PDA

View Full Version : A little history from the Mexicans



Pages : [1] 2

firegoat7
22-01-2004, 12:10 AM
Hello Everybody,

Reading this bulletin board it has become apparent that very few people outside the state of Victoria understand much about the political history between MCC and CV. This is a perfectly understandable scenario that in my opinion is based on two major areas.

1. Poor Management, namely being CV's seeming disregard for the historical legacy of chess in Victoria.

2. An unhealthy reliance on the memory and or subjective interpretations of the elite (administrators and players) of Australian chess.

If we look at the policy of the ACF as an example, we, the chess playing community, can see great strides being achieved through a well maintained website and bulletin board. The ACF website contains significant historical documentation that can only be of benefit to the chess community at large. Everyone involved in this venture should be congratulated on their work and achievement.
I hope that the ACF is just as prudent with its physical material heritage.

When we examine CVs track record they fall considerably short of desired standards.

In 1992 under the Presidency of Mr Depasquale, MCC ended a lease agreement with the then VCA ( IMO a poor decision but that is democracy). The VCA were informed that a new period of negotiation would be entered into with MCC in regards to the storage of VCA materials. By 1998 neither party had reached an amicable position and CV were asked to remove all their equipment from MCC premises. To his credit GW eventually removed most of CV's equipment. Unfortunately the VCA chose not to take all of it's belongings, GW was queried at the time as to what the VCA were doing with these items, the suprising response was that they could be dispensed with. MCC decided to glean Victorian honor boards and trophies, recognising the importance of such historical material. Heaven only knows what happend to CV archives. We proudly display these items at MCC and now regard them as property of the club.

This scant disregard for historical material does not sit well with MCC, who have a proud tradition of recognising and preserving for future generations our combined chess legacy. Can anybody from Chess Victoria inform us of the current whereabouts of VCA/CV historical items? Are they available on request for the general chess community?

My second point concerning relations between CV and MCC ought to be clarified.
Some chess players in Victoria are aware that GW was a former President of MCC. Furthermore, at one stage in the history of Victorian chess there were two full time chess clubs in Victoria. One run by the VCA, the other by MCC. History shows that the VCA run centre flounderd and disbanded. Whilst MCC thrived to become the institution that it is today. Needless to say there appears to be an underlying resentment towards MCCs general success. A resentment that in my opinion stems from an emotion as petty as jealousy.

When ACF officials and interstate people judge MCC, unfortunately their impressions are often influenced by people who bear historical grievances against the club.This is why the bulletin board is a good avenue of expression. Before this bulletin board for example a former President of the ACF once suggested that MCC sell its premise for the benefit of the Australian Chess Federation. The suggestion being that the proceeds be donated to the ACF, since MCC was being under utilised. Personally, I wonder if such a statement would have been considered without some influence from the CV elite.

Nevertheless since the bulletin board has arrived MCC has had the opportunity to have their views heard in the Australian political chess arena. Now all clubs in Victoria can represent themselves accurately, without any censorship from CV.

ursogr8
22-01-2004, 07:29 AM
Hello Everybody,

Reading this bulletin board it has become apparent that very few people outside the state of Victoria understand much about the political history between MCC and CV. This is a perfectly understandable scenario that in my opinion is based on two major areas.

1. Poor Management, namely being CV's seeming disregard for the historical legacy of chess in Victoria.


hi firegoat
Good to see you back. And with an avatar.

In toto this is a good post of yours because it advances our understanding of grievances that were only shadowy half-suggestions
So thank you; we should be able to make progress now that we have defined issues to deal with.

CV is not alone in having trouble maintaining historical physical artefacts. At Box Hill, we have honour boards that stretch back 50 years but they are not adequately handled in my view. This is primarily due to lack of resource allocation and organisation rather than your word ‘disregard’. You should be a little more tolerant of others who i) don’t own their own premises, ii) are resource poor, iii) and, are struggling to find office-bearers for executive positions let alone archivists.




2. An unhealthy reliance on the memory and or subjective interpretations of the elite (administrators and players) of Australian chess.

