PDA

View Full Version : VCA Nazis suspend MCC



Pages : [1] 2

firegoat7
13-01-2004, 12:00 AM
I must admit I was in shock when I heard it. According to the MCC treasurer, we are currently suspended from the VCA. VCA treasurer Robert (Wheres my canary) Jamieson allegedly has informed our treasurer that we are suspended. No notification, no information just some strange accusation about an unpaid tournament fee from 2002. But hell, what do you expect from this undemocratic organisation. It appears the Chess Mafia really do as they please.

It is interesting that GW never mentioned anything to our beloved treasurer despite spending two weeks in Adelaide with him. Furthermore, I wonder if Jammo discussed this decision with the VCA council. Nevertheless, I actually embrace the decision, (unlike other memebers of our committee). I'm glad we are suspended....just think of it no more $5 for nothing. No more dealings with Jammo or Gazza. It sounds better all the time.

Jammo your a legend!!! Thank goodness you suspended us, now we can form our own organisation. Any club interested in joining us? Feel free to make contact with MCC!- let us leave these parasites forever!!

george
13-01-2004, 12:20 AM
Hi Firegoat,

I dont know who you are but you sound like a gentleman I was talking to in Adelaide during the recent Championships. He had a different point of view to mine might I say one which had the chess world well and truly centered around the MCC but then I am not privy to Chess Victoria politics nor have I a fantastic grasp of MCC history except what Stan Balcerek tells me in Adelaide. Stan was one of the gentlemen who although not wealthy put his hand in his pocket to help MCC buy its premises.

Commentator
13-01-2004, 08:56 AM
I must admit I was in shock when I heard it.

Mr Firegoat
You have previously said that the postings under your name are actually a composite of ideas of various members of the MCC. In addition, you have advised us that a number of MCC attendees use your bulletin board sign-on to post on this board. Is that what the 7 means? Are there 7 of you using the one sign-on? It would explain a lot if we knew how your circle of friends were composing these posts; the posts vary significantly in tone from one post to another as though you take turns typing and composing. Given that registration on this board is free, then how about normalising your posting procedure from the MCC and each individual adopt a unique sign-on rather than common use of yours.
Which of the 7 wrote/typed/dictated this particular post?


According to the MCC treasurer, we are currently suspended from the VCA. VCA treasurer Robert (Wheres my canary) Jamieson allegedly has informed our treasurer that we are suspended. No notification, no information just some strange accusation about an unpaid tournament fee from 2002.


Certainly an intrigue on this point of your suspension. Your treasurer appears to think you are suspended. On what does he base this view?




It is interesting that GW never mentioned anything to our beloved treasurer despite spending two weeks in Adelaide with him.


But GW is not the CV Treasurer, so why would he be following up recalcitrant accounts; managing the accounts is Jammo’s job?




Jammo your a legend!!! Thank goodness you suspended us, now we can form our own organisation. Any club interested in joining us? Feel free to make contact with MCC!- let us leave these parasites forever!!


The intrigue deepens. The MCC cannot find delegates with the time to attend CV AGMs, nor contribute to the working of the CV Executive.
But it can find resources to form a new body, Chess Victoria #2.
Amazing.

C

firegoat7
13-01-2004, 10:00 AM
George wrote:
Stan was one of the gentlemen who although not wealthy put his hand in his pocket to help MCC buy its premises. Yes, Stan is a living legend and is well regarded in MCC circles. It would be great for chess if people like Stan were recognised for the achievements towards chess. Undoubtly anybody from SACA would agree that his unspoken work has contributed much to chess.

Commentator wrote:


Your treasurer appears to think you are suspended. On what does he base this view?
A conversation on the phone with the current VCA treasurer. Furthermore, this is despite being told in September that everything was in order.

Now since I have answered your question maybe you could answer mine. What gives the VCA treasurer the power to implement such draconian action without official notice to MCC ( surely this is the decent thing to do)? Secondly was the rest of the VCA committee told of the treasurers intentions in advance?

regards Firegoat7
P.S Please do not misunderstand this. Historically our club has existed continously since 1866, we have existed before the VCA and will continue to exist regardless of the VCA.

arosar
13-01-2004, 10:05 AM
Excuse me please. But I'm planning a trip down to Melb. And I always wanted to visit MCC. Will you welcome me and be hospitable towards me? Or will I have to bring along a coupla bodyguards?

Also, can some1 please tell me how to get to Box Hill from Melb?

Cheers,

AR

Commentator
13-01-2004, 10:12 AM
Now since I have answered your question maybe you could answer mine. What gives the VCA treasurer the power to implement such draconian action without official notice to MCC ( surely this is the decent thing to do)? Secondly was the rest of the VCA committee told of the treasurers intentions in advance?

regards Firegoat7


Firegoat
I cannot help with the questions you ask about the decision of the CV Treasurer or the CV committee. I am not on the Committee and do not see their minutes.
You best hope of a response would be for Jammo to re-appear on the board. I don't think any other committee man from CV dials in here.
You tried the stick approach when he previously responded. Next time try a carrot.


C

Ian Rout
13-01-2004, 10:41 AM
As a matter of interest, what is the practical effect of a State body suspending a club?

In ACT I don't think it would make any difference if the ACTCA were to suspend a club except that the club would lose its vote on the Committee - I assume that it could still submit games for rating through the State Ratings Officer so long as it paid the fees directly. However a major issue might be whether players are direct members of the State body as they are in ACT. If the State body was a federation of clubs then would players lose rights such as playing in the State Championship?

Not directly relevant to the issue of Nazis in the VCA, but I thought it might be of interest following from earlier discussions about the different modes of organisation between States.

firegoat7
13-01-2004, 11:29 AM
Commentator wrote:
You tried the stick approach when he previously responded. Next time try a carrot.


Thanks for the advice but let us clarify one thing here. It was Jammo who started with the headkicking, not myself. All I asked was some straight foward questions- I even went to great length to point out that Jammo has contributed to chess in the past.

Then Jammo launched into a frenzied attack on both myself and the MCC. Personal stuff does not bother me, but I obviously have some duty to defend the reputation of MCC. I am after all the current Vice-president.

Jammo has been shown to be, if not directly lying about previous MCC membership numbers, then, at least mistaken. Therefore, I ask you commentator: What would you suggest-meek acceptance of dominant hegemonic power or a spirited counter-attack based on conflict theory?

firegoat7
13-01-2004, 11:57 AM
Ian Rout wrote:
As a matter of interest, what is the practical effect of a State body suspending a club?

Thanks for your question Ian it is interesting. Firstly, There is a previous historical incident of the VCA suspending MCC. That issue was eventually resolved when Malitis and a few others simply led a resistance that saw other clubs help out MCC, for rating purposes. Therefore I ask any other Victorian club- Please help us by offering support.

Secondly, Unlike other historical times players no longer pay membership fees to the VCA. Instead clubs collect $5 per player per tournament and passes that money onto the VCA, who in turn share the spoils with the ACF.

Furthermore clubs are asked to supply a list of ACTIVE tournament players and are then billed $3 for every player. The amount of players registered is linked in with voting rights at the VCA.

Ok so your question offers some interesting insights like-: 1-If a player is registered at two or more clubs is the VCA double dipping? 2- Since tournaments are automatically processed as long as the $5 is collected, Does a club have to be registered with the VCA? 3- If a player is not a registered member of your club but plays tournaments does the VCA have the right to bill a club? 4-Can a player play in a VCA event and request that it not be rated? 5- Is it desirable for clubs to provide membership lists to the VCA if boardholders are in competing commercial organisations? 6- Does the VCA have the moral authority to force clubs to collect VCA fees?

These are just a few of many questions. No doubt other clubs might have more. All I can say is that some of the complications are a nightmare.

Commentator
13-01-2004, 11:59 AM
Commentator wrote:
You tried the stick approach when he previously responded. Next time try a carrot.


Thanks for the advice but let us clarify one thing here. It was Jammo who started with the headkicking, not myself. Therefore, I ask you commentator: What would you suggest-meek acceptance of dominant hegemonic power or a spirited counter-attack based on conflict theory?

F.G

I thought you originally called Jammo one of the CLOWNS. But I could be mistaken. Probably need to refer to the old BB as to who was on your hit-list. Kevin spent a bit of time with you unsure as to who was so suited.

C

firegoat7
13-01-2004, 12:02 PM
Arosar wrote:
Excuse me please. But I'm planning a trip down to Melb. And I always wanted to visit MCC. Will you welcome me and be hospitable towards me? Of course we will. We can even show you the pleasures of Brunswick st. Maybe, you could drag Theo Rippis along I still owe him $20 bucks from a previous night out.

bobby1972
13-01-2004, 12:31 PM
does this mean turneys at the club will not be rated,the coming mcc champs is one of the best and strongest all year and deserves to be rated along with all turneys at mcc or any where else,all this politics is bad for chess very bad for the game ,the last thing the game needs is turmoil i mean the number of players keeps decreasing .come on everyone .

Bill Gletsos
13-01-2004, 12:47 PM
The ACF suspended rating services in late 2002 to the MCC due to a dispute over monies owed.
The situation was then quickly resolved and no actual tournament missed being rated.

Be aware that if CV decides to withhold rating services to MCC tournaments for rating, then their tournamnets will not be rated by the ACF..

Ian Rout
13-01-2004, 01:13 PM
Can you clarify that one, Bill? I said above that I presumed if an ACT club was suspended by ACTCA (hypothetical incidentally, I know of no reason for it to happen in the forseeable future) the club could still submit its tournaments for rating (with payment of course). I based this presumption on

- ACF has no reason to knock back money

- excluding bona fide games would harm the integrity of the system

- in the past I have known of private matches being rated.

Are you saying that this is not correct and that only State-approved games are rated, or is this a matter specific to the Victorian situtation?

arosar
13-01-2004, 01:14 PM
. . . the last thing the game needs is turmoil i mean the number of players keeps decreasing .come on everyone .

Sorry fellaz, don't mean to make this thread off-topic but on this note, does any1, who is old enough, remember the 'Reark Report'? I read about it in "Aus Chess into the 80's". Has there been a similar type of research since?

AR

ursogr8
13-01-2004, 01:28 PM
Furthermore clubs are asked to supply a list of ACTIVE tournament players and are then billed $3 for every player. The amount of players registered is linked in with voting rights at the VCA.

firegoat

On threads on the old bulletin board I spent ages trying to convince the NSW guys that our Victorian system was superior, in an efficiency sense, than the NSW individual membership of a State Association. Now you are torpedoing my arguments.
Let me comment on your points in detail.

The $3 is just the Affiliation fee levied by CV. Just multiply $3 by the number of MCC members who are financial. This part is not hard for your treasurer.




Ok so your question offers some interesting insights like-: 1-If a player is registered at two or more clubs is the VCA double dipping?

Your treasurer should drop off his calculation anyone he thinks is primarily with another Club. This step is easy.


2- Since tournaments are automatically processed as long as the $5 is collected, Does a club have to be registered with the VCA?

Yes.


3- If a player is not a registered member of your club but plays tournaments does the VCA have the right to bill a club?

For the tournament rating fee of $5…YES
For an affliation levy……NO


4-Can a player play in a VCA event and request that it not be rated?

The players opponents entered the tournament on good faith that it would be rated. They pay their $5 in the entry fee. They would be angry if some game was suddenly not rated.
So…………….NO.


5- Is it desirable for clubs to provide membership lists to the VCA if boardholders are in competing commercial organisations?

Just give them the ACF id number if you are concerned about privacy of detail.


6- Does the VCA have the moral authority to force clubs to collect VCA fees?

The authority comes from your right to vote at the CV AGM either in favour or against these standard funding arrangements. Not sure where ‘moral’ comes into it though.




These are just a few of many questions. No doubt other clubs might have more.

I look after two clubs finances and we are OK with the CV rules.


All I can say is that some of the complications are a nightmare.

I don’t agree, and I don’t find the charges hard to calculate.


starter

Kevin Bonham
13-01-2004, 01:40 PM
Therefore, I ask you commentator: What would you suggest-meek acceptance of dominant hegemonic power or a spirited counter-attack based on conflict theory?

Cute turn of phrase. I'll have to read some of this "conflict theory" and see how well your posts conform to it. This is the first thread I have ever seen here that has demonstrated Godwin's Law (and violated the normative version) before it even started. But surely they should be CV Nazis, not VCA Nazis, assuming that they are even in any sense "Nazis" at all? :P

Bill Gletsos
13-01-2004, 01:46 PM
Can you clarify that one, Bill? I said above that I presumed if an ACT club was suspended by ACTCA (hypothetical incidentally, I know of no reason for it to happen in the forseeable future) the club could still submit its tournaments for rating (with payment of course). I based this presumption on

- ACF has no reason to knock back money

- excluding bona fide games would harm the integrity of the system

- in the past I have known of private matches being rated.

Are you saying that this is not correct and that only State-approved games are rated, or is this a matter specific to the Victorian situtation?
It was the practice as far back to at least the early 90's that only results submitted by State Associations were rated.
In all the time that Graham and I have done the ratings (since August 1996) we followed that practice, with some very minor and specific exceptions.

Those exceptions have been:

1) Dorothy Dibley Matches submiitted directly to the ACF Ratings Officers. This was mainly done to avoid accidental duplication and centralised id number allocation.
2) Ocenaia Zonal held in Fiji. Since the majority of these games were by Australia players it was deemed to be worthwhile rating them.
3) Tournaments that the ACF ratings Officers receive directly that are within days of the ratings being produced and which the ACF Ratings officers have no doubt would be authorised by their State Association.
This is necessary because nowadays we cutoff as close as possible to the actual ratings publication date.
4) Only once have we rated a tournament that in our opinion should have been included in the list but was inadvertently missed by the organiser and State Ratings Officer. Even then this was only done because a number of players had been duplicated/coded incorrectly and we decided to rerun the rating period. Because we had already decided to rerun the period we included the missing tournament.

With respect to matches the rules regarding their rating were changed by the ACF Council after the Sandler-Kagan match.

Now only legitimate play-off matches are rated. e.g. Aus title, state title and club championship playoffs.
The ACF Couuncil can also authorise the rating of any match that does not meet that criteria, however it would in my opinion need to be a very exceptional case and not just two players requesting authorisation from the ACF Council because they wanted to run thier own private match.

Ian Rout
13-01-2004, 02:06 PM
Thanks Bill, I stand corrected (well sort of - it sounds like ACF can rate tournaments regardless of State Association veto if it chooses, which is probably a good thing seeing that rating is a federal function).

Bill Gletsos
13-01-2004, 02:13 PM
Thanks Bill, I stand corrected (well sort of - it sounds like ACF can rate tournaments regardless of State Association veto if it chooses, which is probably a good thing seeing that rating is a federal function).
If a State Association explicitly asked for a tournament not to be rated then Graham and I would not rate it.
Now this could be overruled by the ACF Council but I'm not sure they would want to create that precedent.

bobby1972
13-01-2004, 02:50 PM
chess players play in tournaments because they love it,now if they play at a club,say the one most convenient and closest to them for example the mcc as chessplayers who pay there entry fees dont they deserve to have the games rated regardless of conflict between the club and vca i mean forget the mcc the vca or any state association has got to rate this games no one can castrate a large number of players from access to the glorius gliko system baby.

firegoat7
13-01-2004, 03:08 PM
Starter wrote:
The $3 is just the Affiliation fee levied by CV. Just multiply $3 by the number of MCC members who are financial.

If only things were that simple consider these cases.

a) MCC has a number of members who do not play tournament chess. Since they are not interested in having a rating, why should these members be affiliated with CV.

b) MCC also has a large number of life members who pay no fees. Since we had this structure in place before CV introduced this particular fee, there begs the question- Why should the club be out of pocket for something it could not logically forsee in the future? Furthermore does CV have any policy towards such members.

Starter also responded to another question:

2- Since tournaments are automatically processed as long as the $5 is collected, Does a club have to be registered with the VCA?


Yes.

Well I disagree. This is very debatable. For instance, provided a tournament registration fee is paid, I see no real reason why a club has to be registered. A case in point, Our club has received advertising from Drouin-despite this club not being CV affiliated. Furthermore the tournament is a CAT 1 GP event. Now Drouin may be in the process of registering, but only CV reps would know the the real financial arrangements.

Furthermore,previous events like the Australian Masters,Victorian Masters and weekenders at schools have all been rated despite not being organised by affiliated clubs. They just seem to be able to pay a rating fee. So logically if they can do these things,why cannot clubs do the same thing?

Nevertheless we can obviously understand that there would be some dispute over the lists provided by CV and to CV. Such lists would obviously need to be negotiated towards agreement. In other words no club would blindly accept CV membership claims without avenues of discussion for dispute. So, where was the letter CV? Where was the warning? Where was the communication? Please do not suggest at the CV meeting because I doubt very much that all the clubs were in attendence. Whiilst furthermore, this whole negotiation has nothing to do with such meetings.

Finally as a case in point let us consider that our treasurer was playing in Adelaide. Why did nobody get a message through to him or the club?
I mean it is not like we have not been paying rating fees is it.

Garvinator
13-01-2004, 03:17 PM
i only have one question for you firegoat7, but i think it is a very pertinant one.

If you are so concerned about the structure and fees of CV, there is only one way to change that set up, the CV agm, but unless i have this wrong, why wasnt their anyone from mcc was at the cv agm?

firegoat7
13-01-2004, 03:22 PM
Well that is just silly. Its like saying I vote labor therefore I should join the labor party.

Rincewind
13-01-2004, 03:46 PM
Well that is just silly. Its like saying I vote labor therefore I should join the labor party.

I think a more accurate analogy would be...

You vote Labour, you feel passionately about politics and want to influence the direction of Labour Party policy, then you should join the Labour Party.

Perhaps I overstated it, but that was just to contrast the thrust of Gavin's comment with your watered-down analogy.

Rincewind
13-01-2004, 03:49 PM
This is the first thread I have ever seen here that has demonstrated Godwin's Law (and violated the normative version) before it even started. But surely they should be CV Nazis, not VCA Nazis, assuming that they are even in any sense "Nazis" at all? :P

I think the term "Nazi" is totally inappropriate here. Even in fg7's worst nightmare, CV are just garden variety Fascists.

Of course, there is a good chance that (in reality) they are not even that. ;)

Bill Gletsos
13-01-2004, 04:01 PM
Well that is just silly. Its like saying I vote labor therefore I should join the labor party.
Actually isnt it more like you vote labor but the liberals are in power so you just refuse to vote. :rolleyes:

arosar
13-01-2004, 04:11 PM
Seems to me that all Calvin was saying was that if you're concerned and you want to make a difference, then you, as a constituent, should exercise your right to vote.

AR

ursogr8
13-01-2004, 04:29 PM
Starter wrote:
The $3 is just the Affiliation fee levied by CV. Just multiply $3 by the number of MCC members who are financial.

If only things were that simple consider these cases.

a) MCC has a number of members who do not play tournament chess. Since they are not interested in having a rating, why should these members be affiliated with CV.

MCC has this in common with other big clubs. In our case we simply don’t declare them to the CV Affiliation return that is filled in once per year. It is a clear subset of your total list. It is simple; $3 x the number you think should be declared for Affiliation because they are actively playing in rated events.




b) MCC also has a large number of life members who pay no fees. Since we had this structure in place before CV introduced this particular fee, there begs the question- Why should the club be out of pocket for something it could not logically forsee in the future?

There is nothing new in this question. If a life member wants to play in rated events and have his rating updated then he needs to be declared as ACTIVE (costs $3 per year) and $5 of his entry fees goes to RATINGS maintenance costs for CV and ACF.



Furthermore does CV have any policy towards such members.

As described above; it as simple as this “if you want to play and be rated, you pay the small fees, otherwise don’t declare them as ACTIVE members.




Starter also responded to another question:

2- Since tournaments are automatically processed as long as the $5 is collected, Does a club have to be registered with the VCA?


Yes.

Well I disagree. This is very debatable. For instance, provided a tournament registration fee is paid, I see no real reason why a club has to be registered.

I think you mean AFFLIATED not REGISTERED. Yes, Clubs have to be AFFLIATED in order to have tournaments RATED. Bill explains this at length in this thread, so I will not repeat.


A case in point, Our club has received advertising from Drouin-despite this club not being CV affiliated.
If you look back at the old threads you will find I was asking the same question. In fact long before I asked the question there was a NSW debate on a thread called SCABS IN CHESS.
I am now satisfied that only AFFILIATED Clubs can have events rated. Or CV themselves can run an event and take the commercial risks of profit-or-loss, and these events are rated. I did not see any events that were run by outside bodies (i.e non-affiliated bodies) that were rated last year


and weekenders at schools have all been rated despite not being organised by affiliated clubs.
I don’t think there are any examples of this.



Nevertheless we can obviously understand that there would be some dispute over the lists provided by CV and to CV. Such lists would obviously need to be negotiated towards agreement. In other words no club would blindly accept CV membership claims without avenues of discussion for dispute.
And if you have such a problem I suggest you write to the CV Registrar, Gerrit Hartland.



starter

firegoat7
13-01-2004, 06:03 PM
The ACF suspended rating services in late 2002 to the MCC due to a dispute over monies owed.
The situation was then quickly resolved and no actual tournament missed being rated.

Be aware that if CV decides to withhold rating services to MCC tournaments for rating, then their tournamnets will not be rated by the ACF..

Actually Bill this sort of indicates that the ACF asked the MCC to jump, and they responded with "how high sir?"

What actually occurred was a change of admin within the MCC, the debts ot the ACF were analyzed (as they should be), and it was discovered through discussions with GG and GW that the ACF was in fact charging the MCC for tournaments that were not their's to pay, namely the costa should have been billed to CV. GW gave the MCC signed notification of the portion of the bill that CV was to pay, and once this was ratified the outstanding amount was payed to the ACF. The MCC was very correct in standing firm on this issue until the bill for the correct amount was sent to them. They would have been negligent to the members of MCC to have just payed whatever they were charged.

Garvinator
13-01-2004, 06:04 PM
Seems to me that all Calvin was saying was that if you're concerned and you want to make a difference, then you, as a constituent, should exercise your right to vote.

AR
umm arosar, who is calvin :shock: , my name is Garvin lol. but yes arosar has gotten the meaning of what i was saying correct.

If you dont agree with how things are structured, turn up to the one place you can get constitution's changed and that is the AGM of your state association.

firegoat7, you have claimed previously that MCC does not want to be part of Westall's, i think is his name :oops: legacy. If that is the case and the majority of your club's membership is in agreeance, then I would have thought you would be cheering your suspension, not calling the CV a pack of nazis.

I dont know what the position of this next comment would be considering that MCC is now suspended, but you could always get a certain number(not sure what percentage the CV constitution is for it) and hold a special general meeting with the relevant motion and signatures on the document.

Also while I am typing, when nswca members have been discussing 'problems' in their organisation, you have claimed this bb is a discussion board and nothing ever goes anywhere meaningful in real life(sorry to paraphrase), but now that attention has turned to CV matters, you are using this BB to address concerns and to give people a greater understanding of the 'problems' in CV.

I would hope that by you using this BB you are hoping that your discussions are actually going to lead somewhere that is good for the game of chess, whatever that might be.

Because you wouldnt want to be called a hypocrite.

firegoat7
13-01-2004, 06:09 PM
Hmmm hard to make sense of that post gg. Nevertheless, Do you think that it is appropriate or even professesional that Jammo announces the suspension of MCC on this BB, not even bothering to inform the club?

Bill Gletsos
13-01-2004, 06:14 PM
The ACF suspended rating services in late 2002 to the MCC due to a dispute over monies owed.
The situation was then quickly resolved and no actual tournament missed being rated.

Be aware that if CV decides to withhold rating services to MCC tournaments for rating, then their tournamnets will not be rated by the ACF..

Actually Bill this sort of indicates that the ACF asked the MCC to jump, and they responded with "how high sir?"
That wan't my intention.
However now you mention it, the ACF had been arguing with the MCC for many months and nothing seemed to be happening.
The ACF then suspended rating services to the MCC.
The problem was then resolved fairly quickly.


What actually occurred was a change of admin within the MCC, the debts ot the ACF were analyzed (as they should be), and it was discovered through discussions with GG and GW that the ACF was in fact charging the MCC for tournaments that were not their's to pay, namely the costa should have been billed to CV. GW gave the MCC signed notification of the portion of the bill that CV was to pay, and once this was ratified the outstanding amount was payed to the ACF. The MCC was very correct in standing firm on this issue until the bill for the correct amount was sent to them. They would have been negligent to the members of MCC to have just payed whatever they were charged.
Yes I was aware things turned around once the admin at the MCC changed.

firegoat7
13-01-2004, 07:34 PM
Are you not missing the point Bill? Why does MCC have to be banned before the ACF realises it has made a mistake in its billing? :shock:

I suspect the same thing is happening with the CV problem.

The attitude seems to be very arrogant.

Need I remind you of your objections to the new BB, Is not the same principle working here?

For what it is worth I agree with you, there should have been information provided before major decisions are taken.

Bill Gletsos
13-01-2004, 07:43 PM
Are you not missing the point Bill? Why does MCC have to be banned before the ACF realises it has made a mistake in its billing? :shock:
Why did the MCC only complain about the mistake in the billing after they were suspended. :shock:

chesslover
13-01-2004, 07:48 PM
f a State Association explicitly asked for a tournament not to be rated then Graham and I would not rate it.
Now this could be overruled by the ACF Council but I'm not sure they would want to create that precedent.

But if CV suspends MCC, then they are not asking explicitly that the MCC tournaments not be rated. They are simply suspending MCC from the CV.

Thus if firegoat asks for his games to be rated in MCC tourneys, there should be no impediments to you rating it, unless of course CV writes to you and the ACF asking that MCC games shopuld not be rated?

chesslover
13-01-2004, 07:55 PM
The attitude seems to be very arrogant.



firegoat, what do you want to happen in Victoria?

If the CV has suspended MCC like you stated, you can either
1. accept it and fucntion as a standalone chess club outside the auspices of CV;

2. try to patch things up with CV and be readmitted as a member of CV, or

3. form a new chess association in Victoria with other like minded chess clubs, that will fucntion as a rival to CV.

Woudl the ACF need to reconsider who is the "official" victorian state chess association, if enough victorian chess club break away and join a rival MCC led state chess association?

Bill Gletsos
13-01-2004, 08:08 PM
If a State Association explicitly asked for a tournament not to be rated then Graham and I would not rate it.
Now this could be overruled by the ACF Council but I'm not sure they would want to create that precedent.

But if CV suspends MCC, then they are not asking explicitly that the MCC tournaments not be rated. They are simply suspending MCC from the CV.

Thus if firegoat asks for his games to be rated in MCC tourneys, there should be no impediments to you rating it, unless of course CV writes to you and the ACF asking that MCC games shopuld not be rated?

Pay attention to the whole thread CL not just parts.

I said:

It was the practice as far back to at least the early 90's that only results submitted by State Associations were rated.
In all the time that Graham and I have done the ratings (since August 1996) we followed that practice, with some very minor and specific exceptions.

One of those exceptions was not that any player could just ask that they be rated.

The part you quoted was in response to Ian Rout who suggested that the ACF could rate games against a States wishes.

Therefore if the MCC results dont come via the Victorian Ratings Officer they wont get rated.

chesslover
13-01-2004, 08:12 PM
I said:

It was the practice as far back to at least the early 90's that only results submitted by State Associations were rated.
In all the time that Graham and I have done the ratings (since August 1996) we followed that practice, with some very minor and specific exceptions.

One of those exceptions was not that any player could just ask that they be rated.

The part you quoted was in response to Ian Rout who suggested that the ACF could rate games against a States wishes.

Therefore if the MCC results dont come via the Victorian Ratings Officer they wont get rated.

ok, i understand

if the MCC ratings officer submits the game you will refuse to rate the tournaments, even if the MCC pays the ratings fee - just because it did not come through the CV ratings officer?

Bill Gletsos
13-01-2004, 08:13 PM
Its the same with any state.

chesslover
13-01-2004, 08:17 PM
Its the same with any state.

yes but unlike us in the NSWCA, it is the clubs that are the members of the CV.

Thus some clubs such as MCC and Box Hill are clubs that have numerous memebrs, and have a lot of tournaments played within it's confines. Not rating these touraments, just because the clubs and the CV are fighting, does not sound like a fair and decent thing to do to the members of theese clubs, who have done nothing wrong.

