PDA

View Full Version : OZ Champs and Juniors



firegoat7
02-04-2005, 11:41 AM
Hello Everyone,

The ACF bulletin states

"2005/2006 Australian Championships and Australian Junior Championships: The ACF has officially approved the bid of the organising committee (comprising Graeme Gardiner, Ian Murray and John Humphrey) to host both the Australian Championships and Australian Junior Championships at the Carlton Crest Hotel in central Brisbane (www.carltonhotels.com.au/brisbane/). The dates are from 28 December 2005 to 9 January 2006 inclusive."

Just out of personal curiosity-What was the official protocol for the tendering and acceptance of the bid/s?

Cheers Fg7

firegoat7
05-05-2005, 11:29 PM
Hello,

Wouldn't mind a reply to this one?

Cheers Fg7

Libby
06-05-2005, 08:26 AM
Use your noggin!

http://www.auschess.org.au/constitution/

Have a look under the allocation of tournaments bit :D I think they may have tendered the ONLY bid in the timeframe specified and it was accepted by the ACF.

Hopefully it will be a great event although we would still like to see the Aus Juniors run ALWAYS as a significant event in it's own right and with significantly different needs to those of the Aus Champs or Open.

Libby

Garvinator
06-05-2005, 11:30 AM
Use your noggin!

http://www.auschess.org.au/constitution/

Have a look under the allocation of tournaments bit :D I think they may have tendered the ONLY bid in the timeframe specified and it was accepted by the ACF. not only was it the only bid tendered, but caq was the 'host' state in the rotation schedule.


Hopefully it will be a great event although we would still like to see the Aus Juniors run ALWAYS as a significant event in it's own right and with significantly different needs to those of the Aus Champs or Open.
while for most people, running the champs/open and juniors as separate events is the way to go, for the 2006 events, cirumstances do make running the champs/reserves and juniors at the same time the way to go.

firegoat7
06-05-2005, 01:18 PM
Use your noggin!

http://www.auschess.org.au/constitution/

Have a look under the allocation of tournaments bit :D I think they may have tendered the ONLY bid in the timeframe specified and it was accepted by the ACF.

Libby

Thanks Libby!

So, here is the next question- How are states or affiliated bodies supposed to know about the tendering process? Is there 'official' communication or is it just by chance?

Because the constitution states "4. Potential organising bodies shall be invited to give "expressions of interest" in organising an ACF title event.". My question is how are they invited, what is the procedure?

Cheers Fg7

firegoat7
06-05-2005, 01:31 PM
while for most people, running the champs/open and juniors as separate events is the way to go, for the 2006 events, cirumstances do make running the champs/reserves and juniors at the same time the way to go.

I am not aware of the particular circumstances, GG, that make the running the way to go, maybe you could enlighten me?
I will say, I believe holding the juniors and the champs/reserves at the same time is not a good idea. I think they are quite distinct tournaments and I have my doubts.

Nevertheless, I do hope that it succeeds and I applaud the efforts by the ACF and the organisers to ensure that the events are planned for long term.

Cheers Fg7

Bill Gletsos
06-05-2005, 01:43 PM
Thanks Libby!

So, here is the next question- How are states or affiliated bodies supposed to know about the tendering process? Is there 'official' communication or is it just by chance?The state associations and ACF affiliated bodies are aware of it since it was decided at an ACF Council meeting that they attend. A call for bids was announced in the 3rd Feb 2005 ACF Bulletin #304.

Because the constitution states "4. Potential organising bodies shall be invited to give "expressions of interest" in organising an ACF title event.".The constitution says no such thing. You are quoting part of a by-law.
However why start at point 4. Point 1 states

The organisation of an ACF title event (as listed in clause 2 of the ACF Tournament By-Law) may be granted by the ACF Council to:-

a. The ACF.

b. An affiliated State Association.

c. An affiliated body which has the consent of its State Association to organise the event.As I said the ACF Council infomed the State Associations and ACF affiliated bodies.


My question is how are they invited, what is the procedure?See my answer above. Obviously you missed it in the ACF Bulletin or you wouldnt be asking this question.

Garvinator
06-05-2005, 01:48 PM
I am not aware of the particular circumstances, GG, that make the running the way to go, maybe you could enlighten me?

no problem. Quite a few australian players and coaches etc are planning on going to Queenstown, which is being held straight after our champs.

Also Graeme is planning on taking a group of juniors to Queenstown as well. Therefore the organising team decided that running the champs and juniors together was a better way to go than forcing the juniors and junior coaches to decide between the Australian Juniors and Queenstown.

Holding the events at the Carlton Crest is also very expensive, so holding the events over two weeks instead of four means less overheads and more money to be spent on prizemoney and in other areas.

Bill Gletsos
06-05-2005, 01:52 PM
I am not aware of the particular circumstances, GG, that make the running the way to go, maybe you could enlighten me?
I will say, I believe holding the juniors and the champs/reserves at the same time is not a good idea. I think they are quite distinct tournaments and I have my doubts.

Nevertheless, I do hope that it succeeds and I applaud the efforts by the ACF and the organisers to ensure that the events are planned for long term.

Cheers Fg7The issue has been mentioned on this board previously. Its to do with the Queenstown event in NZ from 15-24 January 2006. It was understood many Aussie players/juniors planned to play in Queenstown. This makes running the juniors after the Aus Championship problematic as it would clash with the NZ event. As such the only option was to run them simultaneously.
However even taking all that into account it was irrelevant as the only bid submitted was from the CAQ.

shaun
06-05-2005, 03:52 PM
Hopefully it will be a great event although we would still like to see the Aus Juniors run ALWAYS as a significant event in it's own right and with significantly different needs to those of the Aus Champs or Open.