If we look at the policy of the ACF as an example, we, the chess playing community, can see great strides being achieved through a well maintained website and bulletin board. The ACF website contains significant historical documentation that can only be of benefit to the chess community at large. Everyone involved in this venture should be congratulated on their work and achievement.
I hope that the ACF is just as prudent with its physical material heritage.


Good point




When we examine CVs track record they fall considerably short of desired standards.

In 1992 under the Presidency of Mr Depasquale, MCC ended a lease agreement with the then VCA ( IMO a poor decision but that is democracy). The VCA were informed that a new period of negotiation would be entered into with MCC in regards to the storage of VCA materials. By 1998 neither party had reached an amicable position and CV were asked to remove all their equipment from MCC premises. To his credit GW eventually removed most of CV's equipment. Unfortunately the VCA chose not to take all of it's belongings, GW was queried at the time as to what the VCA were doing with these items, the surprising response was that they could be dispensed with. MCC decided to glean Victorian honour boards and trophies, recognising the importance of such historical material. Heaven only knows what happened to CV archives. We proudly display these items at MCC and now regard them as property of the club.

This scant disregard for historical material does not sit well with MCC, who have a proud tradition of recognising and preserving for future generations our combined chess legacy. Can anybody from Chess Victoria inform us of the current whereabouts of VCA/CV historical items? Are they available on request for the general chess community?


GW does not post here and therefore his side of the position will be unknown for awhile. Again, you use the word ‘disregard’ whereas the cause may simply be lack of resource for archivist. Can I suggest that MCC send a delegate to the next CV Committee meeting and ask a few questions about archives.






My second point concerning relations between CV and MCC ought to be clarified.
Some chess players in Victoria are aware that GW was a former President of MCC. Furthermore, at one stage in the history of Victorian chess there were two full time chess clubs in Victoria. One run by the VCA, the other by MCC. History shows that the VCA run centre flounderd and disbanded. Whilst MCC thrived to become the institution that it is today. Needless to say there appears to be an underlying resentment towards MCCs general success. A resentment that in my opinion stems from an emotion as petty as jealousy.



fg7, this point can’t progressed because all you have done it express an opinion about a person, without giving any examples at all.






When ACF officials and interstate people judge MCC, unfortunately their impressions are often influenced by people who bear historical grievances against the club.



It is inevitable that if MCC delegates do not attend State and National forums then impressions will be set by other parties. You know the solution firegoat.




This is why the bulletin board is a good avenue of expression.



Agreed, and it is good also to see AP, WBA and yourself (and SN?) posting regularly.




Before this bulletin board for example a former President of the ACF once suggested that MCC sell its premise for the benefit of the Australian Chess Federation. The suggestion being that the proceeds be donated to the ACF, since MCC was being under utilised. Personally, I wonder if such a statement would have been considered without some influence from the CV elite.



A cheap surmise. And GW is unlikely to appear to defend.






Nevertheless since the bulletin board has arrived MCC has had the opportunity to have their views heard in the Australian political chess arena. Now all clubs in Victoria can represent themselves accurately, without any censorship from CV.


Agreed.


Thus, if I look back at your post and attempt a summary from my point of view, I think you make three points
1 CV doesn’t have an ARCHIVIST, and has left some goods and chattels with you.
2 The BB has opened up communications
3 You have an opinion that GW is jealous of the MCC.
Hardly hanging offences.



starter

Thunk
22-01-2004, 08:12 AM
When ACF officials and interstate people judge MCC, unfortunately their impressions are often influenced by people who bear historical grievances against the club.This is why the bulletin board is a good avenue of expression. Before this bulletin board for example a former President of the ACF once suggested that MCC sell its premise for the benefit of the Australian Chess Federation. The suggestion being that the proceeds be donated to the ACF, since MCC was being under utilised. Personally, I wonder if such a statement would have been considered without some influence from the CV elite.

.

fg#

arE you for rEal.
arE you rEally suggEsting that wastEll would givE away victorian monEy to thE rEst of australia. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
that is onE wEaknEss that hE has nEvEr had.


if you arE thinking of sElling you could always movE to thE burbs at MEntonE.

:D 8) thE HUNK 8) :D

skip to my lou
22-01-2004, 08:27 AM
People with multiple BB identities really suck eh?

firegoat7
22-01-2004, 08:31 AM
Actually Thunk you have probably been misled by Starters post, who infers that GW is the only CV leader with historical anamosity with MCC. It would be more correct to look at all the leaders still connected with CV since the dispute.