In effect the ACF ratings officers, are acting as enforcers and giving teeth to the CV suspension of MCC, by denying MCC touraments from being rated :(

Bill Gletsos
13-01-2004, 08:22 PM
You miss the point.

The ratings are provided by the ACF on behalf of all State Associations, not the players.

CV and the NSWCA are members of the ACF. The individual members of the NSWCA and CV are not.

chesslover
13-01-2004, 08:39 PM
You miss the point.

The ratings are provided by the ACF on behalf of all State Associations, not the players.

CV and the NSWCA are members of the ACF. The individual members of the NSWCA and CV are not.

Ok I get your point :idea:

Does not mean that I agree with the decision to not rate MCC tournaments, just because CV suspends MCC.

This is like how FIFA the organsising body of the most popular sport in the planet, soccer, operates. FIFA leaves to the six soccer confederations, the organising of the games that belong to the nations that comprise the confederation. There can only be one soccer organisation recongnised in each nation. When nations do not agree with the confedeartions, they are forced to comply, as otherwise FIFA will act as enforcers of the soccer confederations, and deny the nation the right to participate in the world cup.

Similarly MCC has to toe the CV line, as otherwise the ACF will deny the MCC the ratings for MCC touraments.

I understand, but that does not make it right or fair

antichrist
13-01-2004, 09:01 PM
What has this got to do with poor Jesus?

chesslover
13-01-2004, 09:07 PM
What has this got to do with poor Jesus?

what are you talking about? what has what got to do with Jesus? we are talking about MCC being suspended by CV, as firegoat claims, and the ratings of MCC touraments as a result...

Have you gone insane?

Bill Gletsos
13-01-2004, 09:18 PM
What has this got to do with poor Jesus?
Antichrist stop being an absolute moron and don't start polluting all the chess threads with your crap. :evil:

Stick to the non chess threads for this.

Kevin Bonham
14-01-2004, 02:56 AM
I wonder if he posted that in this thread by mistake - I can't see what he was replying to.

Commentator
14-01-2004, 06:57 AM
The attitude seems to be very arrogant.



firegoat, what do you want to happen in Victoria?

If the CV has suspended MCC like you stated, you can either
1. accept it and fucntion as a standalone chess club outside the auspices of CV;

2. try to patch things up with CV and be readmitted as a member of CV, or

3. form a new chess association in Victoria with other like minded chess clubs, that will fucntion as a rival to CV.

Woudl the ACF need to reconsider who is the "official" victorian state chess association, if enough victorian chess club break away and join a rival MCC led state chess association?

An insightful line of thought Chesslover. Have the issues to be 'patched-up' between Melbourne and the State Association been defined anywhere; or has Melbourne forgotten what it is angry about? Would the ACF act if there were no issues documented?

C

Commentator
14-01-2004, 07:29 AM
Similarly MCC has to toe the CV line, ..

This is a garbage statement chesslover. . . :rolleyes:
MCC is the richest and probably the biggest chess club in Victoria. If they wanted to instruct their delegates, then the MCC would dominate the CV line. And the MCC could easily vote the current CV executive out of office and install their own controlling group. And it would not be the first time that a putsch did this in Victoria. . . ](*,)


C

bobby1972
14-01-2004, 08:15 AM
All this talk,as a member who regularly plays at the mcc along with many other clubs i just want to know is will turneys there be rated,who cares about the politics,i and i hope many others just want to play chess a lot of chess without any politics and have thir games rated

Bill Gletsos
14-01-2004, 09:22 AM
Similarly MCC has to toe the CV line, ..

This is a garbage statement chesslover. . . :rolleyes:
MCC is the richest and probably the biggest chess club in Victoria. If they wanted to instruct their delegates, then the MCC would dominate the CV line. And the MCC could easily vote the current CV executive out of office and install their own controlling group. And it would not be the first time that a putsch did this in Victoria. . . ](*,)


C
How does being the richest club mean the MCC can dominate CV.
It would appear from what firegoat said and what starter has said elsewhere that the MCC has far less members than Box Hill.
Surely voting rights at CV AGM's is based on a clubs membership, therefore wouldn't BH have more delegates/votes than the MCC.

For us non Victorians perhaps you could elucidate this a bit more.

Bill Gletsos
14-01-2004, 09:27 AM
All this talk,as a member who regularly plays at the mcc along with many other clubs i just want to know is will turneys there be rated,who cares about the politics,i and i hope many others just want to play chess a lot of chess without any politics and have thir games rated
If your a member of the MCC then you should get the MCC Committee to sort this out with CV.
After all is the MCC Committee representing the views of their members or are the MCC members just to disinterested and therefore allowing their committee to carry on thier own personal agendas with CV.

Commentator
14-01-2004, 09:32 AM
.

Commentator
14-01-2004, 09:36 AM
How does being the richest club mean the MCC can dominate CV.
It would appear from what firegoat said and what starter has said elsewhere that the MCC has far less members than Box Hill.
Surely voting rights at CV AGM's is based on a clubs membership, therefore wouldn't BH have more delegates/votes than the MCC.

For us non Victorians perhaps you could elucidate this a bit more.

Response
BH usually doesn't instruct its delegates to block vote. So they often vote on opposite sides of a motion. At least that is the way it looked at the 2003 AGM. In effect this cancels out any BH effect.
And when the previous putsch occurred, the BH vote was split right down the middle; so if Melbourne block voted they would dominate.

BH rarely finds enough delegates anyway.

C

firegoat7
14-01-2004, 10:27 AM
Chesslover wrote:
If the CV has suspended MCC like you stated, you can either
1. accept it and fucntion as a standalone chess club outside the auspices of CV;

2. try to patch things up with CV and be readmitted as a member of CV, or

3. form a new chess association in Victoria with other like minded chess clubs, that will fucntion as a rival to CV.

Woudl the ACF need to reconsider who is the "official" victorian state chess association, if enough victorian chess club break away and join a rival MCC led state chess association?

Well firstly I would like to congratulate Chesslover on his well articulated posts in this thread. He definitely proved some of my previous comments about him wrong.

Let us investigate the three choices.
1. May be possible but isolates us from the chess community, particularly if we have to internalise our own rating system. Although dare I say it, not recognising a rating MAY constitute a restraint of trade, particularly since the ACF,CV and MCC have payed chess professionals in the past.
This option appears unclear.

2. Considering that the CV and MCC disputes have been continuing for nearly 20 years, does this offer a realistic future. Both organisations have their own agendas that continually clash. Looking at it from an MCC perspective, whilst GW and RJ are involved there will probably be no movement on that front.

3. This is an appealing option provided other clubs take a stand with us and the ACF recognises the body. Realistically I cannot see this happening, but you never know.

There is a 4th and 5th option available to provide a workable solution.

4. MCC joins any other chess organisation like NSWCA,SACA or TCA(?) and gets them to rate their games. After all the precedent has already been set with Albury chess club.
5. Is a recognition by the ACF that the MCC is a unique historical development in chess that should be supported. Therefore, to allow MCC to flourish autonomously the ACF ought to give association status to MCC. Thus allowing the ACF to establish a direct relationship with the MCC without CV. In my opinion, since MCC is a 7 day a week dedicated chessclub, without any private business interests this option would make sense.
In defence of this point I would like to suggest that MCC probably has more members then Tasmanian chess or Northern Territory chess.


Commentator wrote:
MCC is the richest and probably the biggest chess club in Victoria. If they wanted to instruct their delegates, then the MCC would dominate the CV line. And the MCC could easily vote the current CV executive out of office and install their own controlling group. Your statement may be true Commentator but unfortunately you miss the point. We do not want to run CV. We want to run MCC. We need civil communication with CV. We do not want to take over their organisation because we do not like the executive. Instead we simply prefer to withdraw and say "we cannot work with certain key individuals."- In other words we want to investigate other options! I mean 20 years is a long time, maybe we need a divorce.

arosar
14-01-2004, 10:38 AM
Trust me mate. Forming an entirely new organisation isn't the way to go. Pretty soon, you'll be right back to where you started. The experience in the Philippines is a recent example of this. What happened was they dumped the PCF and created the so called NCFP. **

Look mate, the way I see it, there's no point carryin' on about how powerful the MCC is and then makin yourselves out to be poor defenceless victims. Sorry, not havin' a go at you - what you should do is rise up and kick some heads in. Get your butts to the AGM and show the CV mob who's boss. Be pro-active. Mate, you don't really need a feaking divorce - too bloody costly and damaging. You just gotta show who's wearin' the pants!

AR

** LATE EDIT: An example of NCFP's disarray was their late payment of monies to FIDE. So for a time, Philipine ratings were invisible on fide.com. And now a new controversy: 2 of our GM's have stepped down from the NCFP, apparently in protest against the Torre-Paragua match. It's quite bad. And guess what? Looks like a new association is being formed!

See: http://www.inq7.net/spo/2004/jan/14/spo_2-1.htm
http://www.philstar.com/philstar/News200401141604.htm

Commentator
14-01-2004, 10:59 AM
Your statement may be true Commentator but unfortunately you miss the point. We do not want to run CV. We want to run MCC. We need civil communication with CV. We do not want to take over their organisation because we do not like the executive. Instead we simply prefer to withdraw and say "we cannot work with certain key individuals."- In other words we want to investigate other options! I mean 20 years is a long time, maybe we need a divorce.

The point was certainly missed by me. But you have now made it clear.

Ascaro, my friend, your rating will soon be on the Hobart list and much easier to find. Your games will be rated after all. And your entry into the Australian Championship will be via the Island Champion selection criteria clause. ;)


C

Bill Gletsos
14-01-2004, 11:32 AM
There is a 4th and 5th option available to provide a workable solution.

4. MCC joins any other chess organisation like NSWCA,SACA or TCA(?) and gets them to rate their games. After all the precedent has already been set with Albury chess club.
No that isnt a precedent.
ACF by-laws allow for members within 50k of a State border to belong to either their state of residence or the adjoining state.


5. Is a recognition by the ACF that the MCC is a unique historical development in chess that should be supported. Therefore, to allow MCC to flourish autonomously the ACF ought to give association status to MCC. Thus allowing the ACF to establish a direct relationship with the MCC without CV. In my opinion, since MCC is a 7 day a week dedicated chessclub, without any private business interests this option would make sense.
In defence of this point I would like to suggest that MCC probably has more members then Tasmanian chess or Northern Territory chess.
I cannot realistically see the ACF taking this course of action.

ursogr8
14-01-2004, 12:41 PM
Trust me mate. Forming an entirely new organisation isn't the way to go. Pretty soon, you'll be right back to where you started. The experience in the Philippines is a recent example of this. What happened was they dumped the PCF and created the so called NCFP. **

Look mate, the way I see it, there's no point carryin' on about how powerful the MCC is and then makin yourselves out to be poor defenceless victims. Sorry, not havin' a go at you - what you should do is rise up and kick some heads in. Get your butts to the AGM and show the CV mob who's boss. Be pro-active. Mate, you don't really need a feaking divorce - too bloody costly and damaging. You just gotta show who's wearin' the pants!

AR

** LATE EDIT: An example of NCFP's disarray was their late payment of monies to FIDE. So for a time, Philipine ratings were invisible on fide.com. And now a new controversy: 2 of our GM's have stepped down from the NCFP, apparently in protest against the Torre-Paragua match. It's quite bad. And guess what? Looks like a new association is being formed!

See: http://www.inq7.net/spo/2004/jan/14/spo_2-1.htm
http://www.philstar.com/philstar/News200401141604.htm

AR
Well said AROSAR. You are suggesting the right course of action for the Melbourne Chess Club. So far firegoat has been light on detail of any problems between the MCC and CV that could not be resolved by reasonable discussion. After all, MCC made GW and RJ life members apparently, and so there must be goodwill and understanding that can be built on.

starter

Ian Rout
14-01-2004, 12:45 PM
Since Bill has already said that he has pretty much infinite discretion about what he can rate, though he chooses not to exercise it often, there's no guarantee that these workarounds would have any effect, nor on the other hand are they necessary. Persuading Bill/ACF to rate MCC irrespective of its status would be a less cumbersome approach.

However if being bigger (numerically) than Tas and NT is the criterion then Belconnen could also be a State.

In fact we could probably be a country and play in the Olympiad.

ursogr8
14-01-2004, 12:52 PM
However if being bigger (numerically) than Tas and NT is the criterion then Belconnen could also be a State.

In fact we could probably be a country and play in the Olympiad.

Belconnen in the OLYMPIAD
Well, it has a nice ring to it. :D

Bill Gletsos
14-01-2004, 01:09 PM
Since Bill has already said that he has pretty much infinite discretion about what he can rate, though he chooses not to exercise it often,
Ian, I do not believe that is what I said nor implied.

The exceptions to procesing results other than from State Rating Officers is fairly limited.

The Dorothy Dibley is run by the AWCL which is an affliated body with the ACF.

The Ocenaia Zonal in Fiji has so far been a one off.

So far no tournament that I have received directly and that has been included due to being close to the deadline has been rejected by a State Association. If an Association did in fact reject it after the event, then all I would do is re-run that rating period removing the offending tournament.

Last years Vic masters and reserves were only included after the ratings were published because other circumstances necessitated a rerun of the rating period.

Ian Rout
14-01-2004, 01:58 PM
I agree it's been very rare and these were all unusual cases, and that you were careful to make that clear.

If the Zonal was rated without even being submitted, though, I think that shows that where there is a strong enough reason anything can be rated.

In general I agree with your point that you would not want tournaments coming in from outside the system as this could lead to all sorts of fly-by-night operations and lack of quality control. Jeff Wood is very careful about finding mistakes in tournaments that I submit.

Bill Gletsos
14-01-2004, 02:09 PM
I agree it's been very rare and these were all unusual cases, and that you were careful to make that clear.

If the Zonal was rated without even being submitted, though, I think that shows that where there is a strong enough reason anything can be rated.

In general I agree with your point that you would not want tournaments coming in from outside the system as this could lead to all sorts of fly-by-night operations and lack of quality control. Jeff Wood is very careful about finding mistakes in tournaments that I submit.
If I recall correctly I received the SP files from Gary Bekker. I discussed the rating of the Fiji Zonal at the time with the Graeme Gardiner before including it. It was an Olympiad selection year so it seemed reasonable to include it since so many of the players were Australian.

As for the State Rating Officers all of them are very good at scrutinising the results.

chesslover
14-01-2004, 08:17 PM
I wonder if he posted that in this thread by mistake - I can't see what he was replying to.

No, Peter is being silly, trying to provoke me and other christians to respond and fightwith us.

I heard of chrsitian zeal, but this mad man's anti christian zeal is fanatic to the extreme.
:x
Like Bill states if he wants to pursue this issue he should stick to the non chess threads

chesslover
14-01-2004, 08:35 PM
Well firstly I would like to congratulate Chesslover on his well articulated posts in this thread. He definitely proved some of my previous comments about him wrong.

Let us investigate the three choices.
1. May be possible but isolates us from the chess community, particularly if we have to internalise our own rating system. Although dare I say it, not recognising a rating MAY constitute a restraint of trade, particularly since the ACF,CV and MCC have payed chess professionals in the past.
This option appears unclear.

2. Considering that the CV and MCC disputes have been continuing for nearly 20 years, does this offer a realistic future. Both organisations have their own agendas that continually clash. Looking at it from an MCC perspective, whilst GW and RJ are involved there will probably be no movement on that front.

3. This is an appealing option provided other clubs take a stand with us and the ACF recognises the body. Realistically I cannot see this happening, but you never know.

There is a 4th and 5th option available to provide a workable solution.

4. MCC joins any other chess organisation like NSWCA,SACA or TCA(?) and gets them to rate their games. After all the precedent has already been set with Albury chess club.
5. Is a recognition by the ACF that the MCC is a unique historical development in chess that should be supported. Therefore, to allow MCC to flourish autonomously the ACF ought to give association status to MCC. Thus allowing the ACF to establish a direct relationship with the MCC without CV. In my opinion, since MCC is a 7 day a week dedicated chessclub, without any private business interests this option would make sense.
In defence of this point I would like to suggest that MCC probably has more members then Tasmanian chess or Northern Territory chess.



Firegoat, even though on other posts I disagree with you, I think that you are right in this case to represent the cause of your MCC members. As a person holding a responsible position within the MCC, you are 100% correct to represent their interests to the best of your ability. If the CV's policies and attitudes are adversarial to MCC, then as a member of the MCC you are right in opposing them.

I admire your tenacity and spirit in standing up for what you believe in - despite very vocal and spirited opposition from others =D>

I think your ananlysis of the 5 options available for MCC is good. Some further thoughts of mine

1. Yes, this standalone option will isolate the MCC from the Australian chess scene. However the ACF will also be hurt, if you start to internalise your ratings, and then have other clubs and other non MCC players, use your own rating systems. This way you will have the ACF ratings by Bill, and the other MCC rating system - which will be highly undesirable from the Australian chess point of view. However if MCC is ever put in a position where it's tournaments are not being rated, it does not want to join CV, what other option is there but to have thheir own internal MCC ratings

2. I did not realise the MCC/ CV problems have gone on for 20 years. If so then the problems seem to transcend personality disputes, and seem to have some substantial basis

3. I think this too will be bad from a holistic Australian chess point of view - having 2 chess federations in Victoria. CV and the ACF should do all they can to address the concerns of the MCC and avoid this undesirable situation

4. But given the location rule, the only federation MCC can join seems to be Tasmania? If so will the TCA agree to have MCC as TCA members? ALso am not sure if TCA, uses the NSWCA individual memberships system, rather than the CV club based membership system

5. I do not think that this is a good solution. If so you will soon have many many clubs claiming special needs, to have direct membership of the ACF. The consitution will also need to be changed, which as Jammos last attempt at undemocratic reform showed, is very difficult

chesslover
14-01-2004, 08:40 PM
However if being bigger (numerically) than Tas and NT is the criterion then Belconnen could also be a State.

In fact we could probably be a country and play in the Olympiad.

How many members has belconnen got?

I thought from previous posts in the old BB, that Box Hill had members that are more than 100?

If we go down this route, what about NSW clubs like North Sydnet, StGeorge, Rooty Hills etc? They should all be states too
:shock:

ursogr8
14-01-2004, 09:06 PM
How many members has belconnen got?

I thought from previous posts in the old BB, that Box Hill had members that are more than 100?

If we go down this route, what about NSW clubs like North Sydnet, StGeorge, Rooty Hills etc? They should all be states too
:shock:

Chesslover


Do you realise that your musing about re-structure is starting to sound a lot like


1) Matt's talk-in at Broken Hill :o :o :o :shock: :shock: :shock:


and 2)Jammo's 'Commission' :o :o :o



Are you a closet revolutionary? ;)


starter

chesslover
14-01-2004, 09:13 PM
Chesslover


Do you realise that your musing about re-structure is starting to sound a lot like


1) Matt's talk-in at Broken Hill :o :o :o :shock: :shock: :shock:


and 2)Jammo's 'Commission' :o :o :o



Are you a closet revolutionary? ;)


starter


I most certainly am not in favour of the undemocratic "commisssion" proposal of jammo, and in the old ACF BB was 100% supportive of our NSWCA delegates who voted against this plan. Thank goodness for people like Bill and co, who stood up for the silent majority in NSW

I do believe in a strong NSWCA, not a strong ACF. Essentially in an ideal world if NSWCA does not like any ACF proposal or policy, then NSWCA should not have it implemented in NSW

paulb
15-01-2004, 12:09 AM
I do believe in a strong NSWCA, not a strong ACF. Essentially in an ideal world if NSWCA does not like any ACF proposal or policy, then NSWCA should not have it implemented in NSW

What about a strong NSWCA and a strong ACF? they're not mutually incompatible.

Or maybe the point is better made this way: those who pushed the commission proposal were not looking for a way for the ACF to dominate the states; rather they were looking for a more effective structure for the ACF.
I don't have a strong position pro or con the commission but I think motives are being misconstrued.

In 99/100 cases the interests of the ACF are in line with the states; the point is that the way things are organised and structured may not be optimum.

Bill Gletsos
15-01-2004, 12:16 AM
Firegoat, even though on other posts I disagree with you, I think that you are right in this case to represent the cause of your MCC members. As a person holding a responsible position within the MCC, you are 100% correct to represent their interests to the best of your ability. If the CV's policies and attitudes are adversarial to MCC, then as a member of the MCC you are right in opposing them.

I admire your tenacity and spirit in standing up for what you believe in - despite very vocal and spirited opposition from others =D>
I really have to disagree with all of your following points.



1. Yes, this standalone option will isolate the MCC from the Australian chess scene. However the ACF will also be hurt, if you start to internalise your ratings, and then have other clubs and other non MCC players, use your own rating systems. This way you will have the ACF ratings by Bill, and the other MCC rating system - which will be highly undesirable from the Australian chess point of view. However if MCC is ever put in a position where it's tournaments are not being rated, it does not want to join CV, what other option is there but to have thheir own internal MCC ratings
This just wont work.
There are at least 2 problems with this idea.
Firstly if MCC tournaments are not ACF rated then there is a good chance this will effect their entries. People will just decide not to play in MCC events. Those that do play will be aware they are not being rated.
Secondly if members of the MCC are also members of other clubs then their tournamnt results at those other clubs will still be rated.
Those who are only members of the MCC would then either just have to decide they no longer have ACF ratings or decide to change clubs.


2. I did not realise the MCC/ CV problems have gone on for 20 years. If so then the problems seem to transcend personality disputes, and seem to have some substantial basis
fg hasnt really pointed out what these so called problems are that have been going on for 20 years so I don't see how you can reasonably reach that conclusion. It could just as easily be many trival but ongoing issues. I doubt that you can appreciate what these problems might be unless you are actually a Vcitorian and even then you may need to be a MCC or CV person.



3. I think this too will be bad from a holistic Australian chess point of view - having 2 chess federations in Victoria. CV and the ACF should do all they can to address the concerns of the MCC and avoid this undesirable situation
I seriously doubt you would end up with two bodies claiming to control chess in Victoria.
It is however up to the MCC to sort out its issues with CV. It is not an ACF concern.


4. But given the location rule, the only federation MCC can join seems to be Tasmania? If so will the TCA agree to have MCC as TCA members? ALso am not sure if TCA, uses the NSWCA individual memberships system, rather than the CV club based membership system
This isnt going to happen.
However even if the MCC did go joining the TCA or any other state association it would not help.
The by-law I mentioned really only covers eligibility for ACF tournaments.
If a club tried submitting its results via a State Rating Officer in which the club was not resident then I'm sure the ACF would quickly bring in a rule that disallowed the practice if the state Association of residence objected.


5. I do not think that this is a good solution. If so you will soon have many many clubs claiming special needs, to have direct membership of the ACF. The consitution will also need to be changed, which as Jammos last attempt at undemocratic reform showed, is very difficult
This isn't going to get up.
It would require a change to the ACF Constitution.
Any change can be blocked by 6 votes.
Victoria currently have 5.
It would seem reasonable to assume they could find the remainging 1 vote from amongst the other 18 possible votes.

Kevin Bonham
15-01-2004, 02:33 AM
4. But given the location rule, the only federation MCC can join seems to be Tasmania? If so will the TCA agree to have MCC as TCA members? ALso am not sure if TCA, uses the NSWCA individual memberships system, rather than the CV club based membership system

TCA uses a curious system in which individuals become members automatically by any of:

* joining any affiliated club that sends us games for rating.
* playing in any TCA organised adult event.
* honorary life membership
* purchasing membership at a nominal rate

The current TCA membership is at least 80.

I am pretty sure the TCA would have no part of a scheme like this and even more sure the ACF would not allow it. The purpose of sometimes allowing ratings by the adjacent state is to provide for cases where this is the most convenient way to do things, not to give loopholes for clubs possibly in arrears to their own state association to have their games rated through each other. Also, MCC is not within 50 km of the Tasmanian state boundary anyway. (For those who care, the boundary passes just south of Wilsons Prom and actually cuts through a little island called Boundary Islet giving Tasmania and Victoria a land boundary that is less than 100 m long!)

Commentator
15-01-2004, 07:27 AM
2. Considering that the CV and MCC disputes have been continuing for nearly 20 years, does this offer a realistic future. Both organisations have their own agendas that continually clash. Looking at it from an MCC perspective, whilst GW and RJ are involved there will probably be no movement on that front.



Firegoat, even though on other posts I disagree with you, I think that you are right in this case to represent the cause of your MCC members. As a person holding a responsible position within the MCC, you are 100% correct to represent their interests to the best of your ability. If the CV's policies and attitudes are adversarial to MCC, then as a member of the MCC you are right in opposing them.

2. I did not realise the MCC/ CV problems have gone on for 20 years. If so then the problems seem to transcend personality disputes, and seem to have some substantial basis


20 years is a long time, I agree. And one would expect that during this long, long time that someone from the MCC would have written down their grievances and attempted a communique to CV, or at least a MCC Committee resolution that some-one was empowered to negotiate conflict resolution. But I sense that MCC have simply forgotten what they are unhappy with.
MCC, we are here to help you. 8)
Can you put some cards on the table? :?

C

Commentator
15-01-2004, 07:34 AM
Does anyone know who is on the CV Executive. From what I read here we could presume, Chess Guru, Jammo at least. Who else? And do they read the BB. And could they debate through the board with the MCC? At least Jammo v. fg+WBA brought some issues to the light of day.

C

Ian Rout
15-01-2004, 07:50 AM
However if being bigger (numerically) than Tas and NT is the criterion then Belconnen could also be a State.

In fact we could probably be a country and play in the Olympiad.

How many members has belconnen got?

I thought from previous posts in the old BB, that Box Hill had members that are more than 100?

If we go down this route, what about NSW clubs like North Sydnet, StGeorge, Rooty Hills etc? They should all be states too
:shock:

Not sure exactly how many members BCC has; probably about 70 players played in one club event (i.e. excluding hosted ACTCA events) or another last year. Tasmania has 79 on the latest ACF rating list so allowing for some of these being de facto inactives BCC is probably slightly ahead, and a long way ahead of NT.

Of course I was not being entirely serious but I must admit that the clubs named by CL have a stronger case.

While we are being silly, it could be noted that there appears to be no rule that a club must be a single "campus" so MCC could open another premises in Hobart (or Perth or Alice Springs) if it wants to get around the 50km rule.

bobby1972
15-01-2004, 08:23 AM
the fee was payed last night so every body just relax,now for the best tourney of the year the MCC championships simply the best club ch in the country,mcc rules ok.

Commentator
15-01-2004, 10:26 AM
the fee was payed last night so every body just relax,now for the best tourney of the year the MCC championships simply the best club ch in the country,mcc rules ok.

Ascaro!
Mate!

Great work by the Club.

Although, we were all interested in you qualifying for the next Aus. Championship via the Melbourne CC outpost in Tasmania. You couldabeen Tas. champion.

C

Bill Gletsos
15-01-2004, 12:31 PM
Does anyone know who is on the CV Executive. From what I read here we could presume, Chess Guru, Jammo at least. Who else? And do they read the BB. And could they debate through the board with the MCC? At least Jammo v. fg+WBA brought some issues to the light of day.
You could have found this out by going to the CV web page.
http://www.chessvictoria.com/

However to save you the trouble the CV executive members are:

President : Gary Wastell
Vice President : Phil O'Conner
Secretary : Keith Jenkins
Treasurer : Robert Jamieson
Exec Member : David Cordover

bobby1972
15-01-2004, 03:45 PM
before atempting tas ch,have to try and win the mcc under 2000 very hard to win it,i withdrew in disguts last year.he he he

Kevin Bonham
15-01-2004, 04:17 PM
Although, we were all interested in you qualifying for the next Aus. Championship via the Melbourne CC outpost in Tasmania. You couldabeen Tas. champion.

We also have residency requirements down here. To be eligible to be Tasmanian Champion you must be resident in Tasmania at the time of winning the title, and must have lived in Tasmania for a total of one year during your life.

chesslover
15-01-2004, 06:42 PM
What about a strong NSWCA and a strong ACF? they're not mutually incompatible.


when you have a strong central organisation and a strong decentralised organisation, there is more likely to be conflicts. If you want to look at in terms of politics, it is akin to a strong Yugoslav centre, and a strong Croatia - while they are all in agreement then it is fine, but when they disagree there is bloddy conflicts as both the centre and the regiosn are strong.

