM
ok Bill,
No more Mr Nice Guy on this one.

1 You will see on post #75 that I specifically addressed it to gg''.
Firstly it was #78 not #75. Get your act together.


Now, I thought we had an agreement that when I did that you would not butt in?
I dont believe I ever agreed to that.


2 In addressing to gg'' I knew he had the wherewithall to see that I was gently chiding him for not asking the george the same question. I can write in that style to gg'' because he is not a literalist.
I can see you lost the argument, so now you are trying to shift the focus.
gg was simply asking what cin's point was. He clearly didnt see the need to ask george the same question.


3 Of course it was abundantly clear; that is why I knew gg'' would look for the hidden chide.
Your so called hidden chide was irrelevant.
As even you said yourself "In Cin.'s case I rarely can see the point of his posts immediately.".
It was that thinking that obviously motivated gg's post.


All you have done is make clear 6 words that were abundantly clear anyway. And you have probably stopped G,gg'', and CIN from participating, unless I bump everything. :doh:
I doubt gg could be bothered responding. As for cin he often just posts and leaves it at that.

antichrist
03-01-2005, 04:37 PM
It may be politically incorrect to describe as such but you are all carrying on like a pack of girls out in the school yard:

You said this
No I didn't I said that
You pulled my hair
You wear a g string
your boyfriend .crewed me
you have the jack
you drama queen
blah blah

Bill Gletsos
03-01-2005, 04:52 PM
It may be politically incorrect to describe as such but you are all carrying on like a pack of girls out in the school yard:

You said this
No I didn't I said that
You pulled my hair
You wear a g string
your boyfriend .crewed me
you have the jack
you drama queen
blah blah
Why dont you just stick to your usual crap in the non chess related threads.

cincinnatus
03-01-2005, 11:16 PM
First the point of my original post (#47) in this thread.


By the way, the delegates have to have been nominated "(in writing) ... not less than seven days before the date on which the Conference is scheduled to start" (ACF Constitution, Clause 10.i.), so presumably they each (and anyone else they care to tell) will know who they all are tomorrow (31 Dec.). This clause is often "bent" however, to suit the Council, as it was for the CAWA delegate at Adelaide 2004.

I included a specific case to circumvent my being accused of "unfounded idle speculation by an anonymous poster" (Bill Gletsos) or again labelled "a total idiot ... anything (I) say (being) false" (Kevin Bonham).

Further examples of the "bending" of 10.i.: The last Melbourne ACF Conference (2002), when the CAQ failed to nominate all of its delegates before the deadline, but were allowed full representation. Similarly, SACA at Sydney, 1993.

My point is this: That DC would have been wise to (perhaps he did) find out who all the Conference delegates were immediatley after the deadline for nominations on 31 January, since some State Associations have a history of not being entirely assiduous in the submission of their nominations.

It would support "appearances" if the Convenor of the National Conference were not a member of the ACF Council.

There is no way the vote for ACF President will be 22-0, because there will almost certainly be no vote from CANT and possibly, if the Constitution were followed, fewer than the full quota of votes from one or more other Associations. Which is not to say that the vote won't fall 100% one way.

I would have thought that this earlier post deserved comment, more than my #76, but since ggrayggray asks about the point of the latter it is simply this: I took mild exception to george's "rewriting" of his job description, given it's clear definition in the ACF Constitution and given the way the same Constitution has been bent willfully, with little regard for accountability, privilege or transparency, to place the proceeds and profits of an ACF event in private hands.

ursogr8
04-01-2005, 07:07 AM
First the point of my original post (#47) in this thread.



I included a specific case to circumvent my being accused of "unfounded idle speculation by an anonymous poster" (Bill Gletsos) or again labelled "a total idiot ... anything (I) say (being) false" (Kevin Bonham).

Further examples of the "bending" of 10.i.: The last Melbourne ACF Conference (2002), when the CAQ failed to nominate all of its delegates before the deadline, but were allowed full representation. Similarly, SACA at Sydney, 1993.

My point is this: That DC would have been wise to (perhaps he did) find out who all the Conference delegates were immediatley after the deadline for nominations on 31 January, since some State Associations have a history of not being entirely assiduous in the submission of their nominations.