Libby

Who is this "we" you speak of? And how significant are the needs of the junior as opposed to any other sort of chess tournament?

pax
06-05-2005, 04:04 PM
Thanks Libby!

So, here is the next question- How are states or affiliated bodies supposed to know about the tendering process? Is there 'official' communication or is it just by chance?

Because the constitution states "4. Potential organising bodies shall be invited to give "expressions of interest" in organising an ACF title event.". My question is how are they invited, what is the procedure?

Cheers Fg7

Well bids were invited in the ACF Bulletin (for several months) which is recieved by all federations. That seems like pretty good notice to me. And we are talking about an event which is now less than 8 months away, so they can't exactly afford to mess about!

Thunderspirit
06-05-2005, 04:07 PM
I am not aware of the particular circumstances, GG, that make the running the way to go, maybe you could enlighten me?
I will say, I believe holding the juniors and the champs/reserves at the same time is not a good idea. I think they are quite distinct tournaments and I have my doubts.

Cheers Fg7

Running both events at a time saves a lot of money. The biggest expense of these is rent. Rent for a good venue costs thousands. Also it is possible to save money on other expenses as well.

Good juniors need to make a choice of where their chess 'career' is going. Raymond Song is a perfect example of this. Ray plays up, and so doesn't play the juniors.

It's not always possible to play both... it's not easy trying to run an Oz Champs/Open/Juniors. I commend Graeme and his organising committee for their common sense, but for Graeme this comes naturally.

Libby
06-05-2005, 04:33 PM
Who is this "we" you speak of? And how significant are the needs of the junior as opposed to any other sort of chess tournament?

You should know - the grand 'we."

Essentially the ACTJCL. And I'm sorry if I continue to cause grief to the adult chess population by suggesting 5 star hotels are not always the venue i would prefer to see juniors playing in.

A school, or similar environment, is the ideal I would lean towards.

Do 5 star hotels want children loitering in their foyer, playing on the front step, chasing each other past the dining room?

It's not the end of the world and I'm not out to scuttle anyone's rowboat. I would just prefer to see the Aus Juniors in a venue where siblings and early finishers can relax safely in the grounds around the playing hall. Where rooms are available for prep & analysis (prep is very difficult to organise with everyone staying all over the place and having to get to a coach - whose accommodation may not be ideal in it's set up for groups of players itself). Where things like sports fields and play equipment may be just outside the door.

Don't get me wrong, there is plenty to do in Brisbane but some venues afford better opportunities to all levels of juniors, especially young juniors, than others. In Adelaide, and in Mt Buller, we had things set up in a way to encourage interaction between all the kids away from the boards as well as over them. At a 5 star hotel the players in the Champs may choose to "hang out" together in the bar or dining rooms after or between games - that's just not the same hanging out that kids and young families look for.

Yes, it is about the chess, but Juniors are more than just the mature 16 year old with an intense interest in his game. They include a lot of 10 year olds who end up in trouble for knocking over the potted palms or putting greasy fingers on the artwork.

jenni
06-05-2005, 04:42 PM
Good juniors need to make a choice of where their chess 'career' is going. Raymond Song is a perfect example of this. Ray plays up, and so doesn't play the juniors.

.

I wonder about this really. The competitive pressure on kids can sometimes lead to them stopping chess once they get to a certain age.

The juniors is more than just a strong tournament - it allows the kids to mingle with like minded kids from other states and look forward to meeting them again at other tournaments. Isn't that something we want to promote - a mindset where kids want to play chess forever? Where the constraints of career and family might lead to them not playing as much chess as they would like, but they still come back to play a Doeberl or an Open from time to time.

Sure we want our next Grandmaster and we want our juniors to improve as rapidly as possible, but don't knock the benefits of playing the Juniors - argueably a more stressful tournament than the reserves or the Open.

Incidentally Ray might have decided to play up in the Open in Mt Buller, but initially he would have played the Juniors as well - unfortunately parents do not have unlimited amounts of holiday on tap!

firegoat7
06-05-2005, 06:19 PM
The state associations and ACF affiliated bodies are aware of it since it was decided at an ACF Council meeting that they attend.
Ahhhhh. The old boys club was aware of it since they attended the meeting.
where it was announced. Nice communication!

Where are the minutes? Where can I get access to them? Where are they available for public viewing? Where were they made available publically to ACF members? Who exactly is an ACF member? Can you name them for me?


A call for bids was announced in the 3rd Feb 2005 ACF Bulletin #304.
Nice one! I don't read the ACF bulletin. Why should the ACF bulletin be the only method available for gleaning this information? If it is generally recognised that $2.50 of all players fees for entering a tournament in Victoria go to the ACF, a substantial revenue stream I may add, then why can't the ACF ensure that the clubs are at least kept up to date (bi-monthly) with ACF decisions that affect clubs.



The constitution says no such thing. You are quoting part of a by-law.
However why start at point 4. Point 1 states
As I said the ACF Council infomed the State Associations and ACF affiliated bodies.
Is a chess club that operates in Victoria an ACF affiliated body? or is it not an ACF affiliated body at all? If the former is true then where was the official communication over such an important issue? If the later is true, Why do Victorian chess clubs pay $2.50 to the ACF for rated games?


Obviously you missed it in the ACF Bulletin or you wouldnt be asking this question.
Yes, as did the whole MCC committee, somehow I doubt that we were the only chess group unaware of this in Victoria? Were other people aware of the tendering process interstate?