In CV, this is more likely to happen as in CV it is the clubs that are the basis of membership - not individuals like us in NSWCA. Thus strong clubs like MCC can stand up to CV if they feel that their rights are infringed, and be more effective. Compare that to an individual or a group of individuals that are not happy with the NSWCA - it is relatively harder for them to fight the NSWCA, than it is for MCC to fight CV.

I think the basis of democracy and grass r.oots accountability is the smallest fucntional unit - in the case of victoria the clubs and in the case of NSW, the NSWCA. These bodies are more likely to listen to the views of it's members and be more responsive and accountable than a centralised ACF that has other stakeholders.

I am 100% happy with having NSWCA run NSW chess. The NSWCA council is more responsive and accountable to it's members, and is well able to more effectively articulate and lobby on behalf of our concerns than a strong ACF can ever do

chesslover
15-01-2004, 06:50 PM
1. Yes, this standalone option will isolate the MCC from the Australian chess scene. However the ACF will also be hurt, if you start to internalise your ratings, and then have other clubs and other non MCC players, use your own rating systems. This way you will have the ACF ratings by Bill, and the other MCC rating system - which will be highly undesirable from the Australian chess point of view. However if MCC is ever put in a position where it's tournaments are not being rated, it does not want to join CV, what other option is there but to have thheir own internal MCC ratings
This just wont work.
There are at least 2 problems with this idea.
Firstly if MCC tournaments are not ACF rated then there is a good chance this will effect their entries. People will just decide not to play in MCC events. Those that do play will be aware they are not being rated.
Secondly if members of the MCC are also members of other clubs then their tournamnt results at those other clubs will still be rated.
Those who are only members of the MCC would then either just have to decide they no longer have ACF ratings or decide to change clubs.


2. I did not realise the MCC/ CV problems have gone on for 20 years. If so then the problems seem to transcend personality disputes, and seem to have some substantial basis
fg hasnt really pointed out what these so called problems are that have been going on for 20 years so I don't see how you can reasonably reach that conclusion. It could just as easily be many trival but ongoing issues. I doubt that you can appreciate what these problems might be unless you are actually a Vcitorian and even then you may need to be a MCC or CV person.



3. I think this too will be bad from a holistic Australian chess point of view - having 2 chess federations in Victoria. CV and the ACF should do all they can to address the concerns of the MCC and avoid this undesirable situation
I seriously doubt you would end up with two bodies claiming to control chess in Victoria.
It is however up to the MCC to sort out its issues with CV. It is not an ACF concern.


4. But given the location rule, the only federation MCC can join seems to be Tasmania? If so will the TCA agree to have MCC as TCA members? ALso am not sure if TCA, uses the NSWCA individual memberships system, rather than the CV club based membership system
This isnt going to happen.
However even if the MCC did go joining the TCA or any other state association it would not help.
The by-law I mentioned really only covers eligibility for ACF tournaments.
If a club tried submitting its results via a State Rating Officer in which the club was not resident then I'm sure the ACF would quickly bring in a rule that disallowed the practice if the state Association of residence objected.


5. I do not think that this is a good solution. If so you will soon have many many clubs claiming special needs, to have direct membership of the ACF. The consitution will also need to be changed, which as Jammos last attempt at undemocratic reform showed, is very difficult
This isn't going to get up.
It would require a change to the ACF Constitution.
Any change can be blocked by 6 votes.
Victoria currently have 5.
It would seem reasonable to assume they could find the remainging 1 vote from amongst the other 18 possible votes.

1. No, you forgot the other option that firegoat suggested. If you refused to rate MCC games, MCC can simply have their own ratings system. This MCC ratings system may not be the Glicko 2 system that is being used, and as numerous threads in the BB in the past have shown, not many are happy with your Glicko 2 system. MCC maybe able to tap into this market, and there may thus be 2 ratings for australian chess players - your glickpo based ACF rating, and a "rebel" MCC licensed rating system

2. Yes, good points and I accept that. Without knowing what firegoat meant and teh examples it is difficult to conclude there are irreconcilable difficaulties

3. yes, I too would find it hard to believe that MCC can draw enough clubs to it's side to form a rebel state league in competition to CV. If however it does that, and as the Phillipines has shown that is very possible, then what does the ACF do? It does become an ACF concern if the new hypothetical rebel MCC backed victorian chess federation claims that it should represent victorian chess - not CV

4. Maybe true

5. Yes I accept that. This will not get up

chesslover
15-01-2004, 06:55 PM
While we are being silly, it could be noted that there appears to be no rule that a club must be a single "campus" so MCC could open another premises in Hobart (or Perth or Alice Springs) if it wants to get around the 50km rule.

That is a good idea :idea:

clubs with good "brand" names or famous history liek the MCC, can perhaps franchise or license out to other parts of the state ie MCC, Tasmania or MCC, ACT etc, and give their expertise to ensure that the new club runs smoothly - much like a franchise owner does to a franchise operator

arosar
15-01-2004, 06:55 PM
when you have a strong central organisation and a strong decentralised organisation, there is more likely to be conflicts. If you want to look at in terms of politics, it is akin to a strong Yugoslav centre, and a strong Croatia - while they are all in agreement then it is fine, but when they disagree there is bloddy conflicts as both the centre and the regiosn are strong.

Are you not describing a federal structure? Australia isn't doing so badly, is it? It seems to me that you're making a lot of huge leaps. Take your Yugoslavian example. The problems you envisaged would have little or none at all to do with the overall structure but more to do with deeper causes - such as, ethnic conflict, religion, etc. There is no reason why a strong centre (central govt) and sub-centre (state govt) couldn't co-exist so long as the lines of responsibility are clearly demarcated.

AR

Commentator
15-01-2004, 06:59 PM
What about a strong NSWCA and a strong ACF? they're not mutually incompatible.


when you have a strong central organisation and a strong decentralised organisation, there is more likely to be conflicts. If you want to look at in terms of politics, it is akin to a strong Yugoslav centre, and a strong Croatia - while they are all in agreement then it is fine, but when they disagree there is bloddy conflicts as both the centre and the regiosn are strong.

In CV, this is more likely to happen as in CV it is the clubs that are the basis of membership - not individuals like us in NSWCA. Thus strong clubs like MCC can stand up to CV if they feel that their rights are infringed, and be more effective. Compare that to an individual or a group of individuals that are not happy with the NSWCA - it is relatively harder for them to fight the NSWCA, than it is for MCC to fight CV.

I think the basis of democracy and grass r.oots accountability is the smallest fucntional unit - in the case of victoria the clubs and in the case of NSW, the NSWCA. These bodies are more likely to listen to the views of it's members and be more responsive and accountable than a centralised ACF that has other stakeholders.

I am 100% happy with having NSWCA run NSW chess. The NSWCA council is more responsive and accountable to it's members, and is well able to more effectively articulate and lobby on behalf of our concerns than a strong ACF can ever do

Good analysis in my opinion chesslover. Can we anticipate Bill appearing and saying where is the evidence , statistical and evidencial. I will start the ball rolling by proposing a 'harmony index'. This measure is simply the number of combative posts between like-Staters on the BB. In Victoria we have firegoat v Jammo; that must have struggled to get into double figures. In NSW we have two councillors (one a Prez) who combat a bit. Chesslover, how do you measure the harmony in NSW, say using these two as the representative measure? You know. Bill against Matt. :oops:


C

chesslover
15-01-2004, 07:16 PM
when you have a strong central organisation and a strong decentralised organisation, there is more likely to be conflicts. If you want to look at in terms of politics, it is akin to a strong Yugoslav centre, and a strong Croatia - while they are all in agreement then it is fine, but when they disagree there is bloddy conflicts as both the centre and the regiosn are strong.

Are you not describing a federal structure? Australia isn't doing so badly, is it? It seems to me that you're making a lot of huge leaps. Take your Yugoslavian example. The problems you envisaged would have little or none at all to do with the overall structure but more to do with deeper causes - such as, ethnic conflict, religion, etc. There is no reason why a strong centre (central govt) and sub-centre (state govt) couldn't co-exist so long as the lines of responsibility are clearly demarcated.
AR

In federal structures like Australia, USA, canada and India, the centre and the states share responsibility for certain aspects of government. These are usually spelled out in the constitution which tells what is the power of the states and what is the power of the federal government. Thus in USA and Australia, the defence, foreign affairs, immigration, intelligence powers etc are vested in the federal government, and the states have the power over healkth, education, police etc.

However in most importanet federal governments, where there is a conflict between federal and state laws, it is the federal law that will prevail. However yes, whilst states are generally weaker than teh federal government under the federal structure, the states are far far more stronger in comparision to the unitarian governments like UK

And if there was no lingusitic based state structure in Yugoslavia, there would have been no effective resistence from the brave Croatian armed forces, as the regional infrastructure that could be marshalled to fight the strong federal Yugoslav army would not have existed. The difference between a weak and strong state government was vital in determining the eventual outcome of teh conflict, which resulted in a independent Croatia

Garvinator
15-01-2004, 07:23 PM
can you please relate this back to mcc v cv or take it to non chess plz, i understand how this started,but this mcc cv is important and should not be lost amid the noise of non chess stuff.

chesslover
15-01-2004, 07:30 PM
In CV, this is more likely to happen as in CV it is the clubs that are the basis of membership - not individuals like us in NSWCA. Thus strong clubs like MCC can stand up to CV if they feel that their rights are infringed, and be more effective. Compare that to an individual or a group of individuals that are not happy with the NSWCA - it is relatively harder for them to fight the NSWCA, than it is for MCC to fight CV.



Good analysis in my opinion chesslover. Can we anticipate Bill appearing and saying where is the evidence , statistical and evidencial. I will start the ball rolling by proposing a 'harmony index'. This measure is simply the number of combative posts between like-Staters on the BB. In Victoria we have firegoat v Jammo; that must have struggled to get into double figures. In NSW we have two councillors (one a Prez) who combat a bit. Chesslover, how do you measure the harmony in NSW, say using these two as the representative measure? You know. Bill against Matt. :oops:

C

I am not sure of who is right in the jammo vs firegoat posts. I have an open mind, and in some posts I have been convinced of the merits of firegoat's arguements on issues and on others I have been agreeable to Jammo's arguements on issue.

In the NSW scene, almost always Bill has been right, and the vast majority of NSWCA Counil members as well as the silent majority have been behind Bill in his views. Matt is a lone voice that cries in the wilderness

The difference between this situation in my view is the differences in structure between the NSWCA and CV.

As firegoat is a member of the MCC council, and as he has the agreement of most MCC members of his views and spirited defence on attacks on MCC, he has a "power base" and a elected mandate to stand up to any CV enroachments. As clubs are the basis of CV membership, the MCC club, due to it's tradition, memebership base and club has a great weight in victorian chess matters, and as a MCC spokesman Firegoat is to be treated seriously.

Matt on the other hand is in NSW, where there is individual membership. Thus matt's voice is just one of the many hundreds of voices of NSWCA members. His voice carries no more or less influence than other members (and now no more or less influence than any NSWCA counil members). Even if matt was a member of the local wollongong chess club, the structure of the NSWCA ensures that he is still just one voice of many.

If however if CV had the NSWCA structure, and NSWCA had the CV structure what would happen?

The "power balance" would change dramatically.

Firegoat would be just one of many CV members, and he would speak on his behalf, not on behgalf of the many MCC members who he can now speak on behalf of. Jammo will find it easier to ignore and disregard the views of foregoat, if CV had the same membership based structure as NSWCA

In contrast if NSWCA was a club based structure, and matt was the elected memeber of a important club like MCC (say North Sydney or St George) he would be far more powerful than he is now, as he will be speaking with the authority of the club. Bill will find it very hard to dismiss Matt's frequently silly points, and will have to treat matt on almost equal terms

chesslover
15-01-2004, 07:32 PM
can you please relate this back to mcc v cv or take it to non chess plz, i understand how this started,but this mcc cv is important and should not be lost amid the noise of non chess stuff.

you miss the point entirely

this IS related to the CV vs MCC threat, because the CV structure has a lot to do with some of the results of the MCC vs CV outcomes

Bill Gletsos
15-01-2004, 07:34 PM
1. No, you forgot the other option that firegoat suggested. If you refused to rate MCC games, MCC can simply have their own ratings system. This MCC ratings system may not be the Glicko 2 system that is being used, and as numerous threads in the BB in the past have shown, not many are happy with your Glicko 2 system. MCC maybe able to tap into this market, and there may thus be 2 ratings for australian chess players - your glickpo based ACF rating, and a "rebel" MCC licensed rating system
Again I think you miss the point. In the scenario suggested the MCC is just a single club. So they run their own tournaments and rate their own games. So what. The impact this would have on victorian ratings in general or to ratings of interstate players would be minimal.


3. yes, I too would find it hard to believe that MCC can draw enough clubs to it's side to form a rebel state league in competition to CV. If however it does that, and as the Phillipines has shown that is very possible, then what does the ACF do? It does become an ACF concern if the new hypothetical rebel MCC backed victorian chess federation claims that it should represent victorian chess - not CV
This would depend on the size the rebel association. If a significant number of clubs still supported CV then CV would still be the recognised accosciation. If a significant number of clubs were against CV then they could simply turn up at an AGM and change the CV executive by voting them out.

Bill Gletsos
15-01-2004, 07:42 PM
In contrast if NSWCA was a club based structure, and matt was the elected memeber of a important club like MCC (say North Sydney or St George) he would be far more powerful than he is now, as he will be speaking with the authority of the club. Bill will find it very hard to dismiss Matt's frequently silly points, and will have to treat matt on almost equal terms
I disagree. :D

Funny about that :-s

Even if he was representing a club if his points were "silly" then whether they could be dismissed would depend on a couple fo factors.

If the "silly" point was his personal view being put forward then if he did this too often I would imagine/expect his club would remove him as a delegate. After all they would want him representing their views, not his own.

If the view he was putting forward was his clubs view but not supported by other clubs then the view may still be "silly".
If the view had considerable backing by many clubs then it probably would not be "silly".

Bill Gletsos
15-01-2004, 07:50 PM
Good analysis in my opinion chesslover. Can we anticipate Bill appearing and saying where is the evidence , statistical and evidencial. I will start the ball rolling by proposing a 'harmony index'. This measure is simply the number of combative posts between like-Staters on the BB. In Victoria we have firegoat v Jammo; that must have struggled to get into double figures. In NSW we have two councillors (one a Prez) who combat a bit. Chesslover, how do you measure the harmony in NSW, say using these two as the representative measure? You know. Bill against Matt. :oops:
I'll make a comment here.
In virtually all my disagreements with Matt over the last 9 mths on the old ACF BB I would suggest that the vast majority of the NSWCA Council would have supported my view.

2004 will be his first year on the NSWCA Council.
I guess in 12 mths time we can judge his harmony index.

However there is another important fact here.
Matt's persona face to face is a lot different to his online persona.

chesslover
15-01-2004, 07:58 PM
1. No, you forgot the other option that firegoat suggested. If you refused to rate MCC games, MCC can simply have their own ratings system. This MCC ratings system may not be the Glicko 2 system that is being used, and as numerous threads in the BB in the past have shown, not many are happy with your Glicko 2 system. MCC maybe able to tap into this market, and there may thus be 2 ratings for australian chess players - your glickpo based ACF rating, and a "rebel" MCC licensed rating system
Again I think you miss the point. In the scenario suggested the MCC is just a single club. So they run their own tournaments and rate their own games. So what. The impact this would have on victorian ratings in general or to ratings of interstate players would be minimal.


3. yes, I too would find it hard to believe that MCC can draw enough clubs to it's side to form a rebel state league in competition to CV. If however it does that, and as the Phillipines has shown that is very possible, then what does the ACF do? It does become an ACF concern if the new hypothetical rebel MCC backed victorian chess federation claims that it should represent victorian chess - not CV
This would depend on the size the rebel association. If a significant number of clubs still supported CV then CV would still be the recognised accosciation. If a significant number of clubs were against CV then they could simply turn up at an AGM and change the CV executive by voting them out.

1. No, YOU miss the point. Yes I agree if the rating was only confined to the MCC it is minimal. But what if MCC performs a rival rating service, and other clubs and individuals submit their games to be rated by MCC using a different methodology to what you use? Then the impact will not be minimal at all

It will only be minimal if MCC sticks to rating it's own games

3. Yes that is what would be the sensible thing to do. If a lot of clubs join MCC, they can turn up to CV and vote out the current board. But what if they do nto have the majority, and have about 40% of the clubs and their votes? what happens then? Does the ACF continue to back CV, or does it step in and broker peace talks?

Bill Gletsos
15-01-2004, 08:12 PM
1. No, YOU miss the point. Yes I agree if the rating was only confined to the MCC it is minimal. But what if MCC performs a rival rating service, and other clubs and individuals submit their games to be rated by MCC using a different methodology to what you use? Then the impact will not be minimal at all

It will only be minimal if MCC sticks to rating it's own games
No I did not miss the point.
The point is the MCC are fighing with CV, not NSW, QLD etc.
Why would those states who are members of the ACF start to suddenly submit ratings to just a club like the MCC. They wouldnt.
Why would other clubs who are members of CV start to submit their results to the MCC. They wouldnt.


3. Yes that is what would be the sensible thing to do. If a lot of clubs join MCC, they can turn up to CV and vote out the current board. But what if they do nto have the majority, and have about 40% of the clubs and their votes? what happens then? Does the ACF continue to back CV, or does it step in and broker peace talks?
If the MCC fraction only has 40% then they don't represent the majority of Victorian players.
Its no different from the Labor Party winning a State election by 51% of the vote. They are still recognised as the legitimate ruling Government.

chesslover
15-01-2004, 08:14 PM
In contrast if NSWCA was a club based structure, and matt was the elected memeber of a important club like MCC (say North Sydney or St George) he would be far more powerful than he is now, as he will be speaking with the authority of the club. Bill will find it very hard to dismiss Matt's frequently silly points, and will have to treat matt on almost equal terms

Even if he was representing a club if his points were "silly" then whether they could be dismissed would depend on a couple fo factors.

If the "silly" point was his personal view being put forward then if he did this too often I would imagine/expect his club would remove him as a delegate. After all they would want him representing their views, not his own.

If the view he was putting forward was his clubs view but not supported by other clubs then the view may still be "silly".
If the view had considerable backing by many clubs then it probably would not be "silly".

But surely there is a difference if the person making the silly point was speaking as an individual member (as in the current NSWCA struture) or on behalf of a club as it's elected member.

Even if everyone else thinks the point is silly, and all other clubs think the point is silly, but if what matt is speaking has the endorsement of an important club like North Sydeny/ St George as it's elected office holder and has widespread support of that club, then the way you deal with that point would have to be different. You can afford to alienate matt the individual, but you cannot afford to afford matt the office holder of North Sydney/ St George, who has the backing of his club

chesslover
15-01-2004, 08:17 PM
I'll make a comment here.
In virtually all my disagreements with Matt over the last 9 mths on the old ACF BB I would suggest that the vast majority of the NSWCA Council would have supported my view.

2004 will be his first year on the NSWCA Council.
I guess in 12 mths time we can judge his harmony index.

However there is another important fact here.
Matt's persona face to face is a lot different to his online persona.

What Bill states is true and he is correct.

But matt in person is so much different to the Matt who posts on this BB. It is almost as if there is an evil twin Matt who posts in the BB - such is the difference between the BB Matt and the face to face matt

jammo
15-01-2004, 08:23 PM
Hello Everyone,

I'd like to set the record straight in relation to the MCC being suspended by CV and previously by the ACF.

It's really very simple and anyone who is in business should understand the process.

1. MCC gets a bill from CV or ACF due for payment in (say) 60 days.
2. After 60 days they have not paid the bill.
3. They get sent a reminder notice.
4. They still don't pay.
5. They get contacted and asked "is there a problem? If so please tell us , if not pay the bill.
6. They still don't pay and don't communicate with CV or ACF.
7. CV or ACF get fed up and so suspend all services from MCC.

This is basically what has happen to the ACF a year or so ago and now to CV.

I did not "announce" MCC's suspension on this bulletin board.
What happened was at the most recent CV meeting (which I did not attend) I understand that a motion was passed to suspend MCC until all outstanding amounts owed to CV were paid. I presumed that CV had notified the MCC about this motion (presumably through the CV Secretary) and my mentioning it in the bulletin board was never intended as notification. It now appears that the CV Secretary has not yet advised the MCC of their suspension. I will bring this up at our next meeting.

Meanwhile, I have been attempting to contact the MCC Treasurer to see if we can resolve our outstanding accounts. I find an email with the subject " R U dead?" is very effective in this regard. We are also having tea tommorrow night and I am hopeful that CV will soon have a cheque for the balance owing.

Now why does CV wish to suspend MCC?
Let me give you a little example.
Perhaps Mr.Firegoat has heard of a competition called "Winter Interclub" which started early in 2003 and finshed late in 2003 (I don't have exact dates in fron of me).
If he read the entry form he would a noticed the comment "entry fees must accompany entries".
MCC entered two teams.
Have they paid their entry fee?
As of 15.1.04 they haven't.
So to Firegoat and others, all I can say is it is very simple. Pay your bills and you don't get suspended. If you think a bill is wrong then discuss it with CV.

I should add that the MCC Treasurer is a very competent and sensible bloke who I hold in high regard (even if he is difficult to contact at times).
Perhaps he has problems persuading the MCC committe to pay their bills on time? I don't know, but I'll ask him tomorrow night.

-Jammo

chesslover
15-01-2004, 08:24 PM
It will only be minimal if MCC sticks to rating it's own games
No I did not miss the point.
The point is the MCC are fighing with CV, not NSW, QLD etc.
Why would those states who are members of the ACF start to suddenly submit ratings to just a club like the MCC. They wouldnt.
Why would other clubs who are members of CV start to submit their results to the MCC. They wouldnt.

If the MCC fraction only has 40% then they don't represent the majority of Victorian players.
Its no different from the Labor Party winning a State election by 51% of the vote. They are still recognised as the legitimate ruling Government.[/quote]

1. But you are assuming that only state rating officers will submit the rating results. Just because you do not accept the rating from individuals, does not mean that a "rebel" MCC ratings officer will not.

But you are right in that I think this will not happen, and other CV clubs will nto want to be part of the rebel MCC ratings when they can be part of your Australia wide ACF rating system

However that possibility does exist, if as firegoat stated MCC use their own internal ratings - if they then invite interested individuals, tournament orgnaisers and clubs to have a MCC rating

2. Yes 50.1% is still a win. Ask Al Gore :D

But can a state so badly divided stand?

Bill Gletsos
15-01-2004, 08:24 PM
But surely there is a difference if the person making the silly point was speaking as an individual member (as in the current NSWCA struture) or on behalf of a club as it's elected member.

Even if everyone else thinks the point is silly, and all other clubs think the point is silly, but if what matt is speaking has the endorsement of an important club like North Sydeny/ St George as it's elected office holder and has widespread support of that club, then the way you deal with that point would have to be different. You can afford to alienate matt the individual, but you cannot afford to afford matt the office holder of North Sydney/ St George, who has the backing of his club

I disagree. If a point is "silly" then it is "silly".
It does not matter if the "silly" point has widespread support by its own club members.
Its not going to get anywhere with it.

In your scenario where clubs are the members and not individuals if the point is "clever" it will fail just as easily as the "silly" point if the only support is from the one club.
If it doesnt have the majority support of other clubs it wont get up.

If an executive made a decison that was opposed by the majority of members(clubs) it would either get thrown out at the next AGM if it was hugely unpopular or else the decision would simply be overturned by a vote at the AGM.

This isn't rocket science.
It is fairly straightforward.

chesslover
15-01-2004, 08:32 PM
But surely there is a difference if the person making the silly point was speaking as an individual member (as in the current NSWCA struture) or on behalf of a club as it's elected member.

Even if everyone else thinks the point is silly, and all other clubs think the point is silly, but if what matt is speaking has the endorsement of an important club like North Sydeny/ St George as it's elected office holder and has widespread support of that club, then the way you deal with that point would have to be different. You can afford to alienate matt the individual, but you cannot afford to afford matt the office holder of North Sydney/ St George, who has the backing of his club

I disagree. If a point is "silly" then it is "silly".
It does not matter if the "silly" point has widespread support by its own club members.
Its not going to get anywhere with it.

In your scenario where clubs are the members and not individuals if the point is "clever" it will fail just as easily as the "silly" point if the only support is from the one club.
If it doesnt have the majority support of other clubs it wont get up.

If an executive made a decison that was opposed by the majority of members(clubs) it would either get thrown out at the next AGM if it was hugely unpopular or else the decision would simply be overturned by a vote at the AGM.

This isn't rocket science.
It is fairly straightforward.

and then just like CV vs MCC, you will have NSWCA vs St George/North Sydney issues that will ferment over the years

arosar
15-01-2004, 08:37 PM
and then just like CV vs MCC, you will have NSWCA vs St George/North Sydney issues that will ferment over the years

Ow c'mon mate! Where does this observation come from?

AR

Bill Gletsos
15-01-2004, 09:08 PM
and then just like CV vs MCC, you will have NSWCA vs St George/North Sydney issues that will ferment over the years

Ow c'mon mate! Where does this observation come from?

AR
Its just a CL hypothetical.
One I disagree with.

firegoat7
16-01-2004, 03:37 AM
Please Mr Jamieson stop embarassing yourself.

If you continue to make false claims you have to answer to them. There is no need for you to continue this humiliation, nobody is enjoying the outcome, it is just sad.

Unfortunately you wrote:
I did not "announce" MCC's suspension on this bulletin board.
This is dated Jan the 15th.

But previously you wrote…
recently the ACF had to suspend all services from the MCC until it paid its bills to the ACF, and now Chess Victoria Inc. has had to suspend all services from the MCC until it pays its bills to CV. Since this is dated Jan the 7th, How do you justify your claim?

At best you have a poor memory, at worst you’re a liar. How can we trust any of your claims?

ursogr8
16-01-2004, 06:58 AM
Please Mr Jamieson stop embarassing yourself.

If you continue to make false claims you have to answer to them. There is no need for you to continue this humiliation, nobody is enjoying the outcome, it is just sad.

Unfortunately you wrote:
I did not "announce" MCC's suspension on this bulletin board.
This is dated Jan the 15th.

But previously you wrote…
recently the ACF had to suspend all services from the MCC until it paid its bills to the ACF, and now Chess Victoria Inc. has had to suspend all services from the MCC until it pays its bills to CV. Since this is dated Jan the 7th, How do you justify your claim?

At best you have a poor memory, at worst you’re a liar. How can we trust any of your claims?

hi firegoat7

I went back and read Jammo's explanation of how the suspension occurred. Personally I think it is a reasonable and believable explanation. Don't over-dramatise it. Words like 'announce', 'reveal', and 'notify' all have shades of meaning. Forget the semantics.
The issue is now resolved according to bobby72's post. There were no provocations, just administrative mistakes from what we read. 1) MCC should have paid the bill. 2) CV Secretary (not Jammo) should have told the MCC they were suspended. End of story.

starter

Garvinator
16-01-2004, 09:21 AM
The issue is now resolved according to bobby72's post. There were no provocations, just administrative mistakes from what we read. 1) MCC should have paid the bill. 2) CV Secretary (not Jammo) should have told the MCC they were suspended. End of story.
starter

something that stands out to me and im surprised no one else has asked yet, firegoat7 (on behalf of mcc apparently) has said that mcc was not informed of their suspension but they only found out via this bb. The question then begs to be asked, why didnt the secretary inform them in writing? why did it mcc find out from here first :oops:

arosar
16-01-2004, 09:28 AM
why didnt the secretary inform them in writing?

There could be any number of reasons for this but I'm pretty sure that no malice was intended. No conspiracy OK. Perhaps Sec just forgot or overlooked the matter. Who knows?


why did it mcc find out from here first :oops:

Cos the Sec had failed to do so before jammo piped in here with the assumption that the Sec had already done so.

But all this is just making me depressed really. I might just go past Vic and go to Tassie instead.

AR

ursogr8
16-01-2004, 09:42 AM
why didnt the secretary inform them in writing?

There could be any number of reasons for this but I'm pretty sure that no malice was intended. No conspiracy OK. Perhaps Sec just forgot or overlooked the matter. Who knows?


why did it mcc find out from here first :oops:

Cos the Sec had failed to do so before jammo piped in here with the assumption that the Sec had already done so.

But all this is just making me depressed really. I might just go past Vic and go to Tassie instead.