Bob1
22-01-2004, 08:54 AM
fg7
thanks for your point of view on things Mexican.
NSW has a similar problem with historical artifacts - they are currently gathering dust in a cupboard deep within the bowels of the St George Leagues Club. (at least they are safe for the moment)

Ian Rout
22-01-2004, 08:55 AM
I'm having trouble picturing the time line - when was the shadowy GW President of MCC?

firegoat7
22-01-2004, 09:25 AM
Ian Rout wrote:
I'm having trouble picturing the time line - when was the shadowy GW President of MCC?

GW was President of MCC in the 70's before he was involved in VCA/CV circles. I am posting from a friends house, so I do not have the actual years on hand. I think GW served a two year term before being ousted. I can give you the exact dates if you want Ian, just not at this particular moment.

Regards FG7

Ian Rout
22-01-2004, 09:51 AM
Thanks for that clarification. Probably the exact dates aren't significant, I was just unable to follow where GW fitted into the succession given the names of Chris Depasquale and Justice Brooking (sp?) being already mentioned.

ursogr8
22-01-2004, 11:29 AM
..................misled by Starters post, who infers that GW is the only CV leader with historical anamosity with MCC. It would be more correct to look at all the leaders still connected with CV since the dispute.

hi firegoat

starter here. Have I mis-summarised your list of GW sins? If he was not the one who wanted to give away the MCC funds to a queenslander (for the rest of Australia to use) then that exonerates him from that shadow.

That leaves GW only blamed for leaving boxes in your back-room and not having an archivist. Even less of a hanging offence.

Why then does WBA want him to resign as President?

starter

firegoat7
22-01-2004, 09:53 PM
Just for the record GW was president of MCC in 77 and 78. Mr Justice Brooking became President in 1982. Mr E.Malitis was a chess administrator of MCC for 48 years, winning the MCC Championship in 1969. MR R.Jamieson never won a MCC championship or Victorian championship. In fact according to one club wag " In thirty years we only saw Jammo a handful of times."

So in response Starter may I offer you this suggestion....

Instead of hassling the current MCC committee about joining CV try a different line of reasoning.

Why don't you approach two of the greatest administrators ever in chess circles, namely Malitis or Brooking and ask them to volunteer :idea:

ursogr8
22-01-2004, 10:14 PM
Starter may I offer you this suggestion....

Instead of hassling the current MCC committee about joining CV try a different line of reasoning.

Why don't you approach two of the greatest administrators ever in chess circles, namely Malitis or Brooking and ask them to volunteer :idea:

firegoat

I appreciate the shift in your stance where you now appear to accept some responsibility to have some MCC delegates involved in CV affairs. This is a step forward from the WBA stance and the MCC stance (of November 2003) of no-involvement. This is goodness and a positive step.

It is also a good idea of yours to recommend gentlemen who have a long and successful track record at the MCC (by accounts that you and WBA have given). These two gentlemen are well able to decide if they want to extend their long careers. They are no shrinking violets that need to be cajoled into volunteering.

And, to be honest, I don't think I should be influencing who the MCC authorises as their delegates. If you think it is a good representation for the MCC, talk to them; you are the VP.

starter

WBA
22-01-2004, 10:29 PM
correct me if i am wrong but I think you are not totally grasping FG's comments. I believe Fg is suggesting that there are retired members of MCC who you may want to approach to stand on the VCA committee. These people (should you be able to entice them), would not be standing as MCC members, but as independants, as anyone on CV should be.

My no involvements policy is well explained, so I will not rant on about it again at the moment. I think you may find that MCC are very unlikely to send official felegates at the moment as has already been expressed, If the state of CV remains the same, you could reasonably confidently suggest MCC will maintain it;s stance, of Business dealings only, and no input into administration.

WBA
22-01-2004, 10:31 PM
firegoat7 wrote:
..................misled by Starters post, who infers that GW is the only CV leader with historical anamosity with MCC. It would be more correct to look at all the leaders still connected with CV since the dispute.


hi firegoat

starter here. Have I mis-summarised your list of GW sins? If he was not the one who wanted to give away the MCC funds to a queenslander (for the rest of Australia to use) then that exonerates him from that shadow.