I just want to make one suggestion here. Is unoffical word of mouth good enough for an organisation claiming to present an image of 'professionalism'?

Cheers Fg7

Garvinator
06-05-2005, 06:31 PM
First of all, I am not a great supporter of the current structure of australian chess, i am sure this is well known, but still I cant agree with fg7 criticisms as they are in part factually wrong and show no understanding at least of the current structure.


Where are the minutes? Where can I get access to them? Where are they available for public viewing? Where were they made available publically to ACF members? Who exactly is an ACF member? Can you name them for me?
Nice one! I don't read the ACF bulletin. Why should the ACF bulletin be the only method available for gleaning this information? If it is generally recognised that $2.50 of all players fees for entering a tournament in Victoria go to the ACF, a substantial revenue stream I may add, then why can't the ACF ensure that the clubs are at least kept up to date (bi-monthly) with ACF decisions that affect clubs.


I would imagine that you could get access to the minutes by asking your state delegate for them.


Is a chess club that operates in Victoria an ACF affiliated body? or is it not an ACF affiliated body at all? If the former is true then where was the official communication over such an important issue? If the later is true, Why do Victorian chess clubs pay $2.50 to the ACF for rated games?
Your club is affiliated with CV, and as an active state association, CV is affiliated with ACF. You need to deal with CV and with your state delegate. If you cant work with your state delegate, you have to get that delegate changed.

I think most of us in other states have had a complete gutful of you complaining about things in CV, but doing nothing to change it at all. Just moan moan moan. No action to change things politically.


Yes, as did the whole MCC committee, somehow I doubt that we were the only chess group unaware of this in Victoria? Were other people aware of the tendering process interstate? It is not the acf's fault if a club doesnt read the acf bulletin and also doesnt read the acf constitution. Everyone else seems to know about it. Hey, even the guru was able to put in a bid and get it approved last time under the 'official' channels.

firegoat7
06-05-2005, 06:35 PM
Who is this "we" you speak of? And how significant are the needs of the junior as opposed to any other sort of chess tournament?
This is a top point. I would like to contrast it with GGs reply

Quite a few australian players and coaches etc are planning on going to Queenstown, which is being held straight after our champs.

Now correct me if I am wrong, but the Australian Reserves is a great Australian chess tournament with a fantastic history.
The Australian Junior tournament is also a tournament steeped in a rich culture, with the winner qualifying for the Australian Championships.

The arguements seem to be that we ought to risk destroying the calibre of the Australian Reserves or the Australian junior (not as strong as the reserve arguement since Queenstown goes both ways, but it is a factor) simply because some juniors and their coaches want to play in New Zealand. Hello, is this really a concern? and is the solution the best?

I also agree with Libby and Jenni's concerns, stated in this post..

a 5 star hotel the players in the Champs may choose to "hang out" together in the bar or dining rooms after or between games - that's just not the same hanging out that kids and young families look for.

This really ought to seem obvious. It is possibly from the point of 'professionalism' an image nightmare.

Cheers Fg7

jenni
06-05-2005, 06:41 PM
I just want to make one suggestion here. Is unoffical word of mouth good enough for an organisation claiming to present an image of 'professionalism'?

Cheers Fg7

I wouldn't have thought putting it in the official journal of the ACF week after week, would count as word of mouth .........

jenni
06-05-2005, 06:43 PM
This really ought to seem obvious. It is possibly from the point of 'professionalism' an image nightmare.

Cheers Fg7

Yay - finally we get to agree about something!

firegoat7
06-05-2005, 07:05 PM
I would imagine that you could get access to the minutes by asking your state delegate for them.

You can imagine that, notice the onus is on the people who do not attend official meetings to get information from the officials. Dosen't this make an officials job harder?

Should I bother to point out 'How do you know something exists if your not told about it?'

It dosen't dawn on the officials that they could provide this information easily if they bothered to establish clear guidelines and protocals that aimed to inform the whole community,in an informed and transparant way, not just for the elites who are politically active. Now the bulletin report is a good start but its clear that not all of the Australian chess community is reading it, so how does the ACF intend notifying them?



Your club is affiliated with CV, and as an active state association, CV is affiliated with ACF. You need to deal with CV and with your state delegate. If you cant work with your state delegate, you have to get that delegate changed. I don't have to do anything of the sort. It is not my (MCCs) responsibility to ensure that ChessVictoria is run effectively, it is ChessVictoria's responsibility. I am simply telling you that the messages are not always getting through and that if I was interested in what my membership (ACF,State) had to say about it, I would do something about it.

The communication level coming down the hierarchy (ACF-State-Club-Privateers-Players) is ridiculous, its virtually non existent in any official capacity.



I think most of us in other states have had a complete gutful of you complaining about things in CV, but doing nothing to change it at all. Just moan moan moan. No action to change things politically.


Thanks gray, really appreciate that back stab mate! What do you think this dialectical discourse is about? Do you really believe I don't want to change anything and that MCC don't actively ask me to particpate in such debates?

When I finally get another copy of the CV constitution (promised a month ago) I will actually stage a reasonable defence of why it is almost impossible to get rid of the powers at ChessVictoria




It is not the acf's fault if a club doesnt read the acf bulletin and also doesnt read the acf constitution. Everyone else seems to know about it. Hey, even the guru was able to put in a bid and get it approved last time under the 'official' channels.I beg to differ.... Your missing the point to this whole debate.....your presuming that I do not know these things. I am not interested in one case per say. I am interested in the methodology behind the availability of information and communication in Australian chess.

cheers Fg7

firegoat7
06-05-2005, 07:13 PM
I wouldn't have thought putting it in the official journal of the ACF week after week, would count as word of mouth .........