AR

ggrayggray
Yours is a legitimate question; and arosar's is the probable answer.

arosar
I think Tassie might be just the place for you. Good choice.

Actually, the more interesting question might have been why did the MCC stall over paying the bill to enter Interclub teams in 2003 when they probably had 3 teams tops. :rolleyes:
Dandenong had a similar number and paid their bill on entry. BH had 24 teams and has paid.

starter

Bill Gletsos
16-01-2004, 10:30 AM
Cos the Sec had failed to do so before jammo piped in here with the assumption that the Sec had already done so.
Quite corrrect AR.

At a NSWCA meeting it may be resolved that the secretary is directed to write to a particular member or club/organisation. Now although our secretary, Tom Accola is very prompt in his correspondence, it would be quite possible for a member of Council to mention to that member or club the particular issue before they had received the correspondence from the secretary.
After all people need to remember that all of the Council members in NSW and the Executive in VIC are unpaid volunteer workers who have other committments.

firegoat7
16-01-2004, 11:30 AM
I honestly do not know why anybody would accept on face value anything that Jammo said was true.
I have tried to elucidate examples showing that Jammo's claims are false, the BB suspension looked a lay down mazere to me, but still people believe his story.

So let us ask a few more questions of the story.

1.Is MCC the only club in Victoria who have not payed their bills on time? Because I am privy to some information that they are not. I know for example that one nameless club is a year behind in their accounts. So why is MCC suspended and not this club?

2. MCC have always been billed by CV for winterinterclub, we have never payed up front. If this is an issue, it can easily be rectified, it is no proof however of any malice on MCCs behalf.

3. MCC played 2 teams in interclub. So why was the bill $200 not $150 as per the advertised flyers? We asked someone at CV who suggested the answer was "because both teams played in different competitions East and West". Nice try, We were not allowed to enter an "A" grade in the western zone and you would not allow our "B" grade to play in the eastern zone. A classic example of how CV deals with MCC. One rule for MCC another rule for every other club in Victoria.

Now I seriously doubt the legitimacy of your claims Jammo.So could you clarify some points for me. 1. When (date please) did CV have this meeting that suspended MCC? 2. Who was in attendence at this meeting? and is the suspension discussion noted in your minutes? 3.Why did the President of CV not tell the treasurer of MCC of the decision while both of them were at the Australian championship?- I mean if you are having difficulty contacting the treasurer surely this was an appropriate moment.

I eagerly await your response.

ursogr8
16-01-2004, 11:46 AM
3. MCC played 2 teams in interclub. So why was the bill $200 not $150 as per the advertised flyers? We asked someone at CV who suggested the answer was "because both teams played in different competitions East and West". Nice try, We were not allowed to enter an "A" grade in the western zone and you would not allow our "B" grade to play in the eastern zone. A classic example of how CV deals with MCC. One rule for MCC another rule for every other club in Victoria.

.

33 posts on this BB (and I don't know how many on the other) and I can't recall previously agreeing with any of firegoats points. But he looks to have kicked a goal finally.
Gazza, did we really bill them $200?
Jammo, is a $50 refund warranted?

Before firegoat's point is dismissed I suggest reading the by-laws carefully and pay particular attention to the word 'competition'. It is used in more than one sense as we know from the drafting of the recent AGM motion to change the qualifying-player criteria.


firegoat
Of course there is a different application of the rule for the MCC. You were the only group to enter both regions; for whatever reason.

starter

jammo
16-01-2004, 11:48 AM
It was Jammo who started with the headkicking, not myself.

Dear Mr.Goat,

On the question of "who threw the first punch" the answer is apparent to everyone but you .... and I'm not talking Doeberl Cup here.

Who started the post "time for the clowns to leave the circus" (referring to the ACF), and who wrote "do we want Jammo to return, doesn't he represent a conflicting interest" referring to me being CV Treasurer?

That initiated my post pointing out that in my view your opinions have little merit and you have no experience or background to comment on many of the matters that you have raised.

But, heh, it is not really necessary for me to point this out to people. They just have to read the rubbish you litter our bulletin board with to reach the same conclusion themselves.

-Jammo

Bill Gletsos
16-01-2004, 12:00 PM
firegoat
Of course there is a different application of the rule for the MCC. You were the only group to enter both regions; for whatever reason.

starter

For us non Victorians how the hell can a club belong to two Interclub zones. Surely your zone is based on your geographic position.

arosar
16-01-2004, 12:03 PM
And don't these Mexicans have a Bill Gletsos. You know, a bit of a head kicker, a reverend, Defender of the Faith type? It's just that fg7 keep firin' a series of salvos and the replies are, well, a bit meek.

AR

Bill Gletsos
16-01-2004, 12:05 PM
And don't these Mexicans have a Bill Gletsos. You know, a bit of a head kicker, a reverend, Defender of the Faith type? It's just that fg7 keep firin' a series of salvos and the replies are, well, a bit meek.

AR
Remember my debates/arguments with jammo re the ACF Commission.
Jammo can definately be a head kicker when the mood takes him. ;)

ursogr8
16-01-2004, 12:08 PM
firegoat
Of course there is a different application of the rule for the MCC. You were the only group to enter both regions; for whatever reason.

starter

For us non Victorians how the hell can a club belong to two Interclub zones. Surely your zone is based on your geographic position.

hi Bill

You look to be in question mode today, instead of providing the answers.


The answer to your question is apparently not.

I have read the Interclub by-laws recently and saw nothing about geographic boundaries defining zones.
Could you post your NSW words and we will consider if they value-add (for us).

starter

Bill Gletsos
16-01-2004, 12:15 PM
Our grade match rules had been on the NSW web page.

I'll see about getting them re-posted there.

Our grade matches as a rule are not run in zones.

NSW generally runs its grade matches in rating divisions.

Sometimes however there may be too many entries in a single division.

In which case that division is broken into two groups. The general criteria for the breakdown of the groups is to try and minimize the travelling involved between the teams.

ursogr8
16-01-2004, 12:31 PM
Our grade match rules had been on the NSW web page.

I'll see about getting them re-posted there.

Our grade matches as a rule are not run in zones.

NSW generally runs its grade matches in rating divisions.

Sometimes however there may be too many entries in a single division.

In which case that division is broken into two groups. The general criteria for the breakdown of the groups is to try and minimize the travelling involved between the teams.

Bill

I will watch out for what you can find to post with interest.

Are you sort-of may-be possibly retracting the tone of '..how the hell can..' in your original question. Or is there NEVER to be a backward step, explicit?

starter

ursogr8
16-01-2004, 12:35 PM
And don't these Mexicans have a Bill Gletsos. You know, a bit of a head kicker, a reverend, Defender of the Faith type? It's just that fg7 keep firin' a series of salvos and the replies are, well, a bit meek.

AR

Back-rank-mate is Back-rank-mate however hard you screw the rook into the board.

Bill Gletsos
16-01-2004, 12:37 PM
Our grade match rules had been on the NSW web page.

I'll see about getting them re-posted there.

Our grade matches as a rule are not run in zones.

NSW generally runs its grade matches in rating divisions.

Sometimes however there may be too many entries in a single division.

In which case that division is broken into two groups. The general criteria for the breakdown of the groups is to try and minimize the travelling involved between the teams.

Bill

I will watch out for what you can find to post with interest.

Are you sort-of may-be possibly retracting the tone of '..how the hell can..' in your original question. Or is there NEVER to be a backward step, explicit?

starter
I don't see any need to retract because we would never for example have Nth Sydney A and Nth Sydney B playing in two different groups in the one division.

jammo
16-01-2004, 07:29 PM
Hello Everyone,

I'm pleased to advise that I had a meeting tonight with the MCC Treasurer (although it nearly didn't happen as he went to Chess Kids and I went to Chess World).

MCC has now paid their bill in full and even given me a $50 tip!!!!

Re the Interclub fee, the CV President advises me that the flyer for Interclub says the fee is $100 for the first team IN EACH ZONE and $50 for the next team, etc. The web site however does not make this clear, so GW has made a Presidential decision to give MCC a $50 credit as it was possible to misunderstand the fee structure.

The MCC Treasurer has assured me that MCC will pay all their bills on time from now on (I told you he was a wonderful chap). Apparently they are doing quite well financially now.

Mr.Goat may care to note that CV also suspended another club which has long outstanding debts at the same time as we suspended MCC. So much for his paranoia.

The MCC Treasurer also told me how wonderfull the club was under the Presidency of Greg Gatto with new carpet, painting, etc although the colour scheme sounded a bit bold. He suggested also that (despite appearances) Firegoat does not speak for the MCC and his irrational ravings against CV and ACF are his own.

I was interested to learn that as well as starting a rumour that I was "pushed" from the ACF, the goat has also started a rumour that I "have invested" in Chess Kids/World. It's news to me Goat, but don't let that restrain your vivid imagination.

So I'm delighted that matters between CV and the MCC are now back on an even keel. If the goat wants to go off now and form his own new chess body he's quite free to do so. I've even thought of a name for it. The GOATS CHEESE CLUB. Has a sort of olde worlde ring to it doesn't it?

-Jammo :D

chesslover
16-01-2004, 11:01 PM
And don't these Mexicans have a Bill Gletsos. You know, a bit of a head kicker, a reverend, Defender of the Faith type? It's just that fg7 keep firin' a series of salvos and the replies are, well, a bit meek.

AR

firegoat is the duly elected represntative of his MCC club, and is accountable to them for his actions. His viwes are based on what he thinks the MCC members want to voice - and he is far more likely to "hear" the voices of the MCC members, being on the ground, than a centralised institution like CV.

Firegoat's espousal of the MCC views, and his vocal and articulate fight on behalf of his beloved MCC, is a apt example of grass roots democracy and accountability in action, and shows why a decentralised institution is the way to go - something that would have beeen lessened if the ACF commision proposal had got up.

ursogr8
16-01-2004, 11:08 PM
Hello Everyone,

I'm pleased to advise that I had a meeting tonight with the MCC Treasurer (although it nearly didn't happen as he went to Chess Kids and I went to Chess World).

MCC has now paid their bill in full and even given me a $50 tip!!!!

Re the Interclub fee, the CV President advises me that the flyer for Interclub says the fee is $100 for the first team IN EACH ZONE and $50 for the next team, etc. The web site however does not make this clear, so GW has made a Presidential decision to give MCC a $50 credit as it was possible to misunderstand the fee structure.

The MCC Treasurer has assured me that MCC will pay all their bills on time from now on (I told you he was a wonderful chap). Apparently they are doing quite well financially now.

Mr.Goat may care to note that CV also suspended another club which has long outstanding debts at the same time as we suspended MCC. So much for his paranoia.

The MCC Treasurer also told me how wonderfull the club was under the Presidency of Greg Gatto with new carpet, painting, etc although the colour scheme sounded a bit bold. He suggested also that (despite appearances) Firegoat does not speak for the MCC and his irrational ravings against CV and ACF are his own.

I was interested to learn that as well as starting a rumour that I was "pushed" from the ACF, the goat has also started a rumour that I "have invested" in Chess Kids/World. It's news to me Goat, but don't let that restrain your vivid imagination.

So I'm delighted that matters between CV and the MCC are now back on an even keel. If the goat wants to go off now and form his own new chess body he's quite free to do so. I've even thought of a name for it. The GOATS CHEESE CLUB. Has a sort of olde worlde ring to it doesn't it?

-Jammo :D

Well done Jammo.
I particularly like the post topic that you inserted in small font at the begiining of your message. Nice touch that.

Did you get a to-do/issues/problems list from the MCC Treasurer. While peace has broken out it might be time to tackle any other sources of tension.

BTW, as my earlier post said; I did agree with firegoat that the $200 charge was over the top by $50. Fortunately the wisdom of Solomon has prevailed on this aspect.

Looks like you have killed off the 'conflict of interest' issue too.
You didn't happen to give them an invite to the next CV AGM did you?

starter

chesslover
16-01-2004, 11:22 PM
Well done Jammo.

Did you get a to-do/issues/problems list from the MCC Treasurer. While peace has broken out it might be time to tackle any other sources of tension.



yes, good to see that there has been an amicable settlement between MCC and CV.

I would however like to see whether firegoat is also agreeable to this optimistic post of yours...

WBA
17-01-2004, 11:29 AM
To suggesst that because peace has prevailed in this instance that everything is rosy b/n both insitutions is of course not accurate. I have had discussions with GW Wastell on issues before, and as two organisations should be able to do, the issues at hand were resolved. However issues at hand being dealt with is irrelevant to overall feelings between the groups. It should be obvious through previous posts that MCC has made its intentions clear that it is happy to coexist with the VCA/CV, though at this current point in time has no interest in supporting their program. I believe a lot of the current issues revolve around the nominations for tournaments, the mishandling of issues etc. In an earlier post it was for example claimed that to fail to deliver a suspension of service note to the MCC was acceptable because the VCA are made up of volunteers, may be acceptable by some. but consider this.. if the VCA executive feels it is responsible enough to make a decision to suspend services to the MCC, then surely they need to back up this claim through responsible actions.

Jammo can kid himself all he wants, he clearly announced to this bb that MCC was suspended, and this was news to every MCC member who read it, including the MCC commitee. Now as M.Pyke is the secretary of the MCC, which CV is aware of he should have been notified, in writing, that the club was to be suspended. MP happened to be in Adelaide at the same time as GW and the MCC Treasurer, why was the information not relayed.

Anyone believing that Jammo was not being petty in announcing to the BB the MCC's suspension is completely unrealistic.

i happen to be a WBA and CFC supporter, last year both these teams finished second last, they are my passion, and I will emotionally support them through thick and thin, but I am open enough to realise when they do something stupid, or perhaps even just careless. I have known FG7 for a number of years, I have told him personally when he has done something I feel is careless or stupid.

I feel some people cannot grasp that idea with Jammo, (and in the reverse with FG7). As I have stated earlier, Jammo has done some magnificent things ofr chess and even MCC. He was once widely regarded as Australia's leading player, and he is responisble at least in part for so many of today's strong players, but he is not beyond reproach, as much as many admire/worship him. When jammo says something so clearly wrong or just plain stupid (re post on Hewitt), people do not need to fall in line. When someone backs FG7's posts (CL), this does not make him the enemy. From what I have read from CL posts, he is supporting the right for people defending their clubs, yet people try and tear these posts of his down, not wanting to mention anyone's name (BG).

WBA
17-01-2004, 11:37 AM
The MCC Treasurer also told me how wonderfull the club was under the Presidency of Greg Gatto with new carpet, painting, etc although the colour scheme sounded a bit bold. He suggested also that (despite appearances) Firegoat does not speak for the MCC and his irrational ravings against CV and ACF are his own.

I can also assure you that the MCC Treasurer does not speak for the MCC anymore than FG7 does.

ursogr8
17-01-2004, 03:33 PM
I believe a lot of the current issues revolve around the nominations for tournaments, the mishandling of issues etc.

Welcome again WBA.
If these issues are to be resolved then they need to be defined first. I can recall fg7 asking how Interclub was allocated to a venue each year and I thought I gave a satisfactory answer. If you wish to pursue this type of discussion the BB has proved a fruitful debating forum. Feel free to expand on the issues.



Jammo can kid himself all he wants, he clearly announced to this bb that MCC was suspended, and this was news to every MCC member who read it, including the MCC commitee.


There is no dispute that the first time it became general knowledge that MCC was suspended was through Jammo’s post on the board. But personally I think the explanation is that the CV Secretary was slow in sending out the advice. But he was not the only one who was slow. The EVENT flyer called for payment at the point of entry (July last year probably), and the bill was unpaid in January the next year.




Anyone believing that Jammo was not being petty in announcing to the BB the MCC's suspension is completely unrealistic.

OK. Call me unrealistic.



I feel some people cannot grasp that idea with Jammo,


My post yesterday said that I felt fg7 was correct in objecting to the $200 bill instead of the more reasonable $150, and I suggested to Jammo that he refund. Or however.




BTW, Malcolm and Angelo have called my phone a few times and I have returned calls to the MCC without being able to catch them. Now that the bill is paid and this issue is gone do you still want contact guys?

starter

chesslover
17-01-2004, 05:21 PM
When someone backs FG7's posts (CL), this does not make him the enemy. From what I have read from CL posts, he is supporting the right for people defending their clubs, yet people try and tear these posts of his down, not wanting to mention anyone's name (BG).

I agree with your sentiments WBA.

I find it ironical, that people who are "states rights", and want a stonger state chess association in relation to the ACF, cannot see the parallal between this and a club wanting stronger "club rights" in relation to the state federation.

Maybe we should start another thread for this topic, but I think a strong and effective chess club is the cornerstone of the state chess scene - regardless of whether it is a NSWCA based memebership scheme, or a club based CV scene

Bill Gletsos
17-01-2004, 05:52 PM
When someone backs FG7's posts (CL), this does not make him the enemy. From what I have read from CL posts, he is supporting the right for people defending their clubs, yet people try and tear these posts of his down, not wanting to mention anyone's name (BG).
I don't think I was attacking his right to defend his club.
I was attacking CL for implying fg7 was necessarily representing the views of the MCC and not his own views.

Bill Gletsos
17-01-2004, 05:54 PM
When someone backs FG7's posts (CL), this does not make him the enemy. From what I have read from CL posts, he is supporting the right for people defending their clubs, yet people try and tear these posts of his down, not wanting to mention anyone's name (BG).

I agree with your sentiments WBA.

I find it ironical, that people who are "states rights", and want a stonger state chess association in relation to the ACF, cannot see the parallal between this and a club wanting stronger "club rights" in relation to the state federation.
You don't know what your talking about. :rolleyes:
This isn't an argument about club rights or state rights.
It was about whether fg7 was representing his own views or those of the MCC.

chesslover
17-01-2004, 06:00 PM
This isn't an argument about club rights or state rights.
It was about whether fg7 was representing his own views or those of the MCC.

well from what WBA states it is obvious that firegoat as an elected member of the MCC, was representing the views of the MCC.

Bill Gletsos
17-01-2004, 06:04 PM
It isn't obvious at all.
It only appears obvious to you because you wish it that way.

Kevin Bonham
17-01-2004, 06:32 PM
Normally I would assume that someone representing the views of their club would indicate this clearly - failing this I would assume something to be the individual's opinion and not necessarily anyone else's.

What WBA actually says is:


I can also assure you that the MCC Treasurer does not speak for the MCC anymore than FG7 does.

Which, if you think about it, means that FG7 is not posting in an official capacity, although his views may or may not be shared by other members depending on the issue. Given his posting style I would have thought this was obvious anyway. :P

ursogr8
17-01-2004, 07:04 PM
This isn't an argument about club rights or state rights.
It was about whether fg7 was representing his own views or those of the MCC.

well from what WBA states it is obvious that firegoat as an elected member of the MCC, was representing the views of the MCC.

CL

Do you deliberately misunderstand just to get your post count up?

starter

jammo
17-01-2004, 09:41 PM
It should be obvious through previous posts that MCC has made its intentions clear that it is happy to coexist with the VCA/CV, though at this current point in time has no interest in supporting their program.
That's fine WBA, may I call you Malcom by the way? If MCC does not want CV to rent its premises and MCC does not want to hold CV events, that's fine.



I believe a lot of the current issues revolve around the nominations for tournaments, the mishandling of issues etc. In an earlier post it was for example claimed that to fail to deliver a suspension of service note to the MCC was acceptable because the VCA are made up of volunteers, may be acceptable by some. but consider this.. if the VCA executive feels it is responsible enough to make a decision to suspend services to the MCC, then surely they need to back up this claim through responsible actions.

OK, if (in the holiday period) CV had not notified MCC of the suspension within three or four weeks of the decision I wonder how that ranks on the scale of incompetence with MCC not paying ints bills for 6, 9 or 12 months?



Jammo can kid himself all he wants, he clearly announced to this bb that MCC was suspended, and this was news to every MCC member who read it, including the MCC commitee.

You may call it "announced" if you wish. I call it "mentioned in passing".
Others can judge which is correct.



Now as M.Pyke is the secretary of the MCC, which CV is aware of he should have been notified, in writing, that the club was to be suspended.

Great point Malcom. You are saying M.Pyke should have been notified because he is the secretary? We must get this right and have things done through the correct formal channels. So who should have done the notifying then? Obviously the CV Secretary. This seems to support Jammo's claim that he was not "announcing" - that is the Secretary's job to implement the decisions of the Executive.



Anyone believing that Jammo was not being petty in announcing to the BB the MCC's suspension is completely unrealistic.

It's very hard if I say "white" and you keep reading it as "black" but I'll say it one more time, I did not ANNOUNCE MCC's suspension in the BB. So far as I knew you had already been notified. If you do not wish to believe me that's your problem.



When jammo says something so clearly wrong or just plain stupid (re post on Hewitt), people do not need to fall in line.

Sorry you did not like my analogy. Let me ask you a simple question then (which was the point I was trying to get across in the analogy .... but I obviously failed in your case).

Do you think Firegoat has the right to tell the ACF (with any credibilty) who should or should not play in the Australian Championship? If you think he does, please explain why?

Finally, let's get back to the big picture.

You say you think that CV is poorly run. In some respects I agree. One office-bearer in particular seems to show little interest in doing his job properly.

However, you cannot have it both ways.
If you say CV is poorly run presumably that implies you want it to be run better. 12 months ago CV had no treasurer and was greatly behind in its invoicing and collecting its bills. It then got a Treasurer. There was only one applicant. His name is Jammo. So is that an improvement in the administration of CV? I would say yes, but must admit a conflict of interest here. Yet we get a drongo like Firegoat (is he speaking officially for MCC?) saying "Do we want Jammo returning to the fold?" So what do you want? It would be nice if MCC had a consistent position. Maybe you want CV to be poorly run so you can tear it down and start a new body ... or perhaps that's only Firegoat's goal.

It is interesting that you say the MCC decided not to attend the CV AGM. Your Treasurer says that he was going to attend but something came up at the last moment and he couldn't make it. He has assured me that he will attend in future. I wonder who is telling porkies?

SOLUTIONS
OK, where do we now stand? Are you happy to do your own thing and CV will leave you alone so long as you pay your bills or do you want to tell CV what you want it to do better and we will see what can be done. Maybe you prefer to be like Kevin Bartlett and not return to Richmond until all the committee mebers who sacked him have departed. If you are waiting for GW to go you may have a long wait on your hands .... bit you have youth on your side.

It is good that you and Firegoat have a passion for the MCC and continually defend it against what you perceive as attacks. It is not good that you appear to have long standing and continuing grudges against certain people that prevent MCC and CV having good relations.

Jammo

WBA
17-01-2004, 11:06 PM
That's fine WBA, may I call you Malcom by the way? If MCC does not want CV to rent its premises and MCC does not want to hold CV events, that's fine.

Two things apparant here Frank, Peter Paul ... What was your name?

1. You still have no idea who I am, why bother concentrating on that??
2. You have no idea (still) what I am saying.



OK, if (in the holiday period) CV had not notified MCC of the suspension within three or four weeks of the decision I wonder how that ranks on the scale of incompetence with MCC not paying ints bills for 6, 9 or 12 months?


Read point 2 above. I thought I had made it obviously clear.... Again for your benefits Jammo

If if the VCA executive feels it is responsible enough to make a decision to suspend services to the MCC, then surely they need to back up this claim through responsible actions. It is simple really, I am agreeing that CV has the capacity to suspend services, what I am claiming is that CV have simply not weighed up the gravity of this decision, and therefore not considered the urgency of notifying heir customer, namely the MCC


You may call it "announced" if you wish. I call it "mentioned in passing".
Others can judge which is correct.

Maybe I cannot get this through to you, as it is impossible for you to take that one step and realise you have erred. Possibly this is one of the stumbling bloacks currently b/n CV & MCC ever resolving outstanding issues. You see the point is this the MCC pay CV for services, we are the customer, if we were on the open market the MCC would be foolish to not consider leaving. When the VCA makes announcements on public BB boards about the financial arrangements between the MCC/CV then it is certainly going to annoy it's customer. Why is this hard to understand?


Great point Malcom. You are saying M.Pyke should have been notified because he is the secretary? We must get this right and have things done through the correct formal channels. So who should have done the notifying then? Obviously the CV Secretary. This seems to support Jammo's claim that he was not "announcing" - that is the Secretary's job to implement the decisions of the Executive.

Jammo you are a genius! I never mentioned that it was your responsibility to inform the MCC committee. I did mention that it was not your responsibility to mention to the BB. Ask yourself this

When did CV decide to suspend services?
When did Jammo announce to BB?
Was enough time reasonably given considering holiday period, Aus Champs etc?
and more importantly, should the treasurer or any member of an executive ever be posting information on a public that may be of such a nature as to have detrimental implications on their customer?
Private sector again Jammo, and simply the customer walks away, and looks at its options.

Jammo just to make it clear I am not Malcolm Pyke, worry about what I say not who I am.


It's very hard if I say "white" and you keep reading it as "black" but I'll say it one more time, I did not ANNOUNCE MCC's suspension in the BB. So far as I knew you had already been notified. If you do not wish to believe me that's your problem.

no need to shout Jammo, simple really your statement is false, whatever you say your intentions were. If in doubt about this Jammo their are plenty of online dictionary's available... take a read


Do you think Firegoat has the right to tell the ACF (with any credibilty) who should or should not play in the Australian Championship? If you think he does, please explain why?

Simple really, because he is a customer, and has the right to voice an opinion. Tell me who were the official selection committee???
Also Bonham has been an Olympiad selector (this is nto directed at you in a ngeative way Kevin), as they obviously belive he has something valuable to offer. I would claim Bonham and FG7 are of a similar strenghts, so discarding his thoughts due to personality clashes is wong. At the end of the day I am not syaing FG7 should be able to change the selectors minds, he just does not have to fall into line. Simple stuff really.



You say you think that CV is poorly run. In some respects I agree. One office-bearer in particular seems to show little interest in doing his job properly.

However, you cannot have it both ways.
If you say CV is poorly run presumably that implies you want it to be run better. 12 months ago CV had no treasurer and was greatly behind in its invoicing and collecting its bills. It then got a Treasurer. There was only one applicant. His name is Jammo. So is that an improvement in the administration of CV? I would say yes, but must admit a conflict of interest here. Yet we get a drongo like Firegoat (is he speaking officially for MCC?) saying "Do we want Jammo returning to the fold?" So what do you want? It would be nice if MCC had a consistent position. Maybe you want CV to be poorly run so you can tear it down and start a new body ... or perhaps that's only Firegoat's goal

There is fair merit to what you say, and I have not posted that you should not be their, though I FG7 has this right. You still need to judge the incoming executive member. I mean there are a thousand plus unsuitable people who could have walked into the role as it was vacant, would they be an improvement? I hink not. I do not want the CV poorly run personally. I do believe both can thrive and survive. I still insist that the MCC has every right to forego attending the AGM's and if CV take this personally then that is fine.
I also happen to belive (and it is my own personal opinion), that with its assets at hand MCC could make a very good fist at it's own organisation. I am not suggesting that it should, but that with an admin geared towards that goal, this could be achieved with relative ease.


It is interesting that you say the MCC decided not to attend the CV AGM. Your Treasurer says that he was going to attend but something came up at the last moment and he couldn't make it. He has assured me that he will attend in future. I wonder who is telling porkies?

Sorry Jammo, I do not want to go into the reasons I believe FG7 here over the treasurer, sorry I cannot clarify any further. Though he would need to be nominated by the mCC committee to attend, otherwise he would be going as a spectator only, though I am sure you know this.



SOLUTIONS
OK, where do we now stand? Are you happy to do your own thing and CV will leave you alone so long as you pay your bills or do you want to tell CV what you want it to do better and we will see what can be done. Maybe you prefer to be like Kevin Bartlett and not return to Richmond until all the committee mebers who sacked him have departed. If you are waiting for GW to go you may have a long wait on your hands .... bit you have youth on your side.

It is good that you and Firegoat have a passion for the MCC and continually defend it against what you perceive as attacks. It is not good that you appear to have long standing and continuing grudges against certain people that prevent MCC and CV having good relations.

Jammo

Jammo I am not an office bearer so cannot speak in an official capacity presently. In the current state I believe that MCC should be able to take the services on offer and pay the bills, bid for tournaments, and criticise and praise as necessary. I personally believe GW has been the Pres for to long, it is my opinion only. I also feel in an ideal world he would still be a member of the executive commitee though in a reduced capacity, possibly secretary. MCC should always reserve the right to pass comment, on the organisation it pays for a service. The MCC should also reserve the right to stand aside from the AGM if it feels this is an appropriate indication of their displeasure with the service, in fact it is one of the more appropriate manners in which the club can protest, without affecting services.