It would support "appearances" if the Convenor of the National Conference were not a member of the ACF Council.

There is no way the vote for ACF President will be 22-0, because there will almost certainly be no vote from CANT and possibly, if the Constitution were followed, fewer than the full quota of votes from one or more other Associations. Which is not to say that the vote won't fall 100% one way.

I would have thought that this earlier post deserved comment, more than my #76, but since ggrayggray asks about the point of the latter it is simply this: I took mild exception to george's "rewriting" of his job description, given it's clear definition in the ACF Constitution and given the way the same Constitution has been bent willfully, with little regard for accountability, privilege or transparency, to place the proceeds and profits of an ACF event in private hands.
hi Mr Cin.

This probably a first for me; I have understood the intent of one of your posts, viz you took mild exception to george's "rewriting" of his job description.

I am interested why gg'' did not ask george, rather than you, as to the point of the post.
And I don't think george posted for the reason you give...a re-write of the job description.
But, we may have to be patient for the answers.

starter

Bill Gletsos
04-01-2005, 10:36 AM
First the point of my original post (#47) in this thread.



I included a specific case to circumvent my being accused of "unfounded idle speculation by an anonymous poster" (Bill Gletsos) or again labelled "a total idiot ... anything (I) say (being) false" (Kevin Bonham).

Further examples of the "bending" of 10.i.: The last Melbourne ACF Conference (2002), when the CAQ failed to nominate all of its delegates before the deadline, but were allowed full representation. Similarly, SACA at Sydney, 1993.

My point is this: That DC would have been wise to (perhaps he did) find out who all the Conference delegates were immediatley after the deadline for nominations on 31 January, since some State Associations have a history of not being entirely assiduous in the submission of their nominations.
I suspect you mean December 31st.


It would support "appearances" if the Convenor of the National Conference were not a member of the ACF Council.
There is no constitutional requirement for the convenor to be a non Council member.


There is no way the vote for ACF President will be 22-0, because there will almost certainly be no vote from CANT and possibly, if the Constitution were followed, fewer than the full quota of votes from one or more other Associations. Which is not to say that the vote won't fall 100% one way.
There are 23 votes if the CANT is included.
Prior to the deadline all 22 delegates have been nominated.


I would have thought that this earlier post deserved comment, more than my #76, but since ggrayggray asks about the point of the latter it is simply this: I took mild exception to george's "rewriting" of his job description, given it's clear definition in the ACF Constitution
I think George was simply stating what he saw as some necessary skills. I certainly didnt take it that he was, as you put it "rewriting" his job description as layed out in the constitution.


and given the way the same Constitution has been bent willfully, with little regard for accountability, privilege or transparency, to place the proceeds and profits of an ACF event in private hands.
You dont seem to understand the difference between the ACF Constitution and the ACF By-laws. There is nothing in the constitution that has any bearing on the awarding of who is eligible to run an ACF event.
You also fail to include the the prospect of any losses in your "place the proceeds and profits of an ACF event in private hands".

ursogr8
04-01-2005, 11:14 AM
I think George was simply stating what he saw as some necessary skills. I certainly didnt take it that he was, as you put it "rewriting" his job description as layed out in the constitution.



hi Bill

Have you moved from your previous position >

I dont care why either posted.


to this new position? (Post # 92)

So, now you have two thoughts on why george posted
> simply stating what he saw as some necessary skills
>> not.........."rewriting" his job description .

Your new position is more interesting from my point of view. ;)

starter

Ian Rout
04-01-2005, 11:31 AM
Has the list of the Magnificent 22 been posted somewhere? This would assist those wanting to think about betting on the outcome while waiting for the cricket to recommence.

ursogr8
04-01-2005, 11:40 AM
Has the list of the Magnificent 22 been posted somewhere? This would assist those wanting to think about betting on the outcome while waiting for the cricket to recommence.

The Punters Club (two members only today) has already speculated that the most bettable statistic is 'how many informal/abstain' votes.


But, look Ian, if you want to specify just which outcome interests you, we will think about odds.

starter

Ian Rout
04-01-2005, 12:01 PM
Alternatively just whether Informal/Abstain comes second could be a goer.