It depends on how you look at it.
Has the ACF conducted any analysis to verify whether this particular medium is effective in transmitting its intended message to its membership?

Furthermore, Is this bulletin the 'official' way that the ACF conducts its business now? Just to add a point here: Do organisations that contribute money to the ACF deserve a better form of 'official' communication?

Cheers Fg7

Bill Gletsos
06-05-2005, 07:44 PM
Ahhhhh. The old boys club was aware of it since they attended the meeting.Dont be a total idiot.

where it was announced. Nice communication!As I said it was announced in the ACF Bulletin.

Where are the minutes?They are sent to the ACF Council members and represenatives of affiliated bodies.

Where can I get access to them? Where are they available for public viewing?They arent public documents. The minutes are for the ACF Council and affilated bodies.
Where were they made available publically to ACF members?The public dont constitute ACF members. Hence they are not publically available.
Who exactly is an ACF member. Can you name them for me?Dont play stupid. Then again maybe you arent playing.
This has been discussed previously on the bulletin boards. The consititution notes that the ACF consists of State Associations, Associated Bodies and Honorary Life Members.

Nice one! I don't read the ACF bulletin.It isnt called the ACF bulletin for no reason. If you expect to see ACF announcments then check the bulletin.

Why should the ACF bulletin be the only method available for gleaning this information?It isnt. The State associations are aware of information. If they wish to inform there members seperately thats up to them. The ACF makes the announcement via the ACF bulletin.

If it is generally recognised that $2.50 of all players fees for entering a tournament in Victoria go to the ACF, a substantial revenue stream I may add,Perhaps instead of sprouting rubbish you should get your facts straight. Then again that doesnt seem to be your style.
The only ACF general charge is 25cents per player per game for the ACF admin fee for normal rated games. The admin fee is much less for rapid events or junior only events. For a 9 round normal event thats $2.25. For the more average 6 or 7 round event its only $1.50 and $1.75 respectively. If CV is charging you more then they are pocketing the difference in which case take it up with CV.

then why can't the ACF ensure that the clubs are at least kept up to date (bi-monthly) with ACF decisions that affect clubs.State Associations are ACF members not clubs.

Is a chess club that operates in Victoria an ACF affiliated body? or is it not an ACF affiliated body at all?It is not an affiliated body. ACF affliated bodies are organisations like the NSWJCL, the ACTJCL, the CCLA and the AWCL.

If the former is true then where was the official communication over such an important issue? If the later is true, Why do Victorian chess clubs pay $2.50 to the ACF for rated games?You dont pay $2.50 for rated games, you pay 25crents per player per rated games. That is the ACF admin fee, charged to State associations by the ACF. How each state chooses to pay that fee is up to each state. As such in your case take it up with CV. For 10 round events that is $2.50, for the more usual 6 or 7 round events its $1.50 or $1.75.

Yes, as did the whole MCC committee, somehow I doubt that we were the only chess group unaware of this in Victoria?I guess they all dont read the ACF bulletin. If so that is their problem.
However I note that in ACF bulletin #312 that the MCC webmaster advertised the Melbourne Chess Club Championship Bulletins. One would assume that he was doing so because he belived people read the ACF bulletin.

Were other people aware of the tendering process interstate?All those that read the ACF bulletin were aware of it.

I just want to make one suggestion here. Is unoffical word of mouth good enough for an organisation claiming to present an image of 'professionalism'?The ACF bulletin is hardly unofficial word of mouth.

Bill Gletsos
06-05-2005, 08:08 PM
You can imagine that, notice the onus is on the people who do not attend official meetings to get information from the officials. Dosen't this make an officials job harder?

Should I bother to point out 'How do you know something exists if your not told about it?'

It dosen't dawn on the officials that they could provide this information easily if they bothered to establish clear guidelines and protocals that aimed to inform the whole community,in an informed and transparant way, not just for the elites who are politically active. Now the bulletin report is a good start but its clear that not all of the Australian chess community is reading it, so how does the ACF intend notifying them?The ACF informed the State associations that it was interested in bids. How the various state associations passes that information on to their members is up to them. The ACF announced the request for bids ion the ACF bulletin.

I don't have to do anything of the sort. It is not my (MCCs) responsibility to ensure that ChessVictoria is run effectively, it is ChessVictoria's responsibility.Who says they arent. If MCC are unhappy withhow CV is run then take it up with CV. It isnt an ACf issue.

I am simply telling you that the messages are not always getting through and that if I was interested in what my membership (ACF,State) had to say about it, I would do something about it.Perhaps the reason messages arent getting thru to you is because you arent listening. In fact all you seem to ever do is bitch about Chess Victoria. If you dont like it then do something about it. Try attending a CV AGM.

The communication level coming down the hierarchy (ACF-State-Club-Privateers-Players) is ridiculous, its virtually non existent in any official capacity.Take your bitching up with CV. The ACF announced the bids in the ACF bulletin.

Thanks gray, really appreciate that back stab mate! What do you think this dialectical discourse is about? Do you really believe I don't want to change anything and that MCC don't actively ask me to particpate in such debates?Who can tell.

When I finally get another copy of the CV constitution (promised a month ago) I will actually stage a reasonable defence of why it is almost impossible to get rid of the powers at ChessVictoriaOf course if you could convince the majority of other CV clubs to support yours(Mcc views) then you could obviously instigate change. Perhaps your views are just in the minority.