As I am currently just a regular Joe member of the MCC, I coubt that my views have that impact, other than through the MCC AGM.

Bill Gletsos
18-01-2004, 12:08 AM
When the VCA makes announcements on public BB boards about the financial arrangements between the MCC/CV then it is certainly going to annoy it's customer. Why is this hard to understand?

Jammo you are a genius! I never mentioned that it was your responsibility to inform the MCC committee. I did mention that it was not your responsibility to mention to the BB. Ask yourself this

When did CV decide to suspend services?
When did Jammo announce to BB?
Was enough time reasonably given considering holiday period, Aus Champs etc?
and more importantly, should the treasurer or any member of an executive ever be posting information on a public that may be of such a nature as to have detrimental implications on their customer?
Private sector again Jammo, and simply the customer walks away, and looks at its options.

WBA,
As far as I can see it was fg7 who first mentioned that the MCC was suspended by CV when he started this thread.

Garvinator
18-01-2004, 12:11 AM
WBA,
As far as I can see it was fg7 who first mentioned that the MCC was suspended by CV when he started this thread.
this appears to be the case in this thread.

Bill Gletsos
18-01-2004, 12:21 AM
WBA,
As far as I can see it was fg7 who first mentioned that the MCC was suspended by CV when he started this thread.
this appears to be the case in this thread.
It appears to be the first mention of it on this board.

Garvinator
18-01-2004, 12:27 AM
WBA,
As far as I can see it was fg7 who first mentioned that the MCC was suspended by CV when he started this thread.
this appears to be the case in this thread.
It appears to be the first mention of it on this board.
and re reading that first post, it was in fg7 customary polite style #-o

Kevin Bonham
18-01-2004, 01:00 AM
Simple really, because he is a customer, and has the right to voice an opinion. Tell me who were the official selection committee???

The last Olympiad selection panel was IM Mark Chapman, IM Stephen Solomon, FM Tim Reilly, FM Andrew Allen and myself.


Also Bonham has been an Olympiad selector (this is nto directed at you in a ngeative way Kevin), as they obviously belive he has something valuable to offer. I would claim Bonham and FG7 are of a similar strenghts, so discarding his thoughts due to personality clashes is wong.

Actually I agree with you here and disagree with Jammo's comments as they were originally worded. There are plenty of reasons why I would not be in a hurry to support firegoat being a selector based on what I have seen from him on these BBs, or to appoint him to a review panel for the selection bylaws for that matter - but his playing strength is not one of them.

Speaking of firegoat's playing strength, can someone explain how he appears to have dropped 150 ratings points in the moat in just four rated games? Before that his rating was very close to mine.

WBA
18-01-2004, 02:49 AM
WBA,
As far as I can see it was fg7 who first mentioned that the MCC was suspended by CV when he started this thread.

can I take you back to the following quote by Jammo

"...and now Chess Victoria Inc. has had to suspend all services from the MCC..."

Posted by Jammo on Wed Jan 07, 2004 at 3:34 pm

This predates the beginning of this thread by almost a week. I think it is fair to nominate jammo as the person who first mentioned it.

ursogr8
18-01-2004, 08:24 AM
I do believe both can thrive and survive.


But WBA, CV have not been thriving and surviving recently. They have had difficulty filling Committee positions, and when they have succeeded there have been comments on this board that the candidates have conflicts of interest. That is why we need the largest financial and experienced Club to be part of State administration in Victoria. It would be desirable for the MCC to put candidates forward and at least vote at each of the meetings.




I still insist that the MCC has every right to forego attending the AGM's



Agreed. Of course they have the right not to attend the AGM. But obviously it weakens the quality of decision-making when the most experienced Club boycotts the 2003 AGM.




I personally believe GW has been the Pres for to long, it is my opinion only.



Thank you for expressing the opinion. It helps us understand your point of view. Do you think it is the view of the MCC Committee?




The MCC should also reserve the right to stand aside from the AGM if it feels this is an appropriate indication of their displeasure with the service, in fact it is one of the more appropriate manners in which the club can protest, without affecting services.



Agreed; you have the right to not attend.
Can you tell us which service the MCC are not happy with. (Remember, the unpaid bill and suspension were not issues in November when the MCC Committee moved to not attend.) What was the lack of service entering into the MCC decision not to attend?


starter

Garvinator
18-01-2004, 10:58 AM
WBA,
As far as I can see it was fg7 who first mentioned that the MCC was suspended by CV when he started this thread.

can I take you back to the following quote by Jammo

"...and now Chess Victoria Inc. has had to suspend all services from the MCC..."

Posted by Jammo on Wed Jan 07, 2004 at 3:34 pm

This predates the beginning of this thread by almost a week. I think it is fair to nominate jammo as the person who first mentioned it.

Yes WBA you are correct, my apologies. I went back over those posts in the other thread and found your quote and you are correct, Jammo was the first to mention the suspension. Bill, unless you see something I have missed, you might need to apologise too :oops:

chesslover
18-01-2004, 11:19 AM
But WBA, CV have not been thriving and surviving recently. They have had difficulty filling Committee positions, and when they have succeeded there have been comments on this board that the candidates have conflicts of interest. That is why we need the largest financial and experienced Club to be part of State administration in Victoria.

Have you thought about starting again - a new chess organsisation for Victoria, with new consitution and membership structure -after all even the strong Australian Cricket Board has now reformed calling itself Cricket Australia?

chesslover
18-01-2004, 11:22 AM
Yes WBA you are correct, my apologies. I went back over those posts in the other thread and found your quote and you are correct, Jammo was the first to mention the suspension. Bill, unless you see something I have missed, you might need to apologise too :oops:

well if Bill is wrong about one thing that he spoke with so much conviction about, then is it not possible that the SUpreme Leader, could be wrong abpout other things in this thread as well? :? ;)

ursogr8
18-01-2004, 02:01 PM
But WBA, CV have not been thriving and surviving recently. They have had difficulty filling Committee positions, and when they have succeeded there have been comments on this board that the candidates have conflicts of interest. That is why we need the largest financial and experienced Club to be part of State administration in Victoria.

Have you thought about starting again - a new chess organsisation for Victoria, with new consitution and membership structure -after all even the strong Australian Cricket Board has now reformed calling itself Cricket Australia?

CL

1 We just changed our name from Victorian Chess Association (VCA) to Chess VICTORIA (CV). Pay attention CL.
2 Your solution is not addressing the single difficulty that we have which is that the most financial experienced Club is estranged at the moment. Focus on the problem CL.
3 What was your posiion on the new structure proposed by Jammo for the Chess Commission. Aim for consistency CL

starter

WBA
18-01-2004, 04:21 PM
But WBA, CV have not been thriving and surviving recently. They have had difficulty filling Committee positions, and when they have succeeded there have been comments on this board that the candidates have conflicts of interest. That is why we need the largest financial and experienced Club to be part of State administration in Victoria. It would be desirable for the MCC to put candidates forward and at least vote at each of the meetings.

Although it is not great to hear that CV is not thriving, this can again only be a fault of its own administration. Now I believe that MCC should be concentrating on this comprehensive rebuild it is undertaking, and I am not only talking about its premises. The current commitee is a small one, but a committed one. CV has no competitor it is a clear monopoly, as are all the other state orgs. This being the case CV should be more proactive in attracting sponsors etc. I believe CV should be openly approaching more clubs to take on Weekend events, rather than the current tender process in place. Running these organisations is not brain-science, though you need dedication. From the CV website the following people are performing functions for CV.

Mr Geoff Keenan
Mr Frank Meerbach

AUDITOR

Mr Trevor Stanning

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

Mr. Gary Wastell
Mr Phil O'Connor
Mr Keith Jenkins
Mr Robert Jamieson

EXECUTIVE MEMBER

Mr David Cordover


NON-COMMITTEE OFFICE-BEARERS
Mr Gerrit Hartland
Mr Don Maciulaitis
Mr Milic Sucevic
Mr David Cordover
Mr Peter Caissa
Mr Mark McKenzie
Mr Gary Wastell
Mr Garry Lycett
Mr Tony Wright

With these people then CV should be able to get its house in order, but I maintain there is no need for MCC to currently be involved, other than to pay for services. IF CV deliver these services in a competant manner, and appear to be performing there tasks of promoting all affiliated members in a fair and even manner, then there would be a lot less issues.


Agreed. Of course they have the right not to attend the AGM. But obviously it weakens the quality of decision-making when the most experienced Club boycotts the 2003 AGM.

But I believe this is reflecting dissatisfaction towards CV. No one is asking for CV to be pulled down, I believe it is okay to have a governing body, but they need to be there for the clubs, and be seen to be actively promoting chess in Victoria. Also as an org dedicated to keeping pace with the industry, CV should be looking at maximum terms for commitee members in the one position.. Consider this MCC has been around a considerably longer time than VCA/CV, they owe CV nothing, they can assist with making CV and all Victorian chess strong, it is a common aim we all have. However MCC cannot dedicate resources currently, and is unlikely to until the fabric of what CV is changes.


Thank you for expressing the opinion. It helps us understand your point of view. Do you think it is the view of the MCC Committee?

With some authority I can say I believe this is the current feeling of many members of MCC, and Victorian chess in general. I believe this includes the MCC committee. Again nobody is suggesting GW go away, they are suggesting someone else be at the helm, as a fresh face, aiming in a fresh direction.



Agreed; you have the right to not attend.
Can you tell us which service the MCC are not happy with. (Remember, the unpaid bill and suspension were not issues in November when the MCC Committee moved to not attend.) What was the lack of service entering into the MCC decision not to attend?

The only things I personally see wrong with the decision to suspend MCC are these.
1 Was MCC secretary advised that a suspension was likely, in the form of an official letter? ( I understand what the by-laws are, but for such a serious action to be taken, and considering how long the dues were outstanding, I think there was ample time to notify them that this would be up for discussion.

2 Were MCC given ample time to indicate they had receivde this notification?

3 Why did the secretary of CV fail to notify MCC secretary once a decision to suspend had been voted?

4 Why are members of the executive on this board trying to bring
down the reputation of the MCC?

If all answers to the above have satisfactory responses then that is okay. But the dissatisfaction had set in a long time ago in my opinion. I do not believe that CV is as competantly runorganisation in its current structure, a\gain I judge because as an independant business I would not hire them, nor would I recommend sponsoring them. I ask .. How often is correspondence sent from VCA to MCC or other clubs? Why aren't all these clubs contacted on a regular basis? Until CV is about all Victorian Chess Clubs, rather than it's own existance, until this organisation is proactive in fund raising etc, then I believe they are no more than a business associate and open to criticism. When CV is seen to be making efforts towards achieving goals (why don't they set an agenda for the season.. CV aims to achieve this etc"), then I can see MCC not only joining the fold, but potentially adding its serious weight into discussions.

Bill Gletsos
18-01-2004, 06:03 PM
WBA,
As far as I can see it was fg7 who first mentioned that the MCC was suspended by CV when he started this thread.

can I take you back to the following quote by Jammo

"...and now Chess Victoria Inc. has had to suspend all services from the MCC..."

Posted by Jammo on Wed Jan 07, 2004 at 3:34 pm

This predates the beginning of this thread by almost a week. I think it is fair to nominate jammo as the person who first mentioned it.
You are correct. :)

However given that is the case, it is appears to have gone unnoticed for a week without comment until fg7 started this thread.

One could reasonably argue it only then became an issue. :-''

Bill Gletsos
18-01-2004, 06:06 PM
Yes WBA you are correct, my apologies. I went back over those posts in the other thread and found your quote and you are correct, Jammo was the first to mention the suspension. Bill, unless you see something I have missed, you might need to apologise too :oops:

well if Bill is wrong about one thing that he spoke with so much conviction about, then is it not possible that the SUpreme Leader, could be wrong abpout other things in this thread as well? :? ;)
If at all possible pay attention CL.
I was deliberately very specific with my wording.
I said it "appears" not that it was.

WBA
18-01-2004, 06:41 PM
One could reasonably argue it only then became an issue

One can reasonablyt argue most things, but this they would lose. even with the whistle for effect.

Simple as this, Jammo announced it, it became a bone of contention throughout MCC, and then FG7 posted in reponse. Very easy really

ursogr8
18-01-2004, 06:44 PM
Although it is not great to hear that CV is not thriving, this can again only be a fault of its own administration.


Agreed. We need to change something.




This being the case CV should be more proactive in attracting sponsors etc.


Agreed. And this is a function of capable and resourced volunteers. Obviously CV are short-handed on this point, in your view.



I believe CV should be openly approaching more clubs to take on Weekend events, rather than the current tender process in place.


There is no competition in the tenders to my knowledge, because there are not enough volunteering Clubs. There is often at most 1 volunteer; and quite often nil. (A single individual who volunteers risks fg7’s ‘conflict of interest charge). Would the MCC like to volunteer; that would be a goodness. The MCC have a great track-record in obtaining sponsorship and running events.



Running these organisations is not brain-science, though you need dedication. From the CV website the following people are performing functions for CV.



You are straying into being mischievious here WBA.
Many of these individuals contribute one function once per year. By printing the long list you give the impression that CV is over-endowed with volunteers. I invite you to go back and read Paul Sike’s "Biggest problem in chess" on the old BB. The problem felt in all States was well laid out there.

Examples of limited (but valued and important) function are
GK…public officer …puts the Corp. affairs return only. Is not a member of a chess club.
FM…chairs AGM. Is not a member of a chess club.
TS…audits the books once per year.
DM. Is not a member of a chess club. Retired from chess due to blindness
MS……ratings officer for the State
MM…resigned from the Committee. Is not a member of a chess club.
GL…produces the CV e-mailed weekly newsletter
TW…current role not known to me.

Of the others>
GW..already does too much according to your previous post. Runs tournaments.
DC…..runs tournaments
GH…runs tournaments for BH, WH and CV





No one is asking for CV to be pulled down, I believe it is okay to have a governing body, but they need to be there for the clubs, and be seen to be actively promoting chess in Victoria.


Agreed. That is where MCC resources added to existing limited volunteers at CV would be so beneficial.




Also as an org dedicated to keeping pace with the industry, CV should be looking at maximum terms for commitee members in the one position.



Agreed.
But if no other candidates stand, and if MCC declines to send delegates to the AGM and vote then there is no option.



Consider this MCC has been around a considerably longer time than VCA/CV, they owe CV nothing,



Agreed.
But the MCC could make a difference to the quality of the output from CV.





With some authority I can say I believe this is the current feeling of many members of MCC, and Victorian chess in general. I believe this includes the MCC committee. Again nobody is suggesting GW go away, they are suggesting someone else be at the helm, as a fresh face, aiming in a fresh direction.



Who do you want us to vote in?
Jammo
Chessguru
KJ

Actually, they did not stand. The question was academic at the AGM because there was only 1 candidate.






Agreed; you have the right to not attend.
Can you tell us which service the MCC are not happy with. (Remember, the unpaid bill and suspension were not issues in November when the MCC Committee moved to not attend.) What was the lack of service entering into the MCC decision not to attend?

The only things I personally see wrong with the decision to suspend MCC are these.
1 Was MCC secretary advised that a suspension was likely, in the form of an official letter? ( I understand what the by-laws are, but for such a serious action to be taken, and considering how long the dues were outstanding, I think there was ample time to notify them that this would be up for discussion.

2 Were MCC given ample time to indicate they had receivde this notification?

3 Why did the secretary of CV fail to notify MCC secretary once a decision to suspend had been voted?

4 Why are members of the executive on this board trying to bring
down the reputation of the MCC?



WBA, you won a point over Bill and ggray about timing of an incident. And well done; hardly anyone scores off these two.
But I think you lose on this next issue. You said that the MCC was unhappy with the service from CV and decided therefore not to attend the November AGM. I asked for an example of lack of service. And you quote back to me an incident (the banning) that happened in 2004.
I encourage you to go back to the MCC and ask for a legit. reason why they did not attend the AGM. What service (or lack of) caused them to take the action in November.






How often is correspondence sent from VCA to MCC or other clubs?


WBA, are you and all of MCC unaware of Garry Lycett’s very comprehensive weekly e-mailed newsletter? Not only is it mailed weekly, but I frequently give the URL to the archives of all old and new newsletters on this BB. (And yes, he probably has been in recess over Xmas, as most of our Clubs have).




Why aren't all these clubs contacted on a regular basis?



They are. See the weekly newsletter.



Until CV is about all Victorian Chess Clubs, rather than it's own existance, until this organisation is proactive in fund raising etc, then I believe they are no more than a business associate and open to criticism.


Agreed. That is why we appeal to your involvement. Well MCC actually.



When CV is seen to be making efforts towards achieving goals (why don't they set an agenda for the season.. CV aims to achieve this etc"), then I can see MCC not only joining the fold, but potentially adding its serious weight into discussions.


Matt Sweeney asked for the same in NSW. He said, "produce a business plan". It is a good idea. You have my support if you send along a delegate to help with its formation.

starter

Garvinator
18-01-2004, 07:18 PM
I hope everyone can keep up with this post, because it could be quite lengthy, but it does have a point.

I have been involved in another sport where my club was banned without notice and without a meeting to fully resolve issues before hand. Our club was not behind in fees, did provide our venue for championship events etc, but due to idealogy difference between our club and the regional organisation, this relationship became unworkable and we were suspended without a meeting or written notice.

From what has been posted here(and I STRESS, WHAT HAS BEEN POSTED HERE), i can understand the issues and problems that MCC has detailed.

But I go back to one of my original comments on this issue. A club can complain all they like about the state organisation, in this case Chess Victoria, but there isnt much that will change if the complaining club does not attend the one function that allows real change, the AGM.

I will offer some advice that probably ruffle some feathers on both sides. If MCC truly believe that CV officials have to go, then propose your own candidates and put your own candidates up for election. then allows the clubs at the AGM to decide which direction they wish to take.

I would also advise that if MCC wish to begin major change, that they come up with a fully costed business plan.

Different issue now- has the suspension of MCC been lifted now that the payment issue has been resolved?

Bill Gletsos
18-01-2004, 07:44 PM
One could reasonably argue it only then became an issue

One can reasonablyt argue most things, but this they would lose. even with the whistle for effect.
:D


Simple as this, Jammo announced it, it became a bone of contention throughout MCC, and then FG7 posted in reponse. Very easy really
Maybe then it would have been wiser for someone other than fg7 to have posted a response.
Someone who was seen to be level headed. ;)

jammo
18-01-2004, 07:50 PM
WBA wrote:
"If if the VCA executive feels it is responsible enough to make a decision to suspend services to the MCC, then surely they need to back up this claim through responsible actions. It is simple really, I am agreeing that CV has the capacity to suspend services, what I am claiming is that CV have simply not weighed up the gravity of this decision, and therefore not considered the urgency of notifying heir customer, namely the MCC"

I agree. It is pathetic that a CV committee decision is not implemented quickly. My beef is with your continuing to claim that I announced the suspension.

WBA wrote:
"Maybe I cannot get this through to you, as it is impossible for you to take that one step and realise you have erred. Possibly this is one of the stumbling bloacks currently b/n CV & MCC ever resolving outstanding issues. You see the point is this the MCC pay CV for services, we are the customer, if we were on the open market the MCC would be foolish to not consider leaving. When the VCA makes announcements on public BB boards about the financial arrangements between the MCC/CV then it is certainly going to annoy it's customer. Why is this hard to understand?"

This is not hard to understand. What is hard to understand is why you so pig-headedly keep claiming that CV announced the suspension on the BB (which implies the "announcement" was both official and intentional) when it clearly was neither.

Re all your "customer stuff". Sure MCC is CV's customer but also CV is MCC's customer as we rent your premises. I think you will find that in business if someone has a bad customer who does not pay their bills then they soon get rid of their bad customer. So your beef then is that CV did not tell you quickly enough that you were a "bad customer" and we were consequently dumping you!!!

WBA wrote:
"no need to shout Jammo, simple really your statement is false, whatever you say your intentions were. If in doubt about this Jammo their are plenty of online dictionary's available... take a read"

I have read them and my conclusion is that I am right and you a wrong but I know I am not going to change your mind. Others may care to look at the context of the alleged "announcement" to see whether it was something just mentioned in passing rather than an official or public announcement. Perhaps WBA you could ask yourself why CV would think it could officially communicate with MCC through the BB when there is no certainty that an MCC official would ever read the BB anyway.

WBA wrote:
"Simple really, because he is a customer, and has the right to voice an opinion."

Sure, he can have an opinion, but to think that anyone in authority should take any notice of his opinion is a nonsense. If all opinions are equal then let's pick the ACF selectors at random from the rating list. Obviously the ACF does not do this but selects "experts" who do have some knowledge or understanding of selection matters. Firegoat is not such a person in my view.

Re your suggestion that MCC has every right not to attend the CV AGM, I agree. However is that good for chess and is that what CV wants? Contrast with MCC's notice of its AGM which implores members to attend and support the club.

WBA wrote:
"Jammo I am not an office bearer so cannot speak in an official capacity presently. In the current state I believe that MCC should be able to take the services on offer and pay the bills, bid for tournaments, and criticise and praise as necessary. I personally believe GW has been the Pres for to long, it is my opinion only. I also feel in an ideal world he would still be a member of the executive commitee though in a reduced capacity, possibly secretary. MCC should always reserve the right to pass comment, on the organisation it pays for a service. The MCC should also reserve the right to stand aside from the AGM if it feels this is an appropriate indication of their displeasure with the service, in fact it is one of the more appropriate manners in which the club can protest, without affecting services."

I agree with most of the above except that I think not attending the CV AGM is petty and stupid.

Jammo

PS I'm sorry if my guess of MP was wrong. That means you are probably someone who I knew quite well a long time ago when he had hair. Am I getting closer? If so maybe you should join the MCC committee (I understand there are several vacancies).

WBA
18-01-2004, 08:32 PM
WBA, you won a point over Bill and ggray about timing of an incident. And well done; hardly anyone scores off these two.
But I think you lose on this next issue. You said that the MCC was unhappy with the service from CV and decided therefore not to attend the November AGM. I asked for an example of lack of service. And you quote back to me an incident (the banning) that happened in 2004.
I encourage you to go back to the MCC and ask for a legit. reason why they did not attend the AGM. What service (or lack of) caused them to take the action in November.

Starter you seem a reasonable person (barring our little disagreeance about privacy), but you have it wrong for two reasons here.

1 I am not about scoring points against either BG or GG, simply I want people to have an unbiased view of MCC. Simple really treat the club on its merits, and the truth. Their posts were incorrect, I just corrected, as I would expect anyone to do if (when) I innaccurately post information.

2 I have not posted inaccurately on this topic, I though may not have made my intentions clear. I am saying that the above incident is not enough in isolation, as MCC appears to have a core fault of its own in this circumstance, I am pointing out though that even in this task I believe CV has messed up royally. MCC also had a falling out with the ACF in 2002, though this issue in isolation has been sorted out. I do not rate the above example a lack of service (more laziness), I mentioned some of the areas where CV lacks, and as such until it addresses these sorts of issues (and I think fresh faces are required), then nothing will change. As for no one standing against GW, it may be because this seems an exercise in futility. GW has the post as long as he wants it I think, he is the new chess Menzies. However like Menzies he has been on too long, I feel. The best thing would be for GW to announce his attention to stand aside next year, and to groom someone to take his spot. GW could easily (and with good reason), get elected to another post, and pass on his experience to the incoming President. But the buck stops at the top, if GW cannot see it is necessary to stand aside, adn cannot see this is not a personal attack, then I think (again my opinion only), that we are at a stalemate. However this gesture would show that both GW and Chess Victoria is moving forward.


WBA, are you and all of MCC unaware of Garry Lycett’s very comprehensive weekly e-mailed newsletter? Not only is it mailed weekly, but I frequently give the URL to the archives of all old and new newsletters on this BB. (And yes, he probably has been in recess over Xmas, as most of our Clubs have).

When I was a committee member of a Victorian club I was never contacted about this weekly newsletter, this would be a good start if CV sent this to the MCC c/o The Secretary. If things have changed and I do not know about it, then I retract and apologise on that point until I grab a copy from the MCC committee


Agreed. That is why we appeal to your involvement. Well MCC actually.

CV needs to be making the first steps towards any long term reconcilliation process I believe. CV says it wants MCC to join the fold, that being the case they need to show they have plans and present these. This gives MCC a chance to decide on its involvement based on CV's agenda.


Matt Sweeney asked for the same in NSW. He said, "produce a business plan". It is a good idea. You have my support if you send along a delegate to help with its formation.

Until this is proven practise with CV, then involvment may seem unlikely though not thoroughly out of the question. Though bear this in mind, Jammo has widened a gap, he managed to insult a large % of the MCC with his derogatory and innaccurate commentary on the institution. Whilst poeple such as Jammo feel compelled to speak out in an inflamatory way about the MCC, this is going to alienate MCC from CV even further. Like it or not Jammo was way out of line in some of his MCC comments.

Summary

MCC commitee is a generally reasonable bunch, if they are happy with the way CV run things, then they have a chance of getting them onside. Alienate them the way Jammo has, and MCC will continue to do its own thing. It will get stronger, that is a certainty how will CV go?

The ball is not in MCC's court, it is in CV's, in my humble opinion.

Garvinator
18-01-2004, 10:00 PM
As for no one standing against GW, it may be because this seems an exercise in futility.
I am interested in why you think this is the case?


Until this is proven practise with CV, then involvment may seem unlikely though not thoroughly out of the question. Though bear this in mind, Jammo has widened a gap, he managed to insult a large % of the MCC with his derogatory and innaccurate commentary on the institution. Whilst poeple such as Jammo feel compelled to speak out in an inflamatory way about the MCC, this is going to alienate MCC from CV even further. Like it or not Jammo was way out of line in some of his MCC comments.

Jammo has used the defence of its only one person, his opinion is just one persons, it doesnt count for much. I think that line would also apply to Jammo's comments regarding MCC and their membership population, he is only one person and is entitled to his opinion. that does not make his opinion right or wrong.

It sounds like MCC wants to have nothing to do with CV based on comments by Jammo, which seems rather narrow minded.



Summary

MCC commitee is a generally reasonable bunch, if they are happy with the way CV run things, then they have a chance of getting them onside. It will get stronger, that is a certainty how will CV go?

The ball is not in MCC's court, it is in CV's, in my humble opinion.

So would it be fair to say that CV can take the opinion that if CV doesnt agree to how MCC sees things, then MCC doesnt want anything to do with CV anymore???

I would think very carefully before answering and probably consult the MCC committee, because a my way or the highway type response could have grave consequences for CV and MCC. If you want me to expand on this I will.

that is if anyone actually bothers to reply to my post.

Bill Gletsos
18-01-2004, 10:05 PM
WBA based on fg7's original postings on the old ACF BB one couldmagine no one wanting to have anything to do with him.
If he is indeed a spokesman for the MCC then based on his posting style this could further alienate people.

Perhaps the MCC need a more moderate person representing their views on this BB.

chesslover
18-01-2004, 10:14 PM
If at all possible pay attention CL.


I have called it as I see it. If I was wromng, then I was wrong :oops:

But there is no need for you to find faults with all my posts. I know that you must be missing matt, :P , but if you want to pick a fight , why not pick on someone who can fight back with you with articulation - like the Grand Poobah? :idea: ;)

Bill Gletsos
18-01-2004, 10:18 PM
But there is no need for you to find faults with all my posts. I know that you must be missing matt, :P , but if you want to pick a fight , why not pick on someone who can fight back with you with articulation - like the Grand Poobah? :idea: ;)
I agree with virtually all his chess related posts so I cannot therefore pick on him.
As for the non chess threads I really cannot be bothered posting to them.

chesslover
18-01-2004, 10:21 PM
WBA based on fg7's original postings on the old ACF BB one couldmagine no one wanting to have anything to do with him.
If he is indeed a spokesman for the MCC then based on his posting style this could further alienate people.

Perhaps the MCC need a more moderate person representing their views on this BB.

to be fair to firegoat, like beauty, the posting style is also in the eye of the beholder.

People are very diverse, and different people can view the same things in many different ways.

Matt for example frequently adopts a very aggresive tone in his postings, in order to make his points all the more stark, and bring it to anyone's attention.