That leaves GW only blamed for leaving boxes in your back-room and not having an archivist. Even less of a hanging offence.

Why then does WBA want him to resign as President?

starter


Starter

Why are you trying to overly simply matters? FG7 has rasied some valid matters, and these are only small reflections of an overall problem. Take a look at the issue with the honour boards for example. MCC is a proud historical club which recognises and values its place in history, when dealing with any organisation offering services the MCC should weigh up a - whether or not to have dealings wth them at all
b - To what extent they should have dealings shoudl they choose to have any

When weighing up their involvment MCC should consider, how important is the service, what is the level of professionalism and competancy within the organisation, and how responsible the organisation is, among many other points. By disregarding important Victorian Chess History, the VCA looked both incompetant and irresponsible. I would suggest the CV has more of a moral responiosibility to maintain records etc, than individual clubs as they are teh state governing bosy represnting all CV clubs.

As for why I want Wastell to resign? For me it is not personal, I have outlined issues in previous posts.

Bill Gletsos
22-01-2004, 10:57 PM
Just for the record GW was president of MCC in 77 and 78. Mr Justice Brooking became President in 1982. Mr E.Malitis was a chess administrator of MCC for 48 years, winning the MCC Championship in 1969. MR R.Jamieson never won a MCC championship or Victorian championship. In fact according to one club wag " In thirty years we only saw Jammo a handful of times."
Whats Jammo's not winning of the MCC or Vic champs and Maltis's winning of the MCC chanpionship got to do with anything.
In fact having won the Aust Champs in 1974 and 1978 and the Aust Open in 1981 why would he even worry about whether he won or not a Club or State championship.
As for E. Maltis I notice he never won an Aust Championship.

You really are a goat.

ursogr8
23-01-2004, 07:11 AM
I think you may find that MCC are very unlikely to send official felegates at the moment as has already been expressed, If the state of CV remains the same, you could reasonably confidently suggest MCC will maintain it;s stance, of Business dealings only, and no input into administration.


Good morning WBA

Yes, I am aware of your two pre-requisites of CV before the MCC helps out with State administration. Your two pre-requisites (refer WBA post of 19/1/2004 on VCA Nazi suspend MCC thread) were
1 A State business plan
2 GW resign from the presidency.

To my knowledge, the only CV Executive members that read this board are Jammo and ChessGuru. Neither is likely to push the barrow you are proposing. But I don't speak for them.

This probably means the MCC will not input to State administration for a few more years. It is a pity; CV could do with MCC help as you have documented so many times.

starter

ursogr8
23-01-2004, 07:31 AM
.



I would suggest the CV has more of a moral responiosibility to maintain records etc, than individual clubs as they are teh state governing bosy represnting all CV clubs.


WBA
This is old ground. We all agree with you.
The CV clearly has these responsibilities.
No one has argued against it being a State responsibility.

But they (CV) have not attracted the resources to carry out these responsibilities. However, it is not a hanging offence for a President not to have attracted an ARCHIVIST. If it was we would have a lot of Presidents at Box Hill with stretched necks (sorry guys for the image while you are eating breakfast).

starter

firegoat7
25-01-2004, 01:09 PM
Starter wrote:
However, it is not a hanging offence for a President not to have attracted an ARCHIVIST. If it was we would have a lot of Presidents at Box Hill with stretched necks (sorry guys for the image while you are eating breakfast).



It appears that Starter regards Box Hill CC as being on the same level of importance as CV. Obviously there is a huge discrepency, CV being a governing body for a collection of clubs. Therefore it ought to be pretty obvious that club records are not as significant as state records. Nevertheless, one would like to think that members of a chess club found historical heritage important.

But to suggest that CV is not accountable for its lack of historical foresight is a serious betrayal. CV has a DUTY to all future and past chessplayers to protect our historical heritage. If CV can not get the talent together to do that then they ought to resign and let other people take their place. The arguement that we are pushed for numbers makes absolutely no sense to me, prehaps CV ought to prioritise what its actual functions really are. For example if the ACF rates tournament games why does CV even bother to have a rating officer?