I beg to differ.... Your missing the point to this whole debate.....your presuming that I do not know these things.Then dont play stupid.

I am not interested in one case per say. I am interested in the methodology behind the availability of information and communication in Australian chess.And that information is communicated via the ACF bulletin.

firegoat7
06-05-2005, 09:26 PM
Dont be a total idiot.
If you want to persist with this sort of language despite numerous objections then you truly are a sad old man.



As I said it was announced in the ACF Bulletin.
They are sent to the ACF Council members and represenatives of affiliated bodies.
Its not good enough, fix it. Make the information democratically available for the rank and file.



They arent public documents. The minutes are for the ACF Council and affilated bodies.The public dont constitute ACF members. Hence they are not publically available.

I beg to differ. without public particpation you have no ACF, its as simple as that.




Dont play stupid. Then again maybe you arent playing.

If you persist in the usage of this language when addressing others. Then I will bare no responsibilty for the efforts I utilise to prevent it in the future.



This has been discussed previously on the bulletin boards. The consititution notes that the ACF consists of State Associations, Associated Bodies and Honorary Life Members.

Change the constitution, its not good enough. By the way who are these honorary life members and why do they get a democratic vote, while the rank and file does not? Say it Bill, the ACF is a non-democratic organisation



It isnt called the ACF bulletin for no reason. If you expect to see ACF announcments then check the bulletin.
Just like I thought, their is no official policy is there.


The State associations are aware of information. If they wish to inform there members seperately thats up to them. The ACF makes the announcement via the ACF bulletin.


You really need to remove those potatoes from your ears. if you believe this dosen't reflect on the ACF and is simply a matter for the states then your simply wrong.



Perhaps instead of sprouting rubbish you should get your facts straight. Then again that doesnt seem to be your style.
The only ACF general charge is 25cents per player per game for the ACF admin fee for normal rated games. The admin fee is much less for rapid events or junior only events. For a 9 round normal event thats $2.25. For the more average 6 or 7 round event its only $1.50 and $1.75 respectively. If CV is charging you more then they are pocketing the difference in which case take it up with CV.


This actually is very interesting. Our club has labored under the impression for a very long time that all ChessVictoria/ACF events cost $5.00 per player and that this money is split evenly between the ACF and ChessVictoria. Now if you could provide me with detailed documentation that shows the exact amount the ACF has been receiving from ChessVictoria in regards to MCC events, then I would be more then happy to investigate your claims, and to verify who is telling MCC the porky pies. Please PM me if you need any further assistance on this matter.



State Associations are ACF members not clubs.
It is not an affiliated body. ACF affliated bodies are organisations like the NSWJCL, the ACTJCL, the CCLA and the AWCL.
Thank you again, now how do we get recognised as an affiliated body, do we have to re-organise the structure of MCC?



You dont pay $2.50 for rated games, you pay 25crents per player per rated games. That is the ACF admin fee, charged to State associations by the ACF. How each state chooses to pay that fee is up to each state. As such in your case take it up with CV. For 10 round events that is $2.50, for the more usual 6 or 7 round events its $1.50 or $1.75.

You really are reaching new levels of insults here aren't you. I think I might know how much our club pays to ChessVictoria and how that fee is justified to our club. Now if you say that is different, then that is a very interesting fact, one that I will no doubt be followed up by our Treasurer. I do appreciate that information even though I am not sure if it was intended to be meant in this context.



I guess they all dont read the ACF bulletin. If so that is their problem.
However I note that in ACF bulletin #312 that the MCC webmaster advertised the Melbourne Chess Club Championship Bulletins. One would assume that he was doing so because he belived people read the ACF bulletin.
All those that read the ACF bulletin were aware of it.
The ACF bulletin is hardly unofficial word of mouth.

Does it ever dawn on you that it might be your problem and not ours, that all you are doing is in fact shooting the messenger? Do you have any statistical analysis to back up any claims that people read your bulletin? I would be curious to know the percentage between the number of people the ACF has on its active master file and the numbers who actually read the bulletin.

cheers Fg7

firegoat7
06-05-2005, 09:39 PM
How the various state associations passes that information on to their members is up to them. ................
It isnt an ACf issue.


I beg to differ



Try attending a CV AGM.
Take your bitching up with CV.
Of course if you could convince the majority of other CV clubs to support yours(Mcc views) then you could obviously instigate change. Perhaps your views are just in the minority.
Who runs the ACF bidding process, news information and ACF minutes- the ACF or the State Associations?
Why am I asking you anyway? are you not President of the NSWCA? aswell as the ACF Rating Officer?

Maybe you have a conflict of interests. Why don't you do everybody a favor and resign one of your posts. Please let me suggest that you make it your ACF Ratings position!



Then dont play stupid.

This is the last time I let these comments slide. You are in a position of authority and when people address you in a civil manner on a public bulletin board you ought to reply in a like minded vein. This is a thread on Australian chess not non-chess, the coffee lounge or UCJ.

Cheers Fg7

Bill Gletsos
06-05-2005, 11:11 PM
If you want to persist with this sort of language despite numerous objections then you truly are a sad old man.I gave you a legitimate answer yet you couldnt help yourself but just had to refer to the ACF Council as the old boys club. By doing so you demonstrated you were still playing the fool. Therefore if you dont wish to be called an idiot dont make idiotic statements.

Its not good enough, fix it. Make the information democratically available for the rank and file.The rank and file are not members.

I beg to differ. without public particpation you have no ACF, its as simple as that.You can differ all you like. The fact is the ACF consists of the State Associations, not individual members.