Personally I don't believe it will be 22-0 though without knowing who the voters are that's more on the basis of general considerations. I'm a very cautious gambler and I doubt that I'll know enough of the voters to feel confident, but I thought others might like to know.

Bill Gletsos
04-01-2005, 01:09 PM
hi Bill

Have you moved from your previous position >


to this new position? (Post # 92)
The positions are not mutally exclusive.
As you noted I said I didnt care why they posted, but that does not mean that I may not speculate on it.


So, now you have two thoughts on why george posted
> simply stating what he saw as some necessary skills
>> not.........."rewriting" his job description .

Your new position is more interesting from my point of view. ;)
I figured it might be.

Bill Gletsos
04-01-2005, 01:10 PM
Has the list of the Magnificent 22 been posted somewhere?
Only in emails.

ursogr8
04-01-2005, 01:16 PM
The positions are not mutally exclusive.
As you noted I said I didnt care why they posted, but that does not mean that I may not speculate on it.



Nice wriggle. :lol: :clap:
I forgot about en passant.


Of course george could reappear, he was on the bb this a.m., and put an end to the speculation. :uhoh:

ursogr8
04-01-2005, 01:19 PM
Only in emails.


Sorry Ian
My guess is that the field of runners is n.a, and so it is all bets off.
But, the good news is....the cricket is ON.

starter

eclectic
04-01-2005, 06:41 PM
What interests me in all this is why they will bother having each candidate giving a two or three? minute presentation at the conference to sell themselves.

It's not as if they can sway individual delegates, especially if these are already roped into a bloc vote, can they?

Although the underdog is perhaps already lost he may think it worth the time to plant some ideas for future consideration.

The result would seem to be misere at least ... perhaps even open misere.

Mark

(Skaro)

ursogr8
04-01-2005, 06:49 PM
What interests me in all this is why they will bother having each candidate giving a two or three? minute presentation at the conference to sell themselves.

It's not as if they can sway individual delegates, especially if these are already roped into a bloc vote, can they?

Although the underdog is perhaps already lost he may think it worth the time to plant some ideas for future consideration.

The result would seem to be misere at least ... perhaps even open misere.

Mark

(Skaro)

hi Mark

It is always hard for panels to resist a good BEAUTY PARADE, or a flashing lights DOG and PONY show. So, you can rest easy.

By the way....I thought from your signature line you had given up on such matters.

starter

cincinnatus
05-01-2005, 11:17 PM
There are 23 votes if the CANT is included.
Prior to the deadline all 22 delegates have been nominated.
Thanks for clarifying the numbers. I trust the same 22 will be present and voting at the Conference.


You dont seem to understand the difference between the ACF Constitution and the ACF By-laws. There is nothing in the constitution that has any bearing on the awarding of who is eligible to run an ACF event.
We've been through this all before.

ACF Constitution

Clause 1.c. "For the purpose of incorporation:
i. the constitution of the Federation is the objects together with the rules of the incorporated association. ..."

And admittedly by-laws are in some measure less binding than Constituional requirements. Each Council will set its own measure and the current Council has set its.


You also fail to include the the prospect of any losses in your "place the proceeds and profits of an ACF event in private hands".
Please! When in recent years has any junior event come close to losing money? They attract dedicated and voluntary work from parents, administrators and others, and are often held on school grounds at little cost with boarding accommodation attached (though this last is not true for Mt. Buller). The cash prizes have little affect on title-chasing entrants, who often descend on the venue in organised groups. Consequently, several State Associations have submitted competing bids for Australian Juniors in the last few years. Parents will support and/or travel with their kids anywhere for the Aus. Junior.

Bundling the two junior events with the Australian Open was no financial risk. In fact, debate elsewhere on this BB has now turned to the (unsurprising) possibility of a successful Junior subsidising the Open.

P.S. Would anyone on Council care to tell us the full list of delegates before the Conference?

eclectic
06-01-2005, 05:49 AM
By the way....I thought from your signature line you had given up on such matters.


starter,

You have a point.

If I were to continually dip my toe in at the edge to test the waters I might have the misfortune of falling in again were I not careful.

;)

Mark.