Regards FG7

Bill Gletsos
25-01-2004, 01:16 PM
For example if the ACF rates tournament games why does CV even bother to have a rating officer?
Thats simple.
The State Rating Officers actually add the new players and input the id numbers where required in submitted tournaments.
The ACF ratings officers are just responsible for maintaining the system and processing the results.

ursogr8
25-01-2004, 02:37 PM
Starter wrote:
However, it is not a hanging offence for a President not to have attracted an ARCHIVIST. If it was we would have a lot of Presidents at Box Hill with stretched necks (sorry guys for the image while you are eating breakfast).



It appears that Starter regards Box Hill CC as being on the same level of importance as CV.


Ouch fg7.
I didn’t say those words. I didn’t mean the words you have inserted. I don’t want to defend your paraphrase.



But to suggest that CV is not accountable for its lack of historical foresight is a serious betrayal.



I am not suggesting that CV is not accountable for retention of records. They are accountable. All that I said was that they were failing in their accountability, based on your evidence, due to lack of resources.



CV has a DUTY to all future and past chessplayers to protect our historical heritage.

Agreed.


If CV can not get the talent together to do that then they ought to resign and let other people take their place.

The Executive at CV do stand down at the election at each AGM. This seems to me to meet your request for them to ‘resign’, so as to speak.
Last AGM, no-one contested their re-election. Those are the facts and reality.


The arguement that we are pushed for numbers makes absolutely no sense to me, prehaps CV ought to prioritise what its actual functions really are.


fg7; they do prioritise their functions. The function you are legitimately concerned with does not attract resources compared with the other functions.


For example if the ACF rates tournament games why does CV even bother to have a rating officer?



And this short ball to the fore-hand court was not your best shot fg7. Bill, parked on the net, has dispensed with it, already.

starter

firegoat7
25-01-2004, 07:09 PM
Hello,

Bill answered the question according to current criteria, nothing wrong with that, it is correct according to current practise. But logically it does not mean that current practice is best practice.

If we consider that most clubs utilise swiss perfect and most clubs do have somebody with access to the internet, then there seems to be little point in submitting tournaments to CV. After all, if all CV does is verify a player and submit a code then the clubs could do that directly. There appears to be little point in continuing with a system of practice that dates back to pre-internet trechnology. If CV is so under resourced as you claim, then this would logically free them up for other roles.

Regards FG7

Bill Gletsos
25-01-2004, 08:00 PM
Hello,

Bill answered the question according to current criteria, nothing wrong with that, it is correct according to current practise. But logically it does not mean that current practice is best practice.

If we consider that most clubs utilise swiss perfect and most clubs do have somebody with access to the internet, then there seems to be little point in submitting tournaments to CV. After all, if all CV does is verify a player and submit a code then the clubs could do that directly. There appears to be little point in continuing with a system of practice that dates back to pre-internet trechnology. If CV is so under resourced as you claim, then this would logically free them up for other roles.

Regards FG7
Yes , but the ACF rating officers dont want to have to deal with multiple organisers but one central point because it leads to less confusion and errors.
However more importantly if results need to be authorised by a state association then it makes sense they come thru a central contact.

Lastly just because someone is prepared to be a state rating officer does not mean they are prepared to do some other function.

firegoat7
27-01-2004, 07:13 PM
Hello,

Please see VCA nazi thread for refutation of Jammo's claims-sorry for the crossthreads in advance.

jammo
30-01-2004, 07:16 PM
This scant disregard for historical material does not sit well with MCC, who have a proud tradition of recognising and preserving for future generations our combined chess legacy.

Well, Mr.Goat, perhaps we can agree on something. One of the better things about the MCC is the old photos etc on the wall which give the place some history and take you back to the era when perhaps the MCC was a gentlemens' club where Sir George Stephens could come and play chess and smoke a cigar whilst sitting in his leather arm chair, etc.

Whilst I hope your comment above is true, perhaps there have been lapses.