I think that this style is counter productive, but to others it may not be.

In any case firegoats posts have led to some good things in that there is discussion by CV and MCC

Bill Gletsos
18-01-2004, 10:30 PM
In any case firegoats posts have led to some good things in that there is discussion by CV and MCC
Rubbish. :rolleyes:
Those discussions it appears would have occurred even if fg7 had not bothered to post.

WBA
18-01-2004, 10:45 PM
I am interested in why you think this is the case?

I think GW has a virtual monopoly on this position, and once entrenched most people are resistant to change. I feel it would be difficult to oust GW for the unknown, that is why I feel GW should be part of the process.


Jammo has used the defence of its only one person, his opinion is just one persons, it doesnt count for much. I think that line would also apply to Jammo's comments regarding MCC and their membership population, he is only one person and is entitled to his opinion. that does not make his opinion right or wrong.

It sounds like MCC wants to have nothing to do with CV based on comments by Jammo, which seems rather narrow minded.

Okay Jammo saying it is just one person is irrelevant, he needs to understand the position he speaks from. If a life member of the MCC, and an executive member of CV speaks out against the MCC then people are more likely to be bent towards their views, especially someone with as high a profile as Jammo. Now as a life member, and one of Australia's greatest ever chess players, he is entitled to voice his opinion, though as a member of CV, he should understand his obligation to promoting chess. If members of CV are commenting as he does, why would MCC have a greater input than that required?
I thought I had made it abundantly clear though that Jammo is not the sole cause of disputes, and in fact I think it would be great if he was working for rather than speaking out against the MCC, and all oither Victorian clubs as his role on the CV board indicates he should.



So would it be fair to say that CV can take the opinion that if CV doesnt agree to how MCC sees things, then MCC doesnt want anything to do with CV anymore???

I would think very carefully before answering and probably consult the MCC committee, because a my way or the highway type response could have grave consequences for CV and MCC. If you want me to expand on this I will.


GG feel free to expand.... But for your benefit I will explain again my views. Please remember these are my views, as I have already stated.

MCC does NOT want to run CV, though MCC should only have mutual dealings with organisations whose agendas it agrees with, or whose logic it accepts. What do I mean??? MCC should continue to pay for the rating services, and affiliation with CV, but if it diapproves of the overall agenda, then it should keep a professional distance, and deal with them in an official capacity as required. If however MCC decide that what CV are setting out to do, and what they are achieving in general is in line with what they consider as good for all Vic chess, then MCC should (again for those not yet clear), in my view support the organisation in its aims. I believe it is up to CV to approach MCC in a reasonable manner with a set agenda of what they are hoping to achieve throughout the year.
This is not about pandering to the MCC and MCC should also not be basing there decisions on whether what is tabled benefits only there club, but on whether or not this will improve Vic Chess. Now if this is to much of a step, as suggested earlier the status quo can remain. MCC can stand back, pay its fees, and offer no assistance (even the MCC name is a commodity). This is why I say the ball is in the court of CV.

Now GG if any of this appears unreasonable or the rantings of a madman, that is fine, though so far I think I have articulated in a manner which is reasonable. If people want to draw there own conclusions then they are entitled to , but remember they are your conclusions, and not mine.

***DISCLAIMER
I am NOT a member of the MCC committee, these are my feelings and beliefs based on being a regular and longtime member of the MCC. I am not planning on writing this part again, this is for the few who have chosen to reply to my posts without an understanding of this.

WBA
18-01-2004, 11:01 PM
chesslover wrote:
In any case firegoats posts have led to some good things in that there is discussion by CV and MCC

Rubbish.
Those discussions it appears would have occurred even if fg7 had not bothered to post.

For what it is worth... I would not have started posting without FG7 starting this post, and the previous, and of course without Jammo replying in the manner he did. I am not at all saying I or any individual adds to the board, just that I would not have sommented externally on the subject. So I think CL has some merit to what he is saying.



WBA based on fg7's original postings on the old ACF BB one couldmagine no one wanting to have anything to do with him.
If he is indeed a spokesman for the MCC then based on his posting style this could further alienate people.

Perhaps the MCC need a more moderate person representing their views on this BB.

FG7 posts of his own back, I believe that he has this right. I also believe that his opinions happen to coincide with those of a lot of the members within the MCC. I think if nothing else FG7 shows that there is passion still in the MCC, and it is actually this passion that is required right at this point. I know the guy personally of course, and I admire his love of the MCC. the committee either way cannot muzzle members of the committee, just as CV cannot muzzle Jammo.

As for FG7's posting style, I am not going to be another commenting to much on it, as there are already enough people making comment on it here, and I speak with FG7 about his posts, and offer my opinion. As I am doing this directly (being it praise or otherwise), there is no real need for me to articulate to this board.

Kevin Bonham
18-01-2004, 11:23 PM
Perhaps those who actually know fg7 well could let us know how his manner offline compares to his manner online. I've only met him briefly and he seemed OK, perhaps he's another Matthew in this regard :?:

WBA
18-01-2004, 11:27 PM
I agree. It is pathetic that a CV committee decision is not implemented quickly. My beef is with your continuing to claim that I announced the suspension.

Jammo is this not tiring? It is a position I am set on as I know my assertions are correct, to annouce is to make make publicly known, in its rawest sense.

Q. Did you make it publicly known to the BB that Cv had suspended services?


This is not hard to understand. What is hard to understand is why you so pig-headedly keep claiming that CV announced the suspension on the BB (which implies the "announcement" was both official and intentional) when it clearly was neither.

Re all your "customer stuff". Sure MCC is CV's customer but also CV is MCC's customer as we rent your premises. I think you will find that in business if someone has a bad customer who does not pay their bills then they soon get rid of their bad customer. So your beef then is that CV did not tell you quickly enough that you were a "bad customer" and we were consequently dumping you!!!

Okay in relation to the above ...yes! If MCC is not living up to end of the bargain, CV should make every attempt to let them understand their club was on the verge of being suspended. Now this is clearly different to being dumped as you quote with authority (and too many exclamation marks).

Why do you resort to name calling? Is it necessary, or a sign of pure frustration, to me when reading this post, I thought in general it was sensible and well structured, except for this little bit, it ruins a good post. I mean seriously you could call me anything and it would not bother me, but it hardly adds anything either.



I have read them and my conclusion is that I am right and you a wrong but I know I am not going to change your mind. Others may care to look at the context of the alleged "announcement" to see whether it was something just mentioned in passing rather than an official or public announcement. Perhaps WBA you could ask yourself why CV would think it could officially communicate with MCC through the BB when there is no certainty that an MCC official would ever read the BB anyway.

Your post was directed to a member of the MCC committee for one. My argument is also that you mentioned it to help assist in your argument degrading the MCC.


Sure, he can have an opinion, but to think that anyone in authority should take any notice of his opinion is a nonsense. If all opinions are equal then let's pick the ACF selectors at random from the rating list. Obviously the ACF does not do this but selects "experts" who do have some knowledge or understanding of selection matters. Firegoat is not such a person in my view.

I am not suggesting FG7 should be on the committee, nor am I suggesting he should not be, I have no interest either way. I am defending his right to an opinion, without being belittled for having this said opinion.


Re your suggestion that MCC has every right not to attend the CV AGM, I agree. However is that good for chess and is that what CV wants?
Contrast with MCC's notice of its AGM which implores members to attend and support the club.

I agree that CV should try and get all on board as the MCC does, but they should realise as the MCC does, that every member has the right to not attend, and rather than blast them, they need to dig and find the root cause for the absence (is it timing, or something real?), this is the way to attract members/clubs back to the fold, certainly having a go at their premises on a national board is not going to do it.


I agree with most of the above except that I think not attending the CV AGM is petty and stupid.

As is your right, but read above, why not approach the club and investigate why, perhaps resolutions can be sought. Again calling their decision making petty and stupid is not helpful, but is your right.


PS I'm sorry if my guess of MP was wrong. That means you are probably someone who I knew quite well a long time ago when he had hair. Am I getting closer? If so maybe you should join the MCC committee (I understand there are several vacancies).

I have been unofficially approached, but have declined (with so many positions available perhaps you should apply for one?). Apology accepted, but you are off the money again. To make it easier Jammo I do not know you, but again I feel it is irrelevant, as personalities get in the way of reasoning, worry about what I post, not who I am.

PS For what it is worth, I would like to see things worked out in the long term (there is no way it will happen overnight), but for this to happen things need to change, and my opinion holds no weight remember I am but a pleb.

Bill Gletsos
18-01-2004, 11:57 PM
Starter,
Maybe CV needs more executive members with voting rights.
At the moment you have only 5 by my count.

NSW on the other hand has 14.
Pres,
Vice Pres
Treasuer
Secretary
Registrar
Tournaments Officer
Communications Officer
Junior Rep
Webmaster
Ratings Officer
Country Rep
Club Liason
Publicity Officer
Member without Portfolio

ursogr8
19-01-2004, 08:13 AM
Starter,
Maybe CV needs more executive members with voting rights.
At the moment you have only 5 by my count.

NSW on the other hand has 14.
Pres,
Vice Pres
Treasuer
Secretary
Registrar
Tournaments Officer
Communications Officer
Junior Rep
Webmaster
Ratings Officer
Country Rep
Club Liason
Publicity Officer
Member without Portfolio

Bill
What an interesting thought.
I don't know why we only have a handful on the Executive. Maybe having more would create more momentum at State level.
It might be worth a try. (Even if it was NIIMBY).

Jammo might know why the VIC Executive is relatively small? Jammo?
Gazza would know, but it is hard to get him into this forum.

starter

ursogr8
19-01-2004, 08:25 AM
The ball is not in MCC's court, it is in CV's, in my humble opinion.

Thanks WBA for the long response (although I have not duplicated here because I just want to focus on the last sentence). I appreciate the effort you have put into your response.

Could I just summarise my understanding? There are two pre-requisites to the MCC changing its stance with CV. 1) We write a business plan. 2) GW resigns from the Pres. position and takes another Exec. position.

Frankly, I would not have guessed all this by the MCC non-attendance at the AGM. Only the BB has evinced it.
And you say we should have come and asked the MCC when the MCC did not attend the AGM; and then we would have found out.

Have I understood the basics of your position?

starter

ursogr8
19-01-2004, 12:17 PM
WBA, are you and all of MCC unaware of Garry Lycett’s very comprehensive weekly e-mailed newsletter? Not only is it mailed weekly, but I frequently give the URL to the archives of all old and new newsletters on this BB. (And yes, he probably has been in recess over Xmas, as most of our Clubs have).



Garry advises
Prior issues of CV News can be viewed at
http://www.chessvictoria.com/CVnews_0(4)1.htm
where you can also submit contributions or comments.







When I was a committee member of a Victorian club I was never contacted about this weekly newsletter, this would be a good start if CV sent this to the MCC c/o The Secretary. If things have changed and I do not know about it, then I retract and apologise on that point until I grab a copy from the MCC committee



WBA can you pass on the URL to the MCC Secretary. I don’t know him personally.

starter

ursogr8
19-01-2004, 12:23 PM
MCC does NOT want to run CV,




WBA

Should I interpret this to mean that if we persuade GW to adopt another Executive position then the MCC does not intend, or is unwilling, to put forward a candidate for Pres.?

starter

WBA
19-01-2004, 06:40 PM
Could I just summarise my understanding? There are two pre-requisites to the MCC changing its stance with CV. 1) We write a business plan. 2) GW resigns from the Pres. position and takes another Exec. position.

Frankly, I would not have guessed all this by the MCC non-attendance at the AGM. Only the BB has evinced it.
And you say we should have come and asked the MCC when the MCC did not attend the AGM; and then we would have found out.

Have I understood the basics of your position?

starter

Starter these are some of the concerns I believe, though there are other cultural concerns as well, namely CV would need to change its atitude in believing it has a license to criticise clubs. Remember these are my opinions, and my summation of the position, but yes I think these would be 2 clear moves towards strengthing a fickle position between club and state. Yes I think that CV should have tried harder to uncover the root cause of the issues MCC mut have had to not attend. Though I cannot say they never did this, as I am not privy to that information.



WBA

Should I interpret this to mean that if we persuade GW to adopt another Executive position then the MCC does not intend, or is unwilling, to put forward a candidate for Pres.?

starter

Starter this is a tough one, currently the best admin MCC has is dedicated to running the MCC, I think it would be a conflict (i know I would not favour), if a member of this board sought to be President of CV. I cannot state that no one would be willing, though I can state my opinion it would currently be innappropriate. I think it would be more appropriate if CV started on the movements mentioned, and approached MCC for input, and possibly a representative. I think this would be a far more appropriate step. Though again this is my opinion only, but surely one I would readily put to the MCC committee, again it CV needs to get MCC on side with appropriate actions though, talk is not enough I feel

Oh thanks for the URL as well, it is most appreciated

Garvinator
19-01-2004, 07:32 PM
Could I just summarise my understanding? There are two pre-requisites to the MCC changing its stance with CV. 1) We write a business plan. 2) GW resigns from the Pres. position and takes another Exec. position.

Frankly, I would not have guessed all this by the MCC non-attendance at the AGM. Only the BB has evinced it.
And you say we should have come and asked the MCC when the MCC did not attend the AGM; and then we would have found out.

Have I understood the basics of your position?

starter

Starter these are some of the concerns I believe, though there are other cultural concerns as well, namely CV would need to change its atitude in believing it has a license to criticise clubs. Remember these are my opinions, and my summation of the position, but yes I think these would be 2 clear moves towards strengthing a fickle position between club and state. Yes I think that CV should have tried harder to uncover the root cause of the issues MCC mut have had to not attend. Though I cannot say they never did this, as I am not privy to that information.



WBA

Should I interpret this to mean that if we persuade GW to adopt another Executive position then the MCC does not intend, or is unwilling, to put forward a candidate for Pres.?

starter

Starter this is a tough one, currently the best admin MCC has is dedicated to running the MCC, I think it would be a conflict (i know I would not favour), if a member of this board sought to be President of CV. I cannot state that no one would be willing, though I can state my opinion it would currently be innappropriate. I think it would be more appropriate if CV started on the movements mentioned, and approached MCC for input, and possibly a representative. I think this would be a far more appropriate step. Though again this is my opinion only, but surely one I would readily put to the MCC committee, again it CV needs to get MCC on side with appropriate actions though, talk is not enough I feel

Oh thanks for the URL as well, it is most appreciated

shouldnt CV be getting information on where to go from all the clubs, not just mcc? why should mcc be the only club consulted?

WBA
19-01-2004, 07:36 PM
shouldnt CV be getting information on where to go from all the clubs, not just mcc? why should mcc be the only club consulted?

Absolutely, I was asked what I think CV should do to get MCC back into the fold. I am not at all suggesting MCC should be the controlling force behind CV, nor am I suggesting they want to be. Sorry gg, but you seem to be missing the mark here

Garvinator
19-01-2004, 07:48 PM
shouldnt CV be getting information on where to go from all the clubs, not just mcc? why should mcc be the only club consulted?

Absolutely, I was asked what I think CV should do to get MCC back into the fold. I am not at all suggesting MCC should be the controlling force behind CV, nor am I suggesting they want to be. Sorry gg, but you seem to be missing the mark here

actually that was just a question because it was starting to sound like that cv should do what mcc says, so i was just asking :)

WBA
19-01-2004, 07:54 PM
then if I misread your post I apologise, but rest assured MCC is not asking CV to be its lacky, that would be very detrimental for Victorian Chess. I am suggesting that as a representative of the clubs, they should be more accountable (by choice), and share their intended plans with the clubs.

jammo
20-01-2004, 07:00 PM
[quote] worry about what I post, not who I am.

I find it hard to reconcile this comment above (which you have repeated several times) with your claim that relations between MCC and CV have been made worse because of Jammo's comments on the BB and Jammo is a Life Member of MCC and is on CV Executive, etc. Either we are all equal on the BB and one opinion is the same value as another (so it does not matter who made it) or we are not all equal and you take extra offence because the comments are made by Jammo. You seem to be trying to have it both ways.

Similarly I say "one of the people hanging around the front of the MCC drinking, smoking and waiting for their next dole cheque" (which could be as few as two such people) and you berate me along the lines of do I really know how few members are on the dole, etc. Then in a recent post you say I have offended a large % of the MCC membership. Have they all suddenly gone on the dole?

I have an interest in the MCC paying its bills on time, and I think that these posts have helped achieve that goal. I have no interest in criticising the MCC otherwise. The point of my posts was to point out that Firegoat had little credibility in my view as the organisation he had represented, and had recently been President of, was hardly a successful model.

If my perceptions of the MCC are not shared by many of your members, then what can I say? We all have different opinions based on our own experiences. Perhaps the MCC should ask itself how can Jammo (and perhaps others) have been left with this less than rosey view of the MCC? To use your own words - I am the consumer so far as MCC is concerned! Is the MCC doing enough to convince people to return there and play chess, or at least have a look at the new red carpet. I have only walked passed the club a couple of times in the last two years and have not been enticed to enter. I am very pleased (from what Angelo says) that the place is much improved under the new committee. Perhaps my impressions of the MCC are out of date, however having people like Firegoat expounding weird views on the BB and apparently representing the MCC does not help the situation.

If the MCC is aiming to become a progressive and well run organisation then I suggest it has a responsibility to attend meetings of its parent body; raise issues at CV meetings and ensure it respresented on the CV committee.

I note you don't like GW as CV President. In a perfect would he would be Secretary, but is there an alternative? Over the last 20 years it is unclear whether GW has been the best thing for CV (keeping it going when few others wanted to help) or the worst thing by failing to attract other competent administrators and possibly scaring most of them away. I'm not sure which is the correct perception but there is probably truth in both views. One could perhaps have similar feelings about EM at MCC.

Jammo

WBA
20-01-2004, 08:37 PM
I find it hard to reconcile this comment above (which you have repeated several times) with your claim that relations between MCC and CV have been made worse because of Jammo's comments on the BB and Jammo is a Life Member of MCC and is on CV Executive, etc. Either we are all equal on the BB and one opinion is the same value as another (so it does not matter who made it) or we are not all equal and you take extra offence because the comments are made by Jammo. You seem to be trying to have it both ways.

Hi Jammo

Simple really I have repeated because it has come up a number of times, and really is an unnecessary topic of discussion.

The difference Jammo is that you choice to have your identity known, now as mentioned above your position in the Chess community means people are likely to be more attracted to what you say, and therefore it holds a lot of weight, regardless of whether or not you are posting accurate information.



Similarly I say "one of the people hanging around the front of the MCC drinking, smoking and waiting for their next dole cheque" (which could be as few as two such people) and you berate me along the lines of do I really know how few members are on the dole, etc. Then in a recent post you say I have offended a large % of the MCC membership. Have they all suddenly gone on the dole?

You offended a large % through implying that was the MCC culture, whether or not u intended to is not at all important, though one may choose to conclude that it was intentional, or by now we could have expected something along the lines of.."sorry, that was not my intention..."


I have an interest in the MCC paying its bills on time, and I think that these posts have helped achieve that goal. I have no interest in criticising the MCC otherwise. The point of my posts was to point out that Firegoat had little credibility in my view as the organisation he had represented, and had recently been President of, was hardly a successful model.

I am pleased to hear you have no axe to grind with MCC, and everyone has an interest in all bills being payed, though references to ACF were a little annoying, because they related to an incorrectly invoiced bill (trust me I know, and I also know that you are aware of this).


If my perceptions of the MCC are not shared by many of your members, then what can I say? We all have different opinions based on our own experiences. Perhaps the MCC should ask itself how can Jammo (and perhaps others) have been left with this less than rosey view of the MCC? To use your own words - I am the consumer so far as MCC is concerned! Is the MCC doing enough to convince people to return there and play chess, or at least have a look at the new red carpet. I have only walked passed the club a couple of times in the last two years and have not been enticed to enter. I am very pleased (from what Angelo says) that the place is much improved under the new committee. Perhaps my impressions of the MCC are out of date, however having people like Firegoat expounding weird views on the BB and apparently representing the MCC does not help the situation.

Jammo

As a life member, and obviously of the most well known chess identities in Australia, I am sure MCC would love to hear why you feel the way you do, again this can be done best by calling Greg Gatto on 9416 3149. Why not call in for one of the rounds of the club championship? I think you will find that your impressions are out of date. Do not get me wrong MCC is not suddenly the best run chess organisation in Australia, but they strive to be. This will take time, but there is a commitment to get there again, and I feel they will.


If the MCC is aiming to become a progressive and well run organisation then I suggest it has a responsibility to attend meetings of its parent body; raise issues at CV meetings and ensure it respresented on the CV committee.

Pretty well made myself clear on this, providing CV is run more efficiently (the start to 2004 has not been promising), then I agree, you would be suprised just how much MCC actually does have to offer. But in the current state you may be hard pressed convincing the MCC that it is time well spent. If however CV start making some radical changes (as I think you might find the MCC will be doing), then you may seem them join the fold. Again name calling across this BB will not help of course.



I note you don't like GW as CV President. In a perfect would he would be Secretary, but is there an alternative? Over the last 20 years it is unclear whether GW has been the best thing for CV (keeping it going when few others wanted to help) or the worst thing by failing to attract other competent administrators and possibly scaring most of them away. I'm not sure which is the correct perception but there is probably truth in both views. One could perhaps have similar feelings about EM at MCC.

As much as I respect EM, I believe it was time for him to go also. Institutions become stale under the same leadership, it is the way it happens. People start to assosciate the individual and the Organisation as being one & the same, this cannot be good. EM chose to not re-stand for his position, this I believe was the right move, and he will always be remembered for his services to the club, the same would go for GW in the same circumstances.

ursogr8
21-01-2004, 08:37 AM
As much as I respect XX, I believe it was time for him to go also. Institutions become stale under the same leadership, it is the way it happens.



hi WBA

I feel uneasy with your sentiment that I have paraphrased above. To me it is a bit of a cop-out if Committee members cannot co-exist with a troublesome official and have to vote him out of a Presidency. The President has only one vote after all. Sure he chairs the meetings, and leads discussion, and summarises debate, and so he has a high degree of influence. But the Executive can out-vote him on issue after issue if they feel as though they are correct. Frankly, I have hardly ever agreed on contentious issues, with a succession of Presidents at BH, but that doesn't stop us being a functioning Committee, and it doesn't lead me to want to push the President out of the nest. In fact I find the debate and tension on a Committee to be a creative factor provided it does not escalate too much.

So, I suggest it is time to reject the SURVIVOR-type "time for you to leave the tribe, son" behaviour. We have a shortage of willing resources, and cannot afford to drive-out those who don't fit the mould of the tribe. I suggest we learn to tolerate and gain from all helpers. The responsibility for inclusiveness belongs with all Committee members, not just a responsibility of the President.

starter

george
21-01-2004, 05:56 PM
Hi All,

Speaking of President's - there is no way I will restand for ACF Presidency after this term expires in January 2005.

I may well no longer be in Australia next year and in any event I wish to preserve my sanity.

In the meantime I will give it my ALL.

Regards
George Howard

firegoat7
22-01-2004, 09:10 PM
Dear Goats,



Just a short post to let you know what has been happening. I showed a friend of mine the logic that I produced to refute Jammo. Having analysed the arguement for about 1 1/2 hours, he accepts that it works. He also told me that I would have to work on my -> signs, suggesting something about functions and truth tables. Furthermore he agrees that any claim about 100 year old historical facts misses the point of the arguement.

Just for the record my friends name is Mr P. Dragic, well known former MCC chessplayer who is in the process of completing his PHD in Philosophy and Logic at Melbourne University. (I thought I would add this in as I know such badges of authority ought to impress Bill and his mates ;) ).

So I guess we are still waiting for an apology from Jammo in regards to his initial claims. I would also like to point out that we are still waiting for an official letter from the CV secretary informing us that the clubs rating fees have been suspended, let alone reinstated.

It will be interesting to see if this letter ever arrives, that is of course presuming that the secretary knew that he actually had to write one.

:rolleyes: :?: :idea: :!: :rolleyes:

P.S Jeo mate, I was posting at WBA's house today. Check out the IP on this one. Man you gotta love those cable connections!!

Bill Gletsos
22-01-2004, 11:07 PM
So I guess we are still waiting for an apology from Jammo in regards to his initial claims. I would also like to point out that we are still waiting for an official letter from the CV secretary informing us that the clubs rating fees have been suspended, let alone reinstated.

It will be interesting to see if this letter ever arrives, that is of course presuming that the secretary knew that he actually had to write one.

:rolleyes: :?: :idea: :!: :rolleyes:
Logic does not appear to be one of your stronger points.
Given the situation is resolved why would the CV Secretary bother sending out a letter that is no longer necessaty or relevant.
Logically he wouldn't.

WBA
23-01-2004, 06:26 AM
Logic does not appear to be one of your stronger points.
Given the situation is resolved why would the CV Secretary bother sending out a letter that is no longer necessaty or relevant.
Logically he wouldn't.

I doubt MCC expects any notification now, but that means

a- The secretary should resign, as he did not fulfill his duties (as oppossed to being a little late in fulfilling them)

b- How is there to be any MCC record of this event ever occuring?

Professionalism is lacking all through the CV, so it would seem

Bill Gletsos
23-01-2004, 10:53 AM
Logic does not appear to be one of your stronger points.
Given the situation is resolved why would the CV Secretary bother sending out a letter that is no longer necessaty or relevant.
Logically he wouldn't.

I doubt MCC expects any notification now, but that means

a- The secretary should resign, as he did not fulfill his duties (as oppossed to being a little late in fulfilling them)
This argument is spurious at best and just seems vexacious.
His duty does not say send it out immediately.
In fact given your attitude that jammo "announced" it, then why if the situation is resolved would CV bother sending out a letter that has become irrelevant.



b- How is there to be any MCC record of this event ever occuring?
I assume the goat at MCC and his cohorts hold committee meetings and would surely have minutes. Since the MCC treasuere would be aware of the situation since he has since paid the outstanding bill, this could be easily minuted in their next committee meeting.
This isnt too hard to work out.


[Professionalism is lacking all through the CV, so it would seem
Brains and common sense seems to be lacking by MCC posters on this BB. :rolleyes:

Some of your more recent posts are starting to take on the attributes of the goat. :rolleyes:

Garvinator
23-01-2004, 11:16 AM
b- How is there to be any MCC record of this event ever occuring?


Since MCC are of the opinion that Jammo announced the suspension on here before MCC had received written notice of their suspension, couldnt MCC take a record of Jammo's suspension post on here and use that as a record of the suspension :?:

arosar
23-01-2004, 11:45 AM
Since MCC are of the opinion that Jammo announced the suspension on here before MCC had received written notice of their suspension, couldnt MCC take a record of Jammo's suspension post on here and use that as a record of the suspension :?:

No man...that's a point fg7 was labouring to make. Basically that it was sorta unprofessional and improper to have made such a public announcement (according to jammo - unintentional) without prior notice to MCC only. The MCC mob didn't even know anything about it til jammo opened up.

You understand?

AR

Bill Gletsos
23-01-2004, 12:11 PM
Since MCC are of the opinion that Jammo announced the suspension on here before MCC had received written notice of their suspension, couldnt MCC take a record of Jammo's suspension post on here and use that as a record of the suspension :?:

No man...that's a point fg7 was labouring to make. Basically that it was sorta unprofessional and improper to have made such a public announcement (according to jammo - unintentional) without prior notice to MCC only. The MCC mob didn't even know anything about it til jammo opened up.

You understand?

AR
I disagree.
fg7 and WBA laboured the point that they believed that jammo had announced it here on the BB. As such they cannot then turn around and say the MCC was not informed. fg7 is the MCC VP and the MCC Treasurer was aware of the situation because the payment of the bill was resolved between him and jammo.

As such they know about.

It is therefore just stupid for them to carry on suggesting they should still receive official notification from the CV Secretary so they have an official record.

firegoat7
23-01-2004, 08:08 PM
Hello people,


Arosar wrote:
No man...that's a point fg7 was labouring to make. Basically that it was sorta unprofessional and improper to have made such a public announcement (according to jammo - unintentional) without prior notice to MCC only. The MCC mob didn't even know anything about it til jammo opened up.

You understand?

AR

Thank you Arosar, at last a common sense reply hits the nail on the head.
You are absolutely correct in your analysis. Jammo seems very quick to point the finger, whilst continually denying that anything he does is unprofessional.