(Skaro)

Recherché
06-01-2005, 09:07 PM
Not much evidence of block voting at the conference, at least amongst the Victorians. In fact, I heard nothing about it either before or during the conference (apart from in this thread), and I'm pretty sure the Victorian vote was split on at least one occasion - which is a significant number, since there weren't very many votes outside the ones accepting reports, the 2005 budget, etc.

Starter:

From where did you derive the opinion that CV delegates would be voting as a directed block?

General Remark:

Someone mentioned the possibility of abstention in the presidential vote - this doesn't seem to be an option (and nor should it be, in my opinion). Besides, abstentions lose a fair amount of their meaning in a secret ballot.

auriga
07-01-2005, 10:14 AM
ACF Constitution

8.
c. President

Function: The President is the chief executive officer of the ACF.

Duties:
i. To chair Council meetings;
ii. To submit an annual report to Council and to the National Conference;
iii. To act as spokesman for the ACF;
iv. To ensure that the activities of the ACF are in accordance with the Constitution and By-Laws;
v. To ensure that the office-bearers carry out their duties;
vi. To make decisions on matters of urgency that arise between Council meetings, after consultation with as many Councillors as is reasonable in the circumstances;
vii. To abide by and carry out instructions of the Federation.


i think george was a very good
and competent president and i think everybody is grateful for his work
especially rescuing the mt buller bid and making it a success
(which lost alot of momentum half way through 2004!).

if there was one thing i would like to see state/federal chess associations
do better though it would be better communication.
for example, i would like the president to sum up each quarter they are in charge in a paragraph and publish in the acf newsletter and on the website.

at one job i remember the ceo did a quarterly update eg. new global sales won, stock price down, etc. i know this was a corporate environment but it was very worthwhile - people in any group sporting or business appreciate being in the loop. doesn't have to be too elaborate just a general summary on ongoing things (ie. regular events or items on acf agenda)
and special projects (eg. olympiad appeal). even if they weren't going too well that's ok. it's better off for people to know rather than ask through bulletin board - how it xyz going?! eg. i knew the grand prix had changed organisers mid way 2004 and was in limbo but it wasn't public knowledge.

i also think the minutes of the meetings should be put up (or agm at least).
i realise the downside is that people may pick them to pieces (meetings) but agm should be ok at least. i realise chess associations are non-profit, voluntary, etc. but i think they need to at least to look (give the perception – and attract sponspors who think we are on the move!!) or plan
to be more progressive (yearly/quarterly reports/goals, etc.)

ursogr8
07-01-2005, 11:40 AM
Not much evidence of block voting at the conference, at least amongst the Victorians. In fact, I heard nothing about it either before or during the conference (apart from in this thread), and I'm pretty sure the Victorian vote was split on at least one occasion - which is a significant number, since there weren't very many votes outside the ones accepting reports, the 2005 budget, etc.

Starter:

From where did you derive the opinion that CV delegates would be voting as a directed block?

General Remark:

Someone mentioned the possibility of abstention in the presidential vote - this doesn't seem to be an option (and nor should it be, in my opinion). Besides, abstentions lose a fair amount of their meaning in a secret ballot.

hi Rob

The first six words of your first sentence indicates there were block votes on some issues.
If you had said no evidence then you may have had a case that 'no direction' was given.
I know of 1 individual, as VIC delegate, who had to toe the party line. Given the 22-0 result and the direction to a recalcitrant individual, that amounts to a block vote in effect.
The question remains, what was in it for VIC to block vote on such a one-sided issue? What loss of benefit to VIC by allowing conscience vote on a one-sided issue? I am surprised you did not comment on this since it has been repeated as a question (in various forms) on this thread?

Is the issue significant? Well, those of us who would have liked to be a delegate, and would have liked to visit Mt. B., were not able to be delegates; instead, if we accepted 'directed status' it is essentially being reduced to a proxy on the motion for which the direction is given. Both firegoat7 and I regard this as an unnecessary reduction in democracy for the one motion.



starter

Spiny Norman
07-01-2005, 08:05 PM
i also think the minutes of the meetings should be put up (or agm at least).

At my last company we used to prepare a slightly 'sanitised' version of the minutes of the management meetings, in a form and with content suitable for general consumption. It seemed to be a positive step. I like the idea, so will have a think about adopting this practice also at our chess club. Thanks for the suggestion, its a good one.