Probably the best relic the MCC has is a picture of the Intercolonial Chess Team of 1897 (I think) which defeated NSW 9.5 - 0.5 with Esling on board 1. One day I went to the MCC (which was in the middle of rennovations) and couldn't see the above Pic. Eventually I found it behind a new picture of the MCC rennovators doing their job which had been placed in the frame over the old pic!! I was horrified about this disregard for the club's history and so borrowed the old pic and had it scanned. The framed scan is now in my office at work so at least there is a back-up. I also published it in CPQ just in case. On another occasion I noticed that the pic of Rudzitis (who donated mega $ to the club on his death) was no longer on display. I eventually found it with the glass smashed in a bottom draw of a desk. I do hope that it has been restored to its correct place.

Anyway, all this was probably before your time.

By the way, can you pass on a message to Matt? If he thinks the MCC conducted probably the best two tournaments in Australian in the last two years, "Tell him he's dreaming".

Cheers.
-Jammo

jammo
30-01-2004, 07:35 PM
My second point concerning relations between CV and MCC ought to be clarified.
Some chess players in Victoria are aware that GW was a former President of MCC. Furthermore, at one stage in the history of Victorian chess there were two full time chess clubs in Victoria. One run by the VCA, the other by MCC. History shows that the VCA run centre flounderd and disbanded. Whilst MCC thrived to become the institution that it is today. Needless to say there appears to be an underlying resentment towards MCCs general success. A resentment that in my opinion stems from an emotion as petty as jealousy.


Well this is one person's interesting perspective on the MCC.
"thrived to become the institution that it is today." One can only hope that this is true, but I would be very interested in how the author measures "thriving".
Is it the number of members?
The number of teams in Interclub?
The number of times MCC is suspended by ACF and CV?
The number of committee positions filled?
The $ in the bank?
The number of games played at the club?

Perhaps, so that the interstate BB members get the correct impression of the MCC, the author could explain what measures he uses to judge "thriving" and we can share in his club's success.

Thanks,
-Jammo

jammo
30-01-2004, 07:44 PM
Nevertheless since the bulletin board has arrived MCC has had the opportunity to have their views heard in the Australian political chess arena. Now all clubs in Victoria can represent themselves accurately, without any censorship from CV.

OK, so we can deduce from this comment that Firegoat is the official spokesman for the MCC on the bulletin board. Interesting. I would have chosen someone who was a little more logical in the presentation of his arguments, but maybe there weren't many candidates for the post.

Secondly, it seems that CV has censored MCC. As MCC doesn't write to CV and doesn't attend our meetings I wonder what form this censorship takes. Perhaps Mr.Goat could enlighten us?

-Jammo

firegoat7
31-01-2004, 12:11 AM
Hello Everyone,

One measure of a clubs success is its financial dealings and the quality of the chess played at the club. Melbourne has a lasting legacy which has stood the test of time. One only has to look at previous club champions like, West,Johansen,Hjorth,Watson,Crowl,Hamilton etc etc to verify that fact. If you disagree, you disagree, let history be the real judge. Furthermore, history will show that MCC has been better managed over the last 20 years financially then CV. A fact that even you would have to admit, Jammo, since your organisation has no premises, no assets and dare I say it (no honor boards) :wink:
Regards Fg7

Garvinator
31-01-2004, 12:24 AM
In my opinion this debate is starting to get very tiring. It is just descending into a whos got the bigger ego type of debate.

What is really being acheived here anymore with this Jammo/Goat/WBA debate?

Kevin Bonham
31-01-2004, 12:37 AM
What is really being acheived here anymore with this Jammo/Goat/WBA debate?

Just a change of scene from the days when the BB was the NSWCA BB with the odd bit of ACF-related content posted by mistake.

Which will be the next state association to start conducting its faction fights online now that we've seen NSW and Victoria in action? :rolleyes:

Garvinator
31-01-2004, 12:41 AM
Which will be the next state association to start conducting its faction fights online now that we've seen NSW and Victoria in action? :rolleyes:

I could try for a Qld faction fight, but i would be arguing mainly with myself and maybe with David richards, but i dont think that would actually go anywhere.

Your state Kevin has only one poster so you could argue with yourself, but then you would have to ban yourself later and delete your own posts :lol: :clap: . But we know that wouldnt happen because it would hurt your post count :eek: :p .

Hang on, we have enough ACT posters dont we, come on guys give us something to read about and laugh at a bit :lol: :owned: :doh: :wall:

firegoat7
31-01-2004, 01:41 AM
Hello Again,

Yeah I understand where your coming from gg, I myself get pretty sick of having to defend MCC against consistent criticism, especially from somebody who represents all Victorian chess clubs like "jammo".

But, this arguement is about alot more then just 'ego', if it was just 'ego' as you describe then there would be no real problem.

Probably the best way to describe what is happening is by an analogy...

When you go to a restaurant and are served a bad meal you have a right to complain about the service. You do not need to be a restaurant owner or have to work in the industry to voice that concern.

Furthermore, if you were the regulating body that policed restaurants you would close down repeat offenders that broke the rules banning them from business.

Those restaurants that you considered good you would promote and publicise as being good. You would give them good press and encourage their endeavours.

Now in Victoria we have the exact opposite. We have a governing body that over the last twenty years has witnessed the gradual erosion of its powers. The variety of clubs that make up CV has declined. Furthermore, of those clubs that remain almost all owe their success to dedicated club members. Yet rather then recognise the fact that CV is made up of clubs, that it needs to survive, CV embarks on attacks to destroy its own foundation.

So when the treasurer of CV starts making attacks on MCC despite the fact that he freely admits he hasn't been inside the club for three years, alarm bells start ringing. Why on earth would he want to destroy something that his organisation apparently needs?

Afterall MCC does not need CV. If forced to we can go the same way as clubs such as Doncaster,Glenroy,Shepperton or Warrnambool. We can simply disaffiliate and have nothing to do with the 'official' Victorian chess scene. Just like these other clubs we would still have chess being played at our premises. Whilst CV would lose a considerable percentage of its chess revenue.

Obviously most sane people would think that no offical recognition of MCC would be a sad loss for Australian chess. Still, you have to ask yourself, How silly would CV look then? What purpose would any of 'jammos' salvos have served?

Bill Gletsos
31-01-2004, 11:36 AM
A fact that even you would have to admit, Jammo, since your organisation has no premises, no assets and dare I say it (no honor boards) :wink:
Can anyone inform us just how much CV has in the bank. I assume it was disclosed at the CV AGM.

ursogr8
31-01-2004, 02:47 PM
Can anyone inform us just how much CV has in the bank. I assume it was disclosed at the CV AGM.

hi Bill
I can help you here. And it is bit of a role reversal as you have helped me so diligently and patiently in the past.

The technical answer to your question I can give because I picked up a copy of the papers at the CV AGM :)
Cheque account $12,128
Petty cash $0
Undeposited funds $228

You will notice that I have strayed beyond the exact question you have asked, and given you more. The extra is useless; I recognise that. But then the figure you asked for could be of limited value unless you also knew about liabilities and other. :uhoh:

I have got the papers; do you want more figures? :cool:

starter

Garvinator
31-01-2004, 02:55 PM
hi Bill
I can help you here. And it is bit of a role reversal as you have helped me so diligently and patiently in the past.

The technical answer to your question I can give because I picked up a copy of the papers at the CV AGM :)
Cheque account $12,128
Petty cash $0
Undeposited funds $228

You will notice that I have strayed beyond the exact question you have asked, and given you more. The extra is useless; I recognise that. But then the figure you asked for could be of limited value unless you also knew about liabilities and other. :uhoh:

I have got the papers; do you want more figures? :cool:

starter

you should know the figures for CV, arent you the auditor for CV :hmm:

Bill Gletsos
31-01-2004, 03:22 PM
hi Bill
I can help you here. And it is bit of a role reversal as you have helped me so diligently and patiently in the past.

The technical answer to your question I can give because I picked up a copy of the papers at the CV AGM :)
Cheque account $12,128
Petty cash $0
Undeposited funds $228

You will notice that I have strayed beyond the exact question you have asked, and given you more. The extra is useless; I recognise that. But then the figure you asked for could be of limited value unless you also knew about liabilities and other. :uhoh:

I have got the papers; do you want more figures? :cool:

starter
Thanks starter.
I realise to get a true picture I would need to know other figures particularly liabilities.
However previously much comment was made about NSWCA's bank balance so I thought I would just ask what CV's was.

peanbrain
31-01-2004, 03:28 PM
Hello Again,

Probably the best way to describe what is happening is by an analogy...

When you go to a restaurant and are served a bad meal you have a right to complain about the service.

Furthermore, if you were the regulating body that policed restaurants you would close down repeat offenders that broke the rules banning them from business.


I have no idea what the goat is talking about here. What's restaurants got to do with anything?! :eh:

Further - to suggest some "regulating body that police" restaurants should shut down restaurants that served a bad meal is really beyond me. What may taste like a bad meal to goat could be the best meal ever for another, Mr goat. I suspect this goat is either a supporter of a police state or the first known goat to be infected with mad cows disease.

Paul S
31-01-2004, 03:34 PM
What may taste like a bad meal to goat could be the best meal ever for another, Mr goat.

Of course! The diet of a goat is very different to a human! For example, goats like grass, while humans do not!!!

:p :D :owned: :doh: :wall:

jammo
31-01-2004, 06:54 PM
Hello Everyone,

One measure of a clubs success is its financial dealings and the quality of the chess played at the club. Melbourne has a lasting legacy which has stood the test of time. One only has to look at previous club champions like, West,Johansen,Hjorth,Watson,Crowl,Hamilton etc etc to verify that fact. If you disagree, you disagree, let history be the real judge. Furthermore, history will show that MCC has been better managed over the last 20 years financially then CV. A fact that even you would have to admit, Jammo, since your organisation has no premises, no assets and dare I say it (no honor boards) :wink:
Regards Fg7

Thanks for your reply Mr.Goat. I would have used measures like change in membership, number of Interclub premierships won or change in net assets but you are free to use your own critera. I note that you have not taken up my offer to supply examples of alleged CV censorship.

It may surprise you to learn that Cv does have assets. They are listed in a thing called a balance sheet which was supplied to all delegates at our AGM ... but of course you were not there.

-Jammo

Garvinator
31-01-2004, 07:46 PM
Of course! The diet of a goat is very different to a human! For example, goats like grass, while humans do not!!!

:p :D :owned: :doh: :wall:
sorry to correct you Paul, but humans smoke grass :whistle:

shaun
31-01-2004, 07:56 PM
Hang on, we have enough ACT posters dont we, come on guys give us something to read about and laugh at a bit :lol: :owned: :doh: :wall:

If you are able to travel back in time anywhere between 1994 and 2000, you might have seen some real beauties, but these days it is all sweetness and light.

ChessGuru
01-02-2004, 12:32 AM
FireGoat. I sent you a private message about the Australian Masters? Did you see it?
Please reply.

Thanks.
David

firegoat7
01-02-2004, 08:41 AM
Dear Peahole,

Previously Peanbrain wrote:
I have no idea what the goat is talking about here. What's restaurants got to do with anything?!

Last time I called you Peahead, I copped about a month of abuse. So this time I think I will go with a better insult. This time I will christen you Peahole.
You obviously should not be called brain, since you refuse to engage in any meaningful thought. Nothing positive seems to produced by the electrons in your cranium. All we recieve is just mindless dribble designed to be insulting, but in reality more of a reflection of your own mental inadequacy.

Regards FG7

Garvinator
01-02-2004, 09:48 AM
I have no idea what the goat is talking about here. What's restaurants got to do with anything?! :eh:

Further - to suggest some "regulating body that police" restaurants should shut down restaurants that served a bad meal is really beyond me. What may taste like a bad meal to goat could be the best meal ever for another, Mr goat. I suspect this goat is either a supporter of a police state or the first known goat to be infected with mad cows disease.
I thought the point of the analogy was a simple one, if a business does not provide the services they claim to offer, then they will either go out of business or be shut down by the regulating authority.

Is this an accurate portrayel of your analogy firegoat7 :hmm:

firegoat7
01-02-2004, 10:29 AM
To whom it may concern,

Previously jammo wrote:
I note that you have not taken up my offer to supply examples of alleged CV censorship. Challenge accepted.
Of course, we must rephrase your question since it is tainted with confusion.

So let us begin with the word 'censorship'. What does it mean? Are we talking about the same concept? I am regarding censorship as the curtailing of opinion. If you differ jammo, please feel free to express your difference.

Now there are different ways that opinions are stifled. Since you asked I will present some examples for you.

POLITICAL CENSORSHIP- CV Officials hold