Bill wrote:


I disagree.
fg7 and WBA laboured the point that they believed that jammo had announced it here on the BB. As such they cannot then turn around and say the MCC was not informed. fg7 is the MCC VP and the MCC Treasurer was aware of the situation because the payment of the bill was resolved between him and jammo.

As such they know about.

It is therefore just stupid for them to carry on suggesting they should still receive official notification from the CV Secretary so they have an official record.

Bill, say it isn't so please.
We agree Jammo announced the MCC suspension on the BB.
Do you honestly think this is the correct procedure for communicating with an affiliated member? Please clarify your arguement, remembering, we are not talking about ideas to be discussed. We are after all talking about official business decisions that affect the workings of the club. Please look at the logic of this sugestion, if no MCC members were on the bulletin board would the club actually know that it had been suspended.

Please remember that the treasurer of MCC only found out about the suspension after I told him of the Jammo post.
Besides I am less inclined to believe Jammos story. I think that whilst Jammo has achieved his "means to an ends" , he has shown that CV is ruled by his subjective desires. It might be fine to suggest that Jammo has manipulated fg7 and his cronies into paying their bills to CV via the BB-ie the end justifying the result. But, in the long term it sours relations between MCC and CV.

Furthermore, the suggestion is that the unheard from CV secretary is incompetent, based on Jammos allegations. I would actually like to hear from the secretary himself. In fact I will ring him now, and let you know the results.

Bill Gletsos
23-01-2004, 08:53 PM
Bill, say it isn't so please.
We agree Jammo announced the MCC suspension on the BB.
Do you honestly think this is the correct procedure for communicating with an affiliated member? Please clarify your arguement, remembering, we are not talking about ideas to be discussed. We are after all talking about official business decisions that affect the workings of the club. Please look at the logic of this sugestion, if no MCC members were on the bulletin board would the club actually know that it had been suspended.
Jammo said that he believed the MCC was aware of it and therefore did not believe he was announcing it on the BB.
If you dont believe him then I guess you are calling him a liar.
I'm not prepared to accept that.
I see no reason not to take jammo at his word.

Now once the MCC was aware of the situation it was resolved between jammo(the CV Treasurer) and the MCC Treasurer.

No although the means of communication was less than ideal, I think the post by WBA that the CV secretary is incompent is unfair.
Secondly, since the situation is resolved it seems pointless for the CV Secretary to send out a letter that is no longer required.


Please remember that the treasurer of MCC only found out about the suspension after I told him of the Jammo post.
Besides I am less inclined to believe Jammos story. I think that whilst Jammo has achieved his "means to an ends" , he has shown that CV is ruled by his subjective desires. It might be fine to suggest that Jammo has manipulated fg7 and his cronies into paying their bills to CV via the BB-ie the end justifying the result. But, in the long term it sours relations between MCC and CV.

Furthermore, the suggestion is that the unheard from CV secretary is incompetent, based on Jammos allegations.
I dont see how Jammo's comments make the CV Secretary incompetent.
Jammo believed the letter would have been sent. Now how long after a CV meeting is the Secretary supposed to take to send any correspondence. Perhaps jammo's expectations are simply too high and he assumed a letter would be sent out virtually immediately.

That seems like a more reasonable scenario than the one suggesting any incompetence.


I would actually like to hear from the secretary himself. In fact I will ring him now, and let you know the results.
That would be interesting.

jammo
23-01-2004, 08:55 PM
Starter,
Maybe CV needs more executive members with voting rights.
At the moment you have only 5 by my count.

NSW on the other hand has 14.
Pres,
Vice Pres
Treasuer
Secretary
Registrar
Tournaments Officer
Communications Officer
Junior Rep
Webmaster
Ratings Officer
Country Rep
Club Liason
Publicity Officer
Member without Portfolio

Bill
What an interesting thought.
I don't know why we only have a handful on the Executive. Maybe having more would create more momentum at State level.
It might be worth a try. (Even if it was NIIMBY).

Jammo might know why the VIC Executive is relatively small? Jammo?
Gazza would know, but it is hard to get him into this forum.

starter

My count is CV has 6. I think 7-9 is a good number. My tennis club has 10. 14 is too many especially when Bill would count as an extra 5 when it comes to talking!

-Jammo

Bill Gletsos
23-01-2004, 09:11 PM
Starter,
Maybe CV needs more executive members with voting rights.
At the moment you have only 5 by my count.

NSW on the other hand has 14.
Pres,
Vice Pres
Treasuer
Secretary
Registrar
Tournaments Officer
Communications Officer
Junior Rep
Webmaster
Ratings Officer
Country Rep
Club Liason
Publicity Officer
Member without Portfolio

Bill
What an interesting thought.
I don't know why we only have a handful on the Executive. Maybe having more would create more momentum at State level.
It might be worth a try. (Even if it was NIIMBY).

Jammo might know why the VIC Executive is relatively small? Jammo?
Gazza would know, but it is hard to get him into this forum.

starter

My count is CV has 6. I think 7-9 is a good number. My tennis club has 10. 14 is too many especially when Bill would count as an extra 5 when it comes to talking!
Its comments like that which make me really wonder why I even started this discussion with firegoat and WBA. :rolleyes:

The NSWCA notes your opinion that 14 is too many. =;
I guess we can just be thankful you are a mexican and therefore are not a member and dont have any say in the structure of the NSWCA Council. :-''

jammo
23-01-2004, 09:12 PM
Dear Goat,

Re my statement that MCC used to have around 250 - 300 members.

It is my understanding that MCC used to be a highly successful club with a membership of around 250 - 300. I have no records on which to base my claim, but have not seen anything that you have produced to refute it. Waverley used to have 140 members and MCC always had lots more than us. Perhaps I am wrong and MCC was not as successful a club as I thought. Why doesn't someone ask E.Malitis what is the highest membership figure the MCC has had (counting all categories) and I'm sure we will all accept his figure.

It seem to me the more relevant figure is that you have 61 members as your club's registered figure with CV at the moment. Box Hill must have considerably more than that. Food for thought.

-Jammo

jammo
23-01-2004, 09:25 PM
MCC does NOT want to run CV,



WBA

Should I interpret this to mean that if we persuade GW to adopt another Executive position then the MCC does not intend, or is unwilling, to put forward a candidate for Pres.?

starter

Let's pause here for a reality check.
If my information is correct MCC has basically 4 people running the club, Gatto, Pyke, Tsag and the Goat.
They may have achieved wonders in laying red carpet and painting the MCC, but CV does not have its own premises and requires different skills to run it.
I would choose Wastell, Cordover, O'Connor and Jammo over any of the MCC 4 to run CV. And does anyone think the goat has any administrative skills?

I think CV wants MCC to participate in CV forums and make its views known, but there is non-one I can see in MCC who has the interest or capacity to run CV.

-Jammo

jammo
23-01-2004, 09:33 PM
Hi All,

Speaking of President's - there is no way I will restand for ACF Presidency after this term expires in January 2005.

I may well no longer be in Australia next year and in any event I wish to preserve my sanity.

In the meantime I will give it my ALL.

Regards
George Howard

Perhaps this will be another opportunity for generational change within the ACF? Maybe GW will move from CV to ACF and make WBA's day?

-Jammo

Kevin Bonham
24-01-2004, 03:53 AM
Just a short post to let you know what has been happening. I showed a friend of mine the logic that I produced to refute Jammo. Having analysed the arguement for about 1 1/2 hours, he accepts that it works. He also told me that I would have to work on my -> signs, suggesting something about functions and truth tables. Furthermore he agrees that any claim about 100 year old historical facts misses the point of the arguement.

Just for the record my friends name is Mr P. Dragic, well known former MCC chessplayer who is in the process of completing his PHD in Philosophy and Logic at Melbourne University. (I thought I would add this in as I know such badges of authority ought to impress Bill and his mates ;) ).

Based on your past form, I am not inclined to accept your second hand reports of the opinions of any person whatsoever on any subject as accurate enough to be of any actual use until I have seen them directly from that person.

While he may have said the structure of the argument was sound, it is all the assumptions and dubious inferences that are the problem with it.

Basically that argument was a pointlessly longwinded way of saying: "Robert Brooking was President at a time when records show the MCC had only 120 members, therefore either Jammo's memory is wrong or else the membership declined massively during the time of Brooking's respected administration, which does not make sense given that he was such a good leader."

Your "argument" added nothing to that (the conclusion of which is not necessarily valid anyway) except obfuscation, though I wouldn't blame anyone for taking quite a while to work out what your "argument" actually said in the first place.


So I guess we are still waiting for an apology from Jammo in regards to his initial claims.

Maybe you might ask your logical friend to explain what non sequitur means and to teach you how to stop using them?

firegoat7
24-01-2004, 12:10 PM
Dear Mr Bonham,


As usual your posts display an authoritarian streak that show little understanding about communication and personal relationships. In fairness to yourself, what can be expected from somebody stuck on an island away from the major chess action. I guess you are a symptom of your environment.

Now, I am glad you criticised my "LOGIC" . I actually respect that because I have never actually attempted stuff like that before, and I would have been very surprised if it did not have flaws. I was actually hoping someone could go through the post and actually show which parts were irrelevent in an academic way.

See the point Mr Bonham is to arrive at some collective understanding for the benefit of everyone, in my opinion. Not some character assasination based on stupid point scoring, especially when we are talking facts, not idealistic future scenarios. Prehaps you might like to show me where I went wrong in a friendly way, instead of your hostile response.

I do have to ask you one question however. Are you still inclined to agree with Jammos posts as much as your initial enthusiastic response?

ursogr8
24-01-2004, 01:43 PM
Starter,
Maybe CV needs more executive members with voting rights.
At the moment you have only 5 by my count.



Bill
What an interesting thought.
I don't know why we only have a handful on the Executive. Maybe having more would create more momentum at State level.
It might be worth a try. (Even if it was NIIMBY).

Jammo might know why the VIC Executive is relatively small? Jammo?
Gazza would know, but it is hard to get him into this forum.

starter

My count is CV has 6. I think 7-9 is a good number. My tennis club has 10. 14 is too many especially when Bill would count as an extra 5 when it comes to talking!

-Jammo

OK. I will second your motion (if one is necessary at the AGM). Or, can we make the change midstream.

starter

Kevin Bonham
24-01-2004, 01:57 PM
As usual your posts display an authoritarian streak that show little understanding about communication and personal relationships.

:P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P

Um, that was written by someone who showed up on a bulletin board calling people clowns for no reason, failing to clarify when precise communication was called for, alienating posters who might have otherwise been on his side in the process, continuing ineffectually in the same vein in subsequent posts and so on.

If I was after lessons about communication and personal relationships you would be one of the last people on this planet I would turn to.


Prehaps you might like to show me where I went wrong in a friendly way, instead of your hostile response.

I have not the slightest intention of being "friendly" towards you on this board at the moment because you have rarely displayed anything but hostility and laughable attempts at belittlement towards me. Process that through your "conflict theory" sometime. :twisted: I have already translated your argument into plain English and explained its shortcomings often enough (which are, again, in the assumptions).


I do have to ask you one question however. Are you still inclined to agree with Jammos posts as much as your initial enthusiastic response?

Which initial enthusiastic response was that? The "firegoat extinguisher" oneliner? That aside, all I've been doing is questioning your claim to have proved your case.

ursogr8
24-01-2004, 02:31 PM
Starter,
Maybe CV needs more executive members with voting rights.
At the moment you have only 5 by my count.

NSW on the other hand has 14.


Bill
What an interesting thought.
I don't know why we only have a handful on the Executive. Maybe having more would create more momentum at State level.
It might be worth a try. (Even if it was NIIMBY).

Jammo might know why the VIC Executive is relatively small? Jammo?
Gazza would know, but it is hard to get him into this forum.

starter

My count is CV has 6. I think 7-9 is a good number. My tennis club has 10. 14 is too many especially when Bill would count as an extra 5 when it comes to talking!
Its comments like that which make me really wonder why I even started this discussion with firegoat and WBA. :rolleyes:

The NSWCA notes your opinion that 14 is too many. =;
I guess we can just be thankful you are a mexican and therefore are not a member and dont have any say in the structure of the NSWCA Council. :-''

Bill
We do appreciate your patience with the MCC newcomers.
And I for one agree with your analysis a fair % of the time.
But there is the potential for a smigeon of truth in Jammo's remark given your post count.
starter

firegoat7
24-01-2004, 02:56 PM
Hello again,


Correct me if I am wrong Mr Bonham, but didn't Jammo suggest that there was a flaw in my logic?

Hence I attempted to show the logic. Is their something wrong with trying to do that?

firegoat7
24-01-2004, 03:04 PM
To Dearest Jammo,


I showed your last post to our current Treasurer, I think he blew a fuse. Good thing you didn't tell him over dinner, he might have choked to death ;)

Regards FG7

Kevin Bonham
24-01-2004, 04:12 PM
Correct me if I am wrong Mr Bonham, but didn't Jammo suggest that there was a flaw in my logic?

He did, and he was correct. You did raise legitimate questions about Jammo's claims but you did not prove his claims wrong. There was at least one unsubstantiated hidden assumption. You didn't express yourself well enough to make it clear to say exactly what it was, but it was probably either "A well-run chess club would not lose slightly more than half its members over a period of about a decade", or else "The membership records of a club at one stage in its development under a particular President are a strong indicator of its number of members throughout that individual's Presidency.


Hence I attempted to show the logic. Is their something wrong with trying to do that?

Nothing at all except that it was needlessly longwinded, and it failed.

Bill Gletsos
24-01-2004, 04:43 PM
Starter,
Maybe CV needs more executive members with voting rights.
At the moment you have only 5 by my count.

NSW on the other hand has 14.


Bill
What an interesting thought.
I don't know why we only have a handful on the Executive. Maybe having more would create more momentum at State level.
It might be worth a try. (Even if it was NIIMBY).

Jammo might know why the VIC Executive is relatively small? Jammo?
Gazza would know, but it is hard to get him into this forum.

starter

My count is CV has 6. I think 7-9 is a good number. My tennis club has 10. 14 is too many especially when Bill would count as an extra 5 when it comes to talking!
Its comments like that which make me really wonder why I even started this discussion with firegoat and WBA. :rolleyes:

The NSWCA notes your opinion that 14 is too many. =;
I guess we can just be thankful you are a mexican and therefore are not a member and dont have any say in the structure of the NSWCA Council. :-''

Bill
We do appreciate your patience with the MCC newcomers.
And I for one agree with your analysis a fair % of the time.
But there is the potential for a smigeon of truth in Jammo's remark given your post count.
starter
I'm not sure you can equate post counts to real life, otherwise on that basis jammo's argument would mean Kevin is half as talkative as me but 2.5 times a jammo.

I have a lot of respect for jammo for his contributions to australian chess as both a player and an adminstrator but as anyone who read the ACF Commission thread on the old ACF BB could tell, his attitude that only he knows what is best for australian chess makes it very easy for me to appreciate the frustration both firegoat and WBA obviously feel.

ursogr8
24-01-2004, 07:22 PM
Starter,
Maybe CV needs more executive members with voting rights.
At the moment you have only 5 by my count.

NSW on the other hand has 14.


Bill
What an interesting thought.
I don't know why we only have a handful on the Executive. Maybe having more would create more momentum at State level.
It might be worth a try. (Even if it was NIIMBY).

Jammo might know why the VIC Executive is relatively small? Jammo?
Gazza would know, but it is hard to get him into this forum.

starter

My count is CV has 6. I think 7-9 is a good number. My tennis club has 10. 14 is too many especially when Bill would count as an extra 5 when it comes to talking!
Its comments like that which make me really wonder why I even started this discussion with firegoat and WBA. :rolleyes:

The NSWCA notes your opinion that 14 is too many. =;
I guess we can just be thankful you are a mexican and therefore are not a member and dont have any say in the structure of the NSWCA Council. :-''

Bill
We do appreciate your patience with the MCC newcomers.
And I for one agree with your analysis a fair % of the time.
But there is the potential for a smigeon of truth in Jammo's remark given your post count.
starter
I'm not sure you can equate post counts to real life, otherwise on that basis jammo's argument would mean Kevin is half as talkative as me but 2.5 times a jammo.

I have a lot of respect for jammo for his contributions to australian chess as both a player and an adminstrator but as anyone who read the ACF Commission thread on the old ACF BB could tell, his attitude that only he knows what is best for australian chess makes it very easy for me to appreciate the frustration both firegoat and WBA obviously feel.
Bill
The danger in your argument relying on a single piece of data is that the data itself may not be correct.

Neither WBA nor firegoat posted as far back as that. There is no evidence they read the thread. And I can't recall seeing them at the GG roadshow when he was selling the idea in Melbourne. So maybe this is not upsetting them.
They have 20 years of other shadowy incidents to jump at.

Your data might be unsound.
But anyhow, are you saying you don't talk excessively? I don't know; I have not met you.

kind regards
starter

Bill Gletsos
24-01-2004, 07:34 PM
Bill
The danger in your argument relying on a single piece of data is that the data itself may not be correct.

Neither WBA nor firegoat posted as far back as that. There is no evidence they read the thread. And I can't recall seeing them at the GG roadshow when he was selling the idea in Melbourne. So maybe this is not upsetting them.
They have 20 years of other shadowy incidents to jump at.
I wasnt suggest fg7 and WBA had read that old thread and it was upsettiung them.
All I was suggesting was that they could find dealing with jammo frustrating.



But anyhow, are you saying you don't talk excessively? I don't know; I have not met you.

Yes, I'm quite perpared to hammer home a point, especially when I think someone isn't prepared to listen to others objections and just dismisses them.

However I believe anyone who how has been to a NSWCA Council meeting that I have chaired will I tell you that I generally let everyone express their view and rarely cut anyone off. In fact I could possibly be accused of not being strict enough in terminating some debates.

ursogr8
24-01-2004, 07:58 PM
Bill
The danger in your argument relying on a single piece of data is that the data itself may not be correct.

Neither WBA nor firegoat posted as far back as that. There is no evidence they read the thread. And I can't recall seeing them at the GG roadshow when he was selling the idea in Melbourne. So maybe this is not upsetting them.
They have 20 years of other shadowy incidents to jump at.
I wasnt suggest fg7 and WBA had read that old thread and it was upsettiung them.
All I was suggesting was that they could find dealing with jammo frustrating.



But in general dealing with Jammo is no problem. In fact over many years I can only recall being on opposite sides in
1 The National Commission, and
2 His comment, on learning that BH had moved premises to the Senior Cits Club, was "How appropriate". Humourous given that were moving to accomodate the junior explosion.

So, why fg7 and WBA find dealing with Jammo still remains one of those shadowy things we are yet to learn about. At least he has not left archives in the back-room of the MCC.

starter

Bill Gletsos
24-01-2004, 08:06 PM
Bill
The danger in your argument relying on a single piece of data is that the data itself may not be correct.

Neither WBA nor firegoat posted as far back as that. There is no evidence they read the thread. And I can't recall seeing them at the GG roadshow when he was selling the idea in Melbourne. So maybe this is not upsetting them.
They have 20 years of other shadowy incidents to jump at.
I wasnt suggest fg7 and WBA had read that old thread and it was upsettiung them.
All I was suggesting was that they could find dealing with jammo frustrating.



But in general dealing with Jammo is no problem. In fact over many years I can only recall being on opposite sides in
1 The National Commission, and
2 His comment, on learning that BH had moved premises to the Senior Cits Club, was "How appropriate". Humourous given that were moving to accomodate the junior explosion.
Actually I cannot think of any real issue that I have disagreed with jammo on other than the ACF Commission.


So, why fg7 and WBA find dealing with Jammo still remains one of those shadowy things we are yet to learn about. At least he has not left archives in the back-room of the MCC.
Until his post above I wasnt really planning on having a shot at jammo. In fact you would find I have been supporting him on this thread.
However I wasnt prepared to let his above post pass without a response.

ursogr8
24-01-2004, 08:18 PM
Bill

OK. I will......cease with the stir.

starter

firegoat7
25-01-2004, 12:50 PM
Starter wrote:
Neither WBA nor firegoat posted as far back as that. There is no evidence they read the thread. And I can't recall seeing them at the GG roadshow when he was selling the idea in Melbourne. So maybe this is not upsetting them.


A collection of incorrect assumptions that infers nothing more then hypothetical speculation.

Garvinator
25-01-2004, 12:57 PM
Starter wrote:
Neither WBA nor firegoat posted as far back as that. There is no evidence they read the thread. And I can't recall seeing them at the GG roadshow when he was selling the idea in Melbourne. So maybe this is not upsetting them.


A collection of incorrect assumptions that infers nothing more then hypothetical speculation.

well refute the assumptions then.

firegoat7
25-01-2004, 01:20 PM
GG wrote:
well refute the assumptions then.

Of course if they are serious factual statements I would make an effort. However they are obviously "off the cuff" types of statements. Nothing more or less then gossip. The proof of them being reliable evidence as statements thus depends on the person making the initial claims not the intended targets. Starter ought to be allowed to express an opinion, which he has, but the claims are nothing more then speculative gossip. Feel free to gossip but hey it is not written fact.

It is like me saying this to you GG. I heard you travelled overseas in the last ten years. Then I say go through all the air flights and prove that you did not. Would that make any sense to you?

FG7

ursogr8
25-01-2004, 02:52 PM
GG wrote:
well refute the assumptions then.

Of course if they are serious factual statements I would make an effort. However they are obviously "off the cuff" types of statements. Nothing more or less then gossip.


Yes fg7, they were off the cuff. The remarks were made to alert Bill to the risk he was taking basing a conclusion on one piece of data when that data itself may be incorrect. I was illustrating how it may be incorrect.
You can lay this point to rest simply by telling us
i) did you go to GG’s briefing?
ii) did you read the old Commision thread?
iii) did you agree or disagree with Jammo on his persoanl stance on the Commission proposal?

You are under no obligation to answer.



The proof of them being reliable evidence as statements thus depends on the person making the initial claims not the intended targets. Starter ought to be allowed to express an opinion, which he has, but the claims are nothing more then speculative gossip. Feel free to gossip but hey it is not written fact.



But also feel free to answer.


starter

jammo
27-01-2004, 05:33 PM
I have a lot of respect for jammo for his contributions to australian chess as both a player and an adminstrator but as anyone who read the ACF Commission thread on the old ACF BB could tell, his attitude that only he knows what is best for australian chess makes it very easy for me to appreciate the frustration both firegoat and WBA obviously feel.

Hi Bill,

I would not agree with your "best for australian chess" comment, but if you change it to "best for australian chess administration" then I'm forced to plead guilty.

Perhaps you would agree that I am best qualified to know what is best for Australian chess administration as I have been ACF President, Deputy President, Secretary and Treasurer (plus other office-bearer roles) over the last 30 years so I think that gives me an all round background to claim that I could understand the problems of ACF administration better than most others.

If you put yourself in my shoes for a moment, perhaps you can appreciate my frustration when the ACF Commission proposal is defeated by NSW voting against it when most of them have little knowledge of ACF administration and their objections to the proposal (in my view) are not a sufficient reason to vote against the proposal if one is taking a national point of view.

Now you can say that I don't listen to the views of others if you wish. I can say that I have listened to them and they have not convinced me that the commission is not the best model for the ACF.

It will be interesting to see what happens to the ACF when the current administration retires in Jan 2005. Is their anyone waiting in the wings who is going to run the ACF? Perhaps our new (generational change!) Deputy President will rise to even greater glory? Perhaps no one will put their hand up and the ACF will collapse? If so I'm quite content that I did my best to reform the ACF administration so that it would have continuity and experienced people to run it. If others fail to support my proposal then I can't do much about it and the onus will be on them to find a structure that will attract people to run the ACF. I suggest that the current problems at the prize-giving in Perth are indicitative of the ACF's problems with having the President as the sole decision making authority between 3 monthly meetings. He does what he is interested in and some things may get missed.

As to my stir about you counting for 5 people in debates; I was echoing Jason Lyon's comments in a previous post. I note from your latest comment that you believe that you do not dominate NSW Council meetings. If so, I'm pleased. Jason and I will have to revise our view of your debating style.

Maybe you can share your views on how the ACF should be run with others on the BB and we can have a fruitful discussion. Will having 2 VPs make much difference? Does the ACF need more meetings and maybe a return to a face-to-face Council or Executive?

Cheers
-Jammo

Garvinator
27-01-2004, 06:00 PM
Maybe you can share your views on how the ACF should be run with others on the BB and we can have a fruitful discussion. Will having 2 VPs make much difference? Does the ACF need more meetings and maybe a return to a face-to-face Council or Executive?

Cheers
-Jammo
only have one question at the moment jammo. How could the acf council/executive have more face to face meetings if you have two council members in brisbane, two in sydney and a few others stationed across the country?

firegoat7
27-01-2004, 07:18 PM
Hello everyone,

I would like to take this thread back to its initial context and leave other areas that have recently been debated. Cause I have the good juice....her we go....


Well I just had the most interesting phone conversation with the current CV secretary Mr Keith Jenkins. The thing I like about Keith is that he is honest, he has integrity, and he does not have a hidden agenda. I told KJ about this BB and the dispute MCC is having with CV, in particular comments posted by the current CV treasurer MR R. Jamieson.

Keith informed me of a few facts that might be of interest to these threads.

1/ The current CV secretary had not been asked to send a letter to Melbourne, despite claims by the Jammo that he had forgotten.

2/The current CV secretary was not aware that MCC had been suspended by CV.

3/ The last meeting the secretary attended was the AGM, where no mention of MCCs suspension was mentioned.

4/ Obviously the current CV secretary never attended any meeting where MCC was suspended officially.

Now let us consider some of Jammo’s claims on this BB

18/01/04 at 8.50pm

I agree. It is pathetic that a CV committee decision is not implemented quickly. My beef is with your continuing to claim that I announced the suspension.

This is not hard to understand. What is hard to understand is why you so pig-headedly keep claiming that CV announced the suspension on the BB (which implies the "announcement" was both official and intentional) when it clearly was neither.

I have read them and my conclusion is that I am right and you a wrong but I know I am not going to change your mind. Others may care to look at the context of the alleged "announcement" to see whether it was something just mentioned in passing rather than an official or public announcement. Perhaps WBA you could ask yourself why CV would think it could officially communicate with MCC through the BB when there is no certainty that an MCC official would ever read the BB anyway.


16/01/04 at 8.29

Mr.Goat may care to note that CV also suspended another club which has long outstanding debts at the same time as we suspended MCC. So much for his paranoia.


8/01/04 at 7.33pm
Come to think of it, if MCC does not come to CV meetings and is currently suspended, then this "issue" you are trying to beat up can't be very relevant to you at all.

7/01/04
I can remember when the Melbourne Chess Club Inc. was a highly respected club with a judge as President and around 250 – 300 members. Nowadays I understand that the MCC has around 70 members; recently the ACF had to suspend all services from the MCC until it paid its bills to the ACF, and now Chess Victoria Inc. has had to suspend all services from the MCC until it pays its bills to CV.




Now Jammo it appears your porky pies are actually now coming back to haunt you. You should resign Jammo, you’re an absolute disgrace!!

Bill Gletsos
27-01-2004, 07:33 PM
Hi Bill,

I would not agree with your "best for australian chess" comment, but if you change it to "best for australian chess administration" then I'm forced to plead guilty.

Perhaps you would agree that I am best qualified to know what is best for Australian chess administration as I have been ACF President, Deputy President, Secretary and Treasurer (plus other office-bearer roles) over the last 30 years so I think that gives me an all round background to claim that I could understand the problems of ACF administration better than most others.

If you put yourself in my shoes for a moment, perhaps you can appreciate my frustration when the ACF Commission proposal is defeated by NSW voting against it when most of them have little knowledge of ACF administration and their objections to the proposal (in my view) are not a sufficient reason to vote against the proposal if one is taking a national point of view.
Hi Robert,

I really dont want to get into another slanging match with you over the ACF Commission, because I dont believe it is going to get us anywhere.


Now you can say that I don't listen to the views of others if you wish. I can say that I have listened to them and they have not convinced me that the commission is not the best model for the ACF.

I think the NSW delegates would same the same thing. They listened to you but were not convinced that the ACF Commission was the best model.