If you persist in the usage of this language when addressing others.Then dont ask questions the answers of which you already know.

Then I will bare no responsibilty for the efforts I utilise to prevent it in the future.I have no control over how you choose to behave.

Change the constitution, its not good enough. By the way who are these honorary life members and why do they get a democratic vote, while the rank and file does not?Before making false statemenst you should check your facts. The Honorary life members dont get a vote.

Say it Bill, the ACF is a non-democratic organisationIt is democratic, just ask Gary Wastell.
[QUOTE=firegoat7]Just like I thought, their is no official policy is there.Just like I thought, you havent a clue what you are talking about.

You really need to remove those potatoes from your ears.the only one refusing to listen is you as usual.

if you believe this dosen't reflect on the ACF and is simply a matter for the states then your simply wrong.The ACF made the announcement in the ACF Bulletin. That is entriely reasonable.

This actually is very interesting. Our club has labored under the impression for a very long time that all ChessVictoria/ACF events cost $5.00 per player and that this money is split evenly between the ACF and ChessVictoria.Well then if you guys actually attended CV AGM's no doubt you wouldnt have been under that mistaken belief. However irrespective of that the ACF admin fee has been mentioned a number of times in the ACF Bulletin. You guys really should read it.
The $5 fee you mention is clearly a CV fee. From it they obviously pay the required ACF admin fee.

Now if you could provide me with detailed documentation that shows the exact amount the ACF has been receiving from ChessVictoria in regards to MCC events, then I would be more then happy to investigate your claims, and to verify who is telling MCC the porky pies. Please PM me if you need any further assistance on this matter.I'm not your lackey. Take it up with the CV state delegate or with CV directly.

Thank you again, now how do we get recognised as an affiliated body, do we have to re-organise the structure of MCC?I cannot see the ACF Council recognising you as an affiliated body. You are a club. An apparently disgruntled club that isnt getting along with its state Association.

You really are reaching new levels of insults here aren't you.What are you prattling on about. I didnt insult you at all. I simply pointed out how the ACF charges its admin fee.

I think I might know how much our club pays to ChessVictoria and how that fee is justified to our club.Maybe you do and maybe you dont. The reason I say that is because I wonder how long has CV been charging this $5 fee. If it was before April 2001 then it was before the ACF started charging any sort of Admin fee. Back then State Associations paid a 'State Levy' to the ACF. After the introduction of per game fee in 2002 the 'state levy' was phased out, being totally replaced by the ACF Admin fee and the ACF Schools Levy fee.

Between April 2001 and December 2001 the fee was only 50cents per player per tournament if 4 or more rounds or 25 cents if less than 4 rounds. the rapid fee was less. From 1 January 2002 the ACF Admin Fee was 20 cents per player, per game for both normal and rapid games. From 1st Jan 2003 the fee was set at its current value of 25cents per player per game for normal games, 10cents per player per game for rapid involving adults and 5cents per player per game for 'junior only' rapid events.

Now if you say that is different, then that is a very interesting fact, one that I will no doubt be followed up by our Treasurer. I do appreciate that information even though I am not sure if it was intended to be meant in this context.I was simply pointing out to you what the ACF admin fee was so as to correct your apparent confusion on the issue.
You can do with that information what you like.

Does it ever dawn on you that it might be your problem and not ours, that all you are doing is in fact shooting the messenger?You appear to be the only one suggesting the ACF Bulletin is not a suitable means of calling for bids.

Do you have any statistical analysis to back up any claims that people read your bulletin? I would be curious to know the percentage between the number of people the ACF has on its active master file and the numbers who actually read the bulletin.Not my job function.

Bill Gletsos
06-05-2005, 11:24 PM
I beg to differDiffer all you like.

Who runs the ACF bidding process, news information and ACF minutes- the ACF or the State Associations?The bids must come via a state association. Therefore the State Associations are informed that bidding is open. The call for bids was announced in the ACF bulletin. Read the ACF Bulletin. If you cant be bothered reading the ACF Bulletin that is your problem, not mine nor the ACF's.

Why am I asking you anyway? are you not President of the NSWCA? aswell as the ACF Rating Officer.
Maybe you have a conflict of interests.I have no confilct of interest. You on the other hand seem to have an interest in conflict.

Why don't you do everybody a favor and resign one of your posts.Why would I take advice from a disgrunted fool like you. BTW in case it escaped you that was a deliberate insult.

Please let me suggest that you make it your ACF Ratings position!You know what you can do with your suggestion.

This is the last time I let these comments slide. You are in a position of authority and when people address you in a civil manner on a public bulletin board you ought to reply in a like minded vein.I originally did. You saw fit to refer to the ACF Council as the old boys club. You were clearly not being flattering with your comment. As such if you wish to be treated with respect then you first need to treat others that way. In your case you didnt. You also saw fit to play deliberately stupid with regards to some of your questions to which you obviously knew the answer. As such if you dont want to be insulted then dont play stupid.

This is a thread on Australian chess not non-chess, the coffee lounge or UCJ.You would do well to remember that yourself.

Duff McKagan
06-05-2005, 11:25 PM
... unhappy withhow CV is run ... It isnt an ACf issue.

Hello kittens ;) Just like to say sorry to Bill for cutting his post down to the bearest of quotes. I want to also say that the problem is contained in the quote above. :uhoh:

Play nice

Cheers :cool:

Bill Gletsos
06-05-2005, 11:30 PM
Hello kittens ;) Just like to say sorry to Bill for cutting his post down to the bearest of quotes. I want to also say that the problem is contained in the quote above. :uhoh:My point is if CV is so bad then you would think a fair number of Victorian clubs would be unhappy. However the only person/club continually complaining about CV appears to be fg7/MCC. If he is so right then let him get support from other Victorian clubs. If he cant then they obviously dont see it as the issue he/MCC does.

Garvinator
07-05-2005, 12:14 AM
thinking that its ok to be on state and ACF organisations at the same time. You would possibly have to be the most those stupidest bunch of insular clowns I have ever met.
sorry i didnt read the rest of your post with a fine tooth comb fg7 as i just skimmed over it, but i do have a question about this quote of yours.

I would say that i fit into this category of having an acf position and also being a member of my state council. So am i part of the 'problem' as well in your opinion?

firegoat7
07-05-2005, 12:42 AM
I would say that i fit into this category of having an acf position and also being a member of my state council. So am i part of the 'problem' as well in your opinion?

Gray,

I know you mean well and have a good heart. The problem with wearing two hats are numerous

a) you prevent others from being included in the decision process
b) It makes the decision making process small and elitist
c) Personalities are able to dominate the structure totally
d) There is no seperation of power
e) People can never be sure who you are going to represent
f) Democracies need conflict to function properly
g) There is a reduction of accountability
h) It prevents people from taking on responsibility in small amounts
i) There appears to be little turnover in personal which is never a good sign in a democracy
j) You cannot represent your constituents with full power since inevitably there will come times when both camps are against each other

Its not personal gray, its a functioning structure arguement. It just dosen't work for democracy. It become a centralised dictatorship.

Cheers Fg7

P.S Whats your opinion?

Garvinator
07-05-2005, 12:55 AM
P.S Whats your opinion?

I know you mean well and have a good heart. The problem with wearing two hats are numerous


a) you prevent others from being included in the decision process
regarding the two positions I hold, i dont believe I am stopping anyone from input. The two positions I hold were positions that no one else wanted, so I volunteered as I thought I had something to offer. Regarding my acf position, this has gone nowhere and my caq position is not doing much better at the moment. As some people are aware, there will be a new gp co-ordinator next year.


c) Personalities are able to dominate the structure totally
this is a strong possibility and i believe this already occurs sometimes


f) Democracies need conflict to function properly Democracies need healthy debate to function properly and also ppl who arent bringing personal agendas or vested interests to the table to work properly.


i) There appears to be little turnover in personal which is never a good sign in a democracy
i have commented on this previously with me saying something to the effect of that the current structure and personnel does not encourage ppl to become part of the administration.

Sorry I didnt answer the rest of your points, but i have been scarred from the past and dont want to have old arguments re opened that have zero chance of being changed.

Bereaved
07-05-2005, 11:19 AM
Dear Rincewind (Guessing?),
perhaps this particular debate, of which I will give an opinion after this intro, might be best split into a thread not related to the Australian Championships, both from the perspective of people from places far and wide seeing our democratic process of debate at work :D and from the need to establish an appropriate name for this topic. Perhaps State and ACF intrastructure as pertains to affiliated clubs ? Anyway that choice will be yours.

As far as the debate regarding the 25 cents per game versus the $5 per tournament as charged by Chess Victoria, I understand that the instigation of this form of fee for the rating of tournaments was part and parcel of the ending of an annual subscription being paid to Chess Victoria by each active tournament player, or for that matter inactive.

I would guess that if the dilemma is to be expressed in a more, to my mind only, accurate form, it would involve ascertaining what the remainder of the fees collected are used for, as I certainly do not recall any particular benefit arriving my way for some time. The Victorian Championships and Ancilliary events are obviously subsidised heavily each and every year, but given that a (and don't quote me ) maximum of about 60 players participate each year in these events, and just between the clubs of Dandenong, Box Hill and Melbourne there would be a combined membership of c.300, then one might wonder what benefit these other non participating players are receiving? We have long ago ceased to receive any form of printed periodical from CV, Almost every single CV event is farmed out to an affiliated club in Victoria, who are likely to be in a position of no financial support for the event, either via sponsorship from CV or even an offer to pay the registration fees for these events.

In any case, I will comment more on this at some point when I have more time, as I feel that there are other issues that do bear some form of analysis however cursory,

Macavity VP

jase
07-05-2005, 12:27 PM
Firgoat writes that Bill Gletsos is dogmatic. Agreed.

I don't think I've ever before felt obliged to defend Bill on this forum, as I don't enjoy or appreciate his style of debate. However the questions firegoat has posted on this thread have been answered succinctly and accurately by Bill. I learnt a few things.

The incredible ignorance, arrogance, and disingenuity, of the last two pages of diatribe from firegoat have sullied the entire thread; can the MCC not find a spokesperson less blinded by their own self-importance? At least Macavity posts thoughtfully and genuinely.

Some interesting points of debate were raised in the first page. Perhaps the diatribe can be moved elsewhere and discussion can resume.

firegoat7
07-05-2005, 12:36 PM
Firgoat writes that Bill Gletsos is dogmatic. Agreed.

I don't think I've ever before felt obliged to defend Bill on this forum, as I don't enjoy or appreciate his style of debate. However the questions firegoat has posted on this thread have been answered succinctly and accurately by Bill. I learnt a few things.

The incredible ignorance, arrogance, and disingenuity, of the last two pages of diatribe from firegoat have sullied the entire thread; can the MCC not find a spokesperson less blinded by their own self-importance? At least Macavity posts thoughtfully and genuinely.

Some interesting points of debate were raised in the first page. Perhaps the diatribe can be moved elsewhere and discussion can resume.

Dear Jase,

I will be the first to admit that my postings have been over the top and that I do not enjoy posting in this way.

Nevertheless,
I will continue talking in this vocabulary while addressing Bill, until he refrains from ever using the words idiot,moron,fool etc etc when addressing both others and myself.

I have already stated this quite clearly on the thread if you read it in linear fashion.

I admit the thread has been sullied, but would like to point out that their can be no rational debate with a person who constantly abuses people. Bill is that person- read the debates in their logical linear context.

Cheers

Fg7

Rincewind
07-05-2005, 12:37 PM
I agree that the thread needs to be split and will be doing so shortly. I'm disappointed primarily with fg7 for inflamming the debate beyond the point of reasonableness even by BB standards. Hopefully, the relevant questions and answers can remain here. The diatribe and scorn will be shipped to non-chess.

Thread temporarily closed to prevent more work being generated ni the meantime. Please hold comments until split can be undertaken.

Rincewind
07-05-2005, 01:02 PM
Dear Rincewind (Guessing?),
perhaps this particular debate, of which I will give an opinion after this intro, might be best split into a thread not related to the Australian Championships, both from the perspective of people from places far and wide seeing our democratic process of debate at work :D and from the need to establish an appropriate name for this topic. Perhaps State and ACF intrastructure as pertains to affiliated clubs ? Anyway that choice will be yours.

As far as the debate regarding the 25 cents per game versus the $5 per tournament as charged by Chess Victoria, I understand that the instigation of this form of fee for the rating of tournaments was part and parcel of the ending of an annual subscription being paid to Chess Victoria by each active tournament player, or for that matter inactive.

I would guess that if the dilemma is to be expressed in a more, to my mind only, accurate form, it would involve ascertaining what the remainder of the fees collected are used for, as I certainly do not recall any particular benefit arriving my way for some time. The Victorian Championships and Ancilliary events are obviously subsidised heavily each and every year, but given that a (and don't quote me ) maximum of about 60 players participate each year in these events, and just between the clubs of Dandenong, Box Hill and Melbourne there would be a combined membership of c.300, then one might wonder what benefit these other non participating players are receiving? We have long ago ceased to receive any form of printed periodical from CV, Almost every single CV event is farmed out to an affiliated club in Victoria, who are likely to be in a position of no financial support for the event, either via sponsorship from CV or even an offer to pay the registration fees for these events.

In any case, I will comment more on this at some point when I have more time, as I feel that there are other issues that do bear some form of analysis however cursory,

Macavity VP

Macavity,

I appreciated the advice but your suggested remediation is more time consuming than I believe the debate warrants. I've split the more insultling posts onto a Non-Chess thread and hopefully that will be sufficient. Should you wish to open threads on any of the specific issues you mention above, please feel free to do so.

Rincewind
07-05-2005, 01:05 PM
Some interesting points of debate were raised in the first page. Perhaps the diatribe can be moved elsewhere and discussion can resume.

Hopefully I have done this satisfactorily.

Everyone please try to debate with legitimate points here and keep the spleen venting on the other thread.

Rincewind
07-05-2005, 01:13 PM
Nevertheless,
I will continue talking in this vocabulary while addressing Bill, until he refrains from ever using the words idiot,moron,fool etc etc when addressing both others and myself.

Believe me, you will not. I dont have much free time and take exception to those who make work for me unnecessarily. The thread was split on one of your posts where you went from just raising some interesting but largely ill-informed questions regarding ACF structure to spewing forth totally senseless diatribe. If these outbursts cannot be contained by you they will be by the board's moderators, in the least labour-intensive way we can think of.

You now have a senseless diatribe thread and hopefully everyone one else can just ignore your posts there.

Bill Gletsos
07-05-2005, 01:14 PM
I don't think I've ever before felt obliged to defend Bill on this forum, as I don't enjoy or appreciate his style of debate. However the questions firegoat has posted on this thread have been answered succinctly and accurately by Bill. I learnt a few things.My only real aim was to answer his original questions and correct his misconception of what fees the ACF was receiving.

The incredible ignorance, arrogance, and disingenuity, of the last two pages of diatribe from firegoat have sullied the entire thread; can the MCC not find a spokesperson less blinded by their own self-importance?Yes, I would prefer to see the debate continued by macavity.

At least Macavity posts thoughtfully and genuinely.Agreed.

Bill Gletsos
07-05-2005, 01:22 PM
As far as the debate regarding the 25 cents per game versus the $5 per tournament as charged by Chess Victoria, I understand that the instigation of this form of fee for the rating of tournaments was part and parcel of the ending of an annual subscription being paid to Chess Victoria by each active tournament player, or for that matter inactive.So do you have any idea when that occurred.

I would guess that if the dilemma is to be expressed in a more, to my mind only, accurate form, it would involve ascertaining what the remainder of the fees collected are used for, as I certainly do not recall any particular benefit arriving my way for some time.Arent financial reports for CV presented at the CV AGM. As such can it not be determined from them on what expenses CV is spending its revenue.

The Victorian Championships and Ancilliary events are obviously subsidised heavily each and every year, but given that a (and don't quote me ) maximum of about 60 players participate each year in these events, and just between the clubs of Dandenong, Box Hill and Melbourne there would be a combined membership of c.300, then one might wonder what benefit these other non participating players are receiving? We have long ago ceased to receive any form of printed periodical from CV, Almost every single CV event is farmed out to an affiliated club in Victoria, who are likely to be in a position of no financial support for the event, either via sponsorship from CV or even an offer to pay the registration fees for these events.Why doesnt someone just raise these issues at a CV AGM.