It will be interesting to see what happens to the ACF when the current administration retires in Jan 2005. Is their anyone waiting in the wings who is going to run the ACF? Perhaps our new (generational change!) Deputy President will rise to even greater glory? Perhaps no one will put their hand up and the ACF will collapse? If so I'm quite content that I did my best to reform the ACF administration so that it would have continuity and experienced people to run it. If others fail to support my proposal then I can't do much about it and the onus will be on them to find a structure that will attract people to run the ACF. I suggest that the current problems at the prize-giving in Perth are indicitative of the ACF's problems with having the President as the sole decision making authority between 3 monthly meetings. He does what he is interested in and some things may get missed.
I think thats a little unfair.
It sounded like Norbert had been informed by a number of people what was expected with regards play-offs and prize giving but just refused to listen.


As to my stir about you counting for 5 people in debates; I was echoing Jason Lyon's comments in a previous post. I note from your latest comment that you believe that you do not dominate NSW Council meetings. If so, I'm pleased. Jason and I will have to revise our view of your debating style.
I wont deny that I can be persistent in trying to get a point across, but when I am chairing the NSW Council meetings I always try and let everyone have their say.


Maybe you can share your views on how the ACF should be run with others on the BB and we can have a fruitful discussion. Will having 2 VPs make much difference? Does the ACF need more meetings and maybe a return to a face-to-face Council or Executive?
I think adding the two VP's can help in sharing the load.
I do believe that recognising email voting in the constitution is important. I believe it means the Council can have more of a hands on approach to ACF issues in between council meetings.

Prior to Graeme Gardiner becoming ACF president, the ACF Executive resided in the one state. This made it easy for the Executive to meet face to face, however the downside was that the state delegates who make up the majority of the ACF Council were virtually never true representatives of their states.

E.g. when the ACF was in Melbourne the state delegates for all the states were Victorians, nominated by the respective states to represent them at ACF Council meetings. Those delegates however could not really know what their states views were on issues that came up for discussion at ACF meetings that were not on the agenda but were raised as part of agenda items or general business. This meant they either voted without truly representing their states view or decisions were delayed due to them having to go back to their state associations for instructions.

When Graeme took over he changed things to replace these council meetings by telephone hookups where the state delegates really were from the states they represented. The WA delegate was an actual WA person. The same was true for the other states.

I think all the states would say this was a better format.

Now similar to the ACF, the NSWCA constitution places the power between Council meetings in the hands of the NSWCA executive(Pres, Vice Pres, Sec and Treas). However over the last few years when the advent of email became prevalent decisions by the Eecutive as opposed to the full Council have been few and far between. In fact I'm hard pressed to remember the last time it happened.

The NSWCA has monthly meetings but we discuss issues in between those meetings. If a decisions needs to be made prior to the next meeting then it happens. If it can wait then although we may discuss it via email we will decide face to face at the next meeting.

I see no reason why the ACF cannot function in this manner.

firegoat7
27-01-2004, 08:10 PM
Dear Bill,


Could you please post your commission stuff on another thread as its only connection with the VCA-MCC debate is Jammo. It is important because I want to know if Jammo intends to resign.

regards FG7

Bill Gletsos
27-01-2004, 10:10 PM
fg7,

I understand but I was simply responding to jammo because he asked a direct question.

If he wants to continue his discussion about the ACF he can start a new thread.

Anyway, I post in this thread about it anymore.

ursogr8
28-01-2004, 07:46 AM
Hello everyone,

Well I just had the most interesting phone conversation with the current CV secretary Mr Keith Jenkins. The thing I like about Keith is that he is honest, he has integrity, and he does not have a hidden agenda. I told KJ about this BB and the dispute MCC is having with CV, in particular comments posted by the current CV treasurer MR R. Jamieson.

Keith informed me of a few facts that might be of interest to these threads.

1/ The current CV secretary had not been asked to send a letter to Melbourne, despite claims by the Jammo that he had forgotten.

2/The current CV secretary was not aware that MCC had been suspended by CV.

3/ The last meeting the secretary attended was the AGM, where no mention of MCCs suspension was mentioned.

4/ Obviously the current CV secretary never attended any meeting where MCC was suspended officially.



hi fg7

There seems to be a few missing puzzle pieces that I would like to see before jumping to a judgement.
> Jammo posted that he wasn't at the meeting where the the suspension was moved. And now Keith says he has not attended a meeting since the AGM. Was there an Executive meeting post the AGM for which both Keith and Jammo were absent? (Given that there are only 5 on the Executive it may have been a lightly attended meeting.) Or did the meeting take place days before the AGM and only Jammo was absent?

>> I would not expect the suspension to have been in the AGM. There was no need for a motion at the AGM. And it was only $150 after all; not a significant event to be reported at an AGM.

BTW. When I attended Executive meetings Keith was usually very late with, or did not produce, minutes.

starter

WBA
28-01-2004, 08:18 PM
Wow how things can change when you have real life interupts chess and the BB. Jammo, it looks as though you have been taken to task by members of your own organisation who you have lambasted during your rantings.

Is it true that Mr. K.Jenkins has spoken to MCC VC Firegoat about your claims, and considers them false?

Now let us consider what the implications are if what Keith says is true.

1 CV never made a decision to suspend MCC!
2 Tha Jammo has come onto this board and publicly lambasted MCC, abusing his position to make false claims to support his views
3 That MCC is further justified in its position of nto wanting to deal with, let alone pay for services presented by an amatuer organisation, of which this is yet another example.

If the above is fact, why should Jammo keep his position on the VCC executive? Surely he has proven he is incapable of performing his task in an unbiased fashion.

Now what about the possibility of Keith not attending?

Well I believe he would have had to decline, and therefore at least have known about the meeting, as it is his responsibility to inform all members of the commitee of upcoming meetings, he is the secretary?

What if Keith was not told?

I ask how the meeting could have been official without his knowledge of it occuring? What is also the minimum (I have no longer got the guidelines for running an incorporated club at home, due to no longer needing them) number of attendees for a meeting to be official (isn't it 1/2 with a minimum of three or something to that effect). Who were the CV members present at this alleged meeting, and when did the meeting take place, surely you can give exact times, dates and places as well as those present. If Keith was not present who took the minutes, and were they verified at the next meeing? If so then that mean Keith was not invited/aware/present either, as he claims no knowledge of the previous meetings minutes. Is CV run as an adhoc backyard organisation run as someone's own toy for which we are all forced to pay administration fees purely because there is no alternative?

Where are the answers Jammo? Are you calling Keith a liar, and if so produce the proof. I think that if what FG7 posted is true then Jammo just has to resign, becaue this is ridiculous. If however the secoind scenario of meeting being held without all being aware is true the member who organised the commitee meeting, as well as the person responsible for informing Keith he had an obligation to send notification should resign.

There are some questions that cannot be answered until a delegate from CV can answer them. I belive GW is being contacted for the above information, it will be very interseting to see what eventuates.

Unfortunatley my sneaking postion is against Jammo, he has already lied twice concerning MCC (if you are reading Jammo, re not posting the MCC suspension, and his comments apparently from the MCC treasurer), is this a 3rd?

Bill


In fact given your attitude that jammo "announced" it, then why if the situation is resolved would CV bother sending out a letter that has become irrelevant.

Bill this is absolute garbage, I mean seriously my point is that Jammo had no right to announce this suspension, this cannot ever cover an official notification of the event, nor dissolve someone of their responsibiblities.



I assume the goat at MCC and his cohorts hold committee meetings and would surely have minutes. Since the MCC treasuere would be aware of the situation since he has since paid the outstanding bill, this could be easily minuted in their next committee meeting.
This isnt too hard to work out.

Are you deliberately missing the point? Or is it coincedental



Brains and common sense seems to be lacking by MCC posters on this BB.
Some of your more recent posts are starting to take on the attributes of the goat.

Bill you insults are childish and add nothing, if you have a real reason to have a contructive debate with me I am happy to, but your recent no brain comments are already tiring. Give real examples of this supposed alck of brains and common sense otherwise do not bother. I have no problems with you disagreeing with what I am saying, try doing so constructively!

As for my posts being simialr to Firegoats, it is simple really, we happen to be friends, we both love the MCC, and vigourously will defend it. Though of course we have our differences, and I believe these are evident. If you are suggesting we are the then (by your sarcastic smiley, then that is funny because it is not hte first time we have been compared, but that is a long story) For the record we are different, though FG did post from my place last week if that counts, and I have posted from the MCC before, which is where FG usually posts from. If in doubt ask started he actually knows who I am both of our identities I believe.

jammo
28-01-2004, 08:54 PM
Well children, you've really gotten yourself confused this time.

Let me set you straight.



Keith informed me of a few facts that might be of interest to these threads.

1/ The current CV secretary had not been asked to send a letter to Melbourne, despite claims by the Jammo that he had forgotten.

2/The current CV secretary was not aware that MCC had been suspended by CV.

3/ The last meeting the secretary attended was the AGM, where no mention of MCCs suspension was mentioned.

4/ Obviously the current CV secretary never attended any meeting where MCC was suspended officially.


1. The secretary may well have not been asked to send a letter to the MCC, although as he did not attend the meeting GW should probably have asked him to. However, let me ask you a question. Who implements the decisions of a committee unless another officer has agreed to do so? Answer: THE SECRETARY. Yes, he is the guy who normally writes letters on behalf of the association.

2. This may be true - probably because he may not have bothered to read the minutes of the meeting of 22/12/03 which were emailed to him by GW.

3. True. I have already told you that he and I did not attend the last Executive meeting.

4. True (see above).

Now take out your pens and write this down so that you don't get confused again. At its meeting of 22/12/03, minute 4.7, CV suspended all services to MCC pending payment of all monies outstanding to CV.

If the CV Secretary did not attend the meeting and did not read his minutes and consequently did not implement the decisions of that meeting then it's unfortunate. Perhaps we need a Secretary who actually does his job.

If there are any other points you want me to clarify please don't hesitate to ask.

Meanwhile, a question for Firegoat, how do you tell who has a hidden agenda and who does not?

Cheers,
-Jammo

jammo
28-01-2004, 09:51 PM
Unfortunatley my sneaking postion is against Jammo, he has already lied twice concerning MCC (if you are reading Jammo, re not posting the MCC suspension, and his comments apparently from the MCC treasurer), is this a 3rd?

Dear WBA,

If you are making a claim that my freedom fighters are your terrorists then please be more precise in your claims.

I did not claim that I did not POST a comment about the MCC suspension, I claimed I did not ANNOUNCE the suspension. You understand what an announcement is I presume?

I do not know what you are suggesting re "comments apparently from MCC Treasurer". Please advise me what you are disputing. By the way, I do not recollect you being at my meeting with the MCC Treasurer so any claim you make in relation to this meeting must be pure supposition on your part.

I note that your claims I lied in my posts are a subjective (and incorrect) supposition on your part ... not a proven fact.

Tell you what, for the sake of the respectability of the BB if you agree to stop calling me a liar I will agree not to call you a drunken dole bludger who cannot spell and doesn't know his ABN. Is it a deal?

Cheers,
-Jammo

Garvinator
28-01-2004, 09:55 PM
and a better idea would be to get someone who is completely neutral to speak to everyone concerned and report back who is telling the most truths.

chesslover
28-01-2004, 10:08 PM
and an even better idea would be to forget about the past, not point the finger of blame at anyone and move on

what has happened has happened, and there is no use crying over split milk. Maybe a new fresh start and productive relationship building in the interests of victorian chess is the way to go, between the strong willed personalities of victorian chess?

WBA
28-01-2004, 10:29 PM
I did not claim that I did not POST a comment about the MCC suspension, I claimed I did not ANNOUNCE the suspension. You understand what an announcement is I presume?

Correction 1 is precise, and I meant announce, again it means to make publicly known, how many members of the public on this BB knew about the suspension of services before Jammo told mentioned it here?


I do not know what you are suggesting re "comments apparently from MCC Treasurer". Please advise me what you are disputing. By the way, I do not recollect you being at my meeting with the MCC Treasurer so any claim you make in relation to this meeting must be pure supposition on your part.

Or you could have lied in your initial post??


Tell you what, for the sake of the respectability of the BB if you agree to stop calling me a liar I will agree not to call you a drunken dole bludger who cannot spell and doesn't know his ABN. Is it a deal?

I will tell you what Jammo, they reckon insults only sting if there is an elemaent of truth to them, feeling the pain are we Jammo? You can call me like you wish, considering

a - I am not intoxicated
b - I am hardly on the dole, I have my nice collar job which should surprise you considering I attend the MCC, though I am guilty of that other MCC sin, I am smoking as I type, hey finally you got to pigeon hole me. By the way I am terribly insulted about your spelling comment, should I jump off the bridge now? By the way why is it that you believe all people on unemployment are dole bludgers? or is just those that attend MCC? Or can I narrow it down even further to those who do nto agree with the illustrious Jammo?
c- It is not my responsibility to know the Club's ABN, though Years ago I done some contracting work and needed an ABN, it might please you to be informed I knew it quite well.

As always jammo it has been a pleasure responding to your dribble, would you like a napkin now?

jammo
29-01-2004, 06:54 PM
As always jammo it has been a pleasure responding to your dribble, would you like a napkin now?

Well WBA, where are we going with this discussion? Is it my turn to insult you?

Perhaps instead I can try to explain to you about accusing someone of lying, given your totally inadequate reply to my previous post.

EXAMPLE 1
Jammo says he was born in 1984 and is aged 19 and 3/4.
He is lying as I can produce factual evidence that he was born well before 1984, so you may freely claim 'Jammo has lied".

EXAMPLE 2
Jammo and Tsag have a private meeting which is not recorded or minuted.
Jammo claims that at the meeting Tsag said "such and such" and Tsag denies that he did. Perhaps Jammo is lying. Perhaps Tsag is lying, or perhaps they are both genuine in their beliefs but have flawed recollections of what was said. Now you have no basis for knowing which is correct, so it is totally unacceptable for you to claim the Jammo (or Tsag) lied in this instance. You simply do not know.

So I hope that you understand the above and will take more care in future before you make another false claim.

By the way, I'm sorry to hear that you are a smoker. I prefer chocolate.

Best Wishes,
-Jammo

skip to my lou
29-01-2004, 08:33 PM
oh yeah 'rag'ray

And who is that likely to be huh?
If we had a Henry Kissinger we would not be in this pickle.

starter
oops? :eh:

Thunk
29-01-2004, 08:55 PM
oops? :eh:

No.

The signature line explains.
Visiting.

starter

skip to my lou
29-01-2004, 08:57 PM
No.

The signature line explains.
Visiting.

starter
:confused:

Visiting who? Yourself?

ursogr8
29-01-2004, 09:19 PM
Yes
Thunk at my place.
Hence the change in signature line to expain why the E's not occurring.

ursogr8
29-01-2004, 09:23 PM
and an even better idea would be to forget about the past, not point the finger of blame at anyone and move on

what has happened has happened, and there is no use crying over split milk. Maybe a new fresh start and productive relationship building in the interests of victorian chess is the way to go, between the strong willed personalities of victorian chess?


Yes CL
A fresh start is required.
But I think they have to go down before they go up.

At the moment my scorecard looks like this.

CV has junk (archives) in a room MCC wants to renovate. (Footfault CV)
CV should take more care of its junk/archives. (Double fault CV)
Jammo needs to find which year had 250 members. (Play LET)
fg7 needs to read the records to see which year this could be. (Play LET)
CV needs a business plan. (Deuce)
KJ should read his minutes. (Penalty game)
MCC should attend CV AGMs. (Warning for tanking)
WBA should let go of the announcement/post debate. (Too much boring play from the base-line).

This could be a decider.


starter

skip to my lou
29-01-2004, 09:35 PM
Yes
Thunk at my place.
Hence the change in signature line to expain why the E's not occurring.
:lol:

:owned::owned::owned:

firegoat7
29-01-2004, 09:35 PM
Hello everyone,

Jammo wrote:
I did not claim that I did not POST a comment about the MCC suspension, I claimed I did not ANNOUNCE the suspension. You understand what an announcement is I presume? :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall:

Now Jammo I am pretty certain that you are a grown adult and can understand logic. So when you announced this on the 7/01/04 at this bulletin board, what are we to infer?



Nowadays I understand that the MCC has around 70 members; recently the ACF had to suspend all services from the MCC until it paid its bills to the ACF, and now Chess Victoria Inc. has had to suspend all services from the MCC until it pays its bills to CV.
Look at this statement from the MCC's perspective Jammo. :eek: Nobody from CV had informed us that we were suspended, no letter from the President,Vice-President,Secretary or the the Treasurer. :hand:

Now is it correct protocal for the Treasure of CV to inform MCC through a public bulletin board of there suspension? :hmm:
Have you made a mistake Jammo or are you actually deliberately malicious? :whistle:

Furthermore you addressed us all as
Well children, you've really gotten yourself confused this time. I know this is your style Jammo but really we are all grown adults here, so show us ALL the respect we deserve.


So when you say..



It's very hard if I say "white" and you keep reading it as "black" but I'll say it one more time, I did not ANNOUNCE MCC's suspension in the BB. So far as I knew you had already been notified. If you do not wish to believe me that's your problem. :doh: Yes it is Black and White Jammo. How afterall did the MCC treasurer find out we were suspended? Because I found out on the BB, hence the subject was brought up at our committee meeting. Now Jammo a simple phone call could have avoided any of this bickering...May I offer you some free advice...It is called COMMUNICATION.

Regards FG7

P.S If CV cannot get its own house in order in regards to proper communication channels with clubs, then unfortunately they will be relegated to the dustbowls of history. Remembering that it is the clubs who form CV not the other way round.

firegoat7
29-01-2004, 09:51 PM
Starter wrote:
fg7 needs to read the records to see which year this could be. Jammo said he will believe E.Malitis. E.Malitis says he has never known MCC to have 250 members. (The referee says PENALTY:Red Card)

Furthermore:
MCC should attend CV AGMs. (Warning for tanking) Problem is with the way we have been treated by CV over the last 20 years we are pretty much sick of tennis. Instead we want to play football we want to kick some goals!! Let the other clubs play tennis if they want. Of course they could always join us in Football!

If you consider that the role of CV is to unite the chessclubs together then obviously they have failed. Maybe the clubs ought to work around CV instead of through it.

WBA
30-01-2004, 01:33 AM
Interesting that in Brooking's history of the MCC he mentions that in 1982 just before MCC bought the Peel Street premises there was a suggestion that the lease for the Elizabeth St building (which was in MCC's name), should now be under the name of Victorian Chess Association Chess Centre. Now this is going back 22 years, and the VCA was trying to feed off MCC's history and esteem, and claim it for its own.

Who was on the commitee of the VCA that year??? I would be interested to know. bad blood seems to be going back a long long way. A couple of matches of tennis may not sort this one out, I think more like a general clean out with a dirty big broom at CV HQ.

Starter is wondering why I keep hammerring home the point about the announcement??? Simple really it shows the general atitude of what we are dealing with.

Little boys steals a chocolate bar (was gonna say cigs but some people prefer chocolate), he is caught eating it, it is clear to everyone who sees it, yet he refuses to acknowledge such a simple thing.

I am saying that if Jammo cannot realise his mistake on something so simple why would we want to deal with such a person. Accountability is why governments have to answer to voters, and why committees are elected. Jammo should admit his error, apologise, and no one would consider less of him, god we all make mistakes.

ursogr8
30-01-2004, 06:45 AM
Starter is wondering why I keep hammerring home the point about the announcement???
I am saying that if Jammo cannot realise his mistake on something so simple why would we want to deal with such a person.

WBA
I am repeating myself in what I said in a previous post. A fair reading of Jammo's very first post on the suspension is that he believed at that point that either KJ or GW had told the MCC one way or the other. Nothing that has come out from any quarter has invalidated that. In fact the absence of Jammo from the relevant committee meeting has made it an even more likely that Jammo simply assumed the Secretary would do his job, or had done his job.
The debate about whether to call it an 'announcement', 'post', or 'epistle to the Corinthians' is irrelevant. Personnally, I don't think Jammo knew that the MCC did not know.
So, your calls for Jammo to resign, apologise, or whatever, on this point are based on a different reading of events.
I think I would only change my view if GW said "I told Jammo to announce on the BB". And Gazza doesn't post here; despite my continual urging.

This was not a Jammo mistake.

starter

ursogr8
30-01-2004, 07:33 AM
If you consider that the role of CV is to unite the chessclubs together then obviously they have failed.



Yes, and yes. No need to hold a poll on these two points. i) The CV Constitution is bound to list this role. ii) Umpteen pages of debate demonstrates that unity is not with us at the moment.




Maybe the clubs ought to work around CV instead of through it.


And who is your Tony Greig to lead WSC?


starter

Garvinator
30-01-2004, 09:14 AM
I think more like a general clean out with a dirty big broom at CV HQ.
and I am sure that some ppl would argue that a dirty big broom clean out at MCC would help relations with CV too.

ursogr8
30-01-2004, 09:24 AM
and I am sure that some ppl would argue that a dirty big broom clean out at MCC would help relations with CV too.

ray g

I don't recall any poster suggesting this is needed at the MCC. In fact, if we keep calling for resignations, right, left, and centre, then will find it difficult to do the basics of chess administration.
Elected officials are elected officials. Let us accept them in their place and the appropriate constituency reviews their performance at the next election.

starter

Garvinator
30-01-2004, 09:27 AM
ray g

I don't recall any poster suggesting this is needed at the MCC. In fact, if we keep calling for resignations, right, left, and centre, then will find it difficult to do the basics of chess administration.
Elected officials are elected officials. Let us accept them in their place and the appropriate constituency reviews their performance at the next election.

starter
starter, I was wondering who would be the first to take the bait, didnt expect it to be you though :eek:

The point I was trying to make was pretty much the same as yours, but my point is still the same. If we keep bleating on about resignations, but dont have any one to replace the resigned ones, then we are the poorer(generally).

I am sure though that there are some that would like to see the mcc committee gone too. :doh:

WBA
30-01-2004, 09:47 AM
This was not a Jammo mistake.

Starter you seem to be having a problem getting your head around this. It has nothing to do with GW. THis issue is seperate. It is a clear factual statement there is absolutely no grey area. announce does not even have to imply intent. Why is this so hard to get around. go here www.dictionary.com Even if Jammo is right an he is did not know so pleads ignorance over arrogance, then the issue also revolves around whether or not as a member of the state org he should be discussing this information online at all. Obviously you are claiming he had none of the facts as he was not there so why is he spruiking in here?

Starter I actually have no interest in trying to turn you around, you have your thoughts and I completely disagree. But yolu wanted to know some of the reasons why MCC has no interest in CV? These are small incidences, and whether or not you can justify them to yourself is irrelevant as they are not happening to your club. But the MCC is currently, has been, and always will be stronger than CV. Anyone who has read through the history of chess in Victoria realises this. MCC has no interest in competing with clubs like Box Hill, Dandenong, Frankston etc, you are completely different organisations, and as such possibly you are happy with the way CV administers chess in this state. I believe MCC will thrive without involvement with CV, other than to purchase services that cannot be bought elsewhere.

It is no coincidence that the 2 best events in the last 7 years held in Australia were both run by the MCC. I have a feeling the Aus Masters (held at MCC this year), might be up there to.

Conclusio

Jammo, believe as you please because at the end of the day, CV having you CG and GW may be able to stroke each others backs and talk about how good you aare at administration, but as pointed out already CV is hardly thriving. Yet the club without administrators worth a pinch of salt is doing quite well thanks.


and I am sure that some ppl would argue that a dirty big broom clean out at MCC would help relations with CV too.

Melbourne Chess Club had a very big sweep out of the committee as eluded to in earlier posts, and the club has taken giant leaps since this occurence. Make no mistake GG MCC is moving forward, has a healthy admin, and a fairly fresh one. When this committee was elected 2 years ago, there were about 80 members in attendance at the AGM, there was not enough seating at time. I believe that without this fresh injection we might have gone further down a road we should never have got on. CV needs fresh blood, there is no way around that. If CV is unable to attract people, then in my opinion, I do not care whether or not they fold.

ursogr8
30-01-2004, 09:52 AM
starter, I was wondering who would be the first to take the bait, didnt expect it to be you though :eek:


I am taking all baits at the moment in a forlorn attempt to get ahead of the next two on the post count. :rolleyes:

BTW, with the new board, how does one see the top 10 posters?

Garvinator
30-01-2004, 10:09 AM
BTW, with the new board, how does one see the top 10 posters?

go to members list and then click on posts, hope that helps. BTW your not catching me :whistle: :owned:

ursogr8
30-01-2004, 10:21 AM
Starter you seem to be having a problem getting your head around this. It has nothing to do with GW. THis issue is seperate. It is a clear factual statement there is absolutely no grey area. announce does not even have to imply intent. Why is this so hard to get around. go here www.dictionary.com Even if Jammo is right an he is did not know so pleads ignorance over arrogance, then the issue also revolves around whether or not as a member of the state org he should be discussing this information online at all. Obviously you are claiming he had none of the facts as he was not there so why is he spruiking in here?

.

WBA

OK. I will bite.
If he is not to discuss the suspension of the MCC here how do we get to know the selection criteria for what is acceptable on the BB.
We know we have to
> pass the moderation of the poohbahs
>> not offend K
>>> not offend G (who has gone away anyway)
>>>> not discuss junior selections.

Are you adding another?
>>>>> not discuss MCC suspension?

BTW, pasted in below is where I think the suspension first saw the light of day (8/1/4 7.33pm).


Not quite sure what you are on about here Mr.Goat.
What issue do you think I have a conflict of interest over?
Do you think I am a partner/shareholder/employee of some organisation that is relevant to chess administration?
What makes you think this is "very important?"
What makes you think you can speak for "Chess Administration".
Come to think of it, if MCC does not come to CV meetings and is currently suspended, then this "issue" you are trying to beat up can't be very relevant to you at all.
Finally, did Charles arrange for Di to be killed?

-Jammo

ursogr8
30-01-2004, 10:35 AM
go to members list and then click on posts, hope that helps. BTW your not catching me :whistle: :owned:

Tks
Found it.


I lost more in the hack.

Garvinator
30-01-2004, 10:44 AM
Tks
Found it.
I lost more in the hack.

nice try for the sympathy vote :whistle: i lost about 150 posts in the hack, but in all everyone lost posts, so lets just go on from what the record says now :owned:

WBA
30-01-2004, 11:04 AM
and now Chess Victoria Inc. has had to suspend all services from the MCC until it pays its bills to CV

7/1/03 in the Firegoats Clowns thread

ursogr8
30-01-2004, 11:40 AM
7/1/03 in the Firegoats Clowns thread

OK
I can see that one too, now. Thanks.

Are you going comment on my question about whether this should be a banned topic on the board?

george
30-01-2004, 12:54 PM
Hi All,

I generally respond very well to positive criticism. Be solution focussed and I am very very interested in what anyone has to say. - personal nonsense should stay off public Bulletin Boards.

So Starter lets have your good ideas by all means!

Regards all,

George Howard

ursogr8
30-01-2004, 01:25 PM
Hi All,

I generally respond very well to positive criticism. Be solution focussed and I am very very interested in what anyone has to say. - personal nonsense should stay off public Bulletin Boards.

So Starter lets have your good ideas by all means!

Regards all,

George Howard

Well George, it is an honour to be singled out from the 385 other posters who are registered with the board; so thank you.
I have 590 posts at the moment and at least 1 of those was positive because Paul S. from Sydney said so when he was discussing the awards for BB best postings.
But apart from these two comments I have got absolutely no idea what good ideas you expect of me.

This post is on a thread that has an awful title. First it says VCA, when the organisation has been re-badged as Chess VICTORIA, CV. Second it has the clearly over-the-top Nazis label. But I don't think you want me to have ideas on the title.

What do you want me to have positive, focussed ideas on George? Or is it you want me to have less of the personal nonsense?

Help me here to help you.


starter

george
30-01-2004, 02:05 PM
Hi Starter,

Yes you are right these threads transpose or totally change from the original reason for the thread. I dont think "thread transposition" adequately describes what happens here at times.

All I was saying about the other is that I will listen to anyones ideas about Australian Chess who has taken the time to place some thought into a positive response which addresses areas that need change.

Recently I received a well thought out email concerning the Grand Prix - I will make sure that the ideas in that email are discussed thoroughly by ACF Council. It criticises the current system but the sender is willing to contribute in a positive way time etc to implement from his point of view a better system - that is an example of what I as ACF President am looking for.

It doesnt mean everyone has to be quiet unless they can directly contribute their time energy etc to a solution but discussion I think needs to be positive and solution focussed.

regards
George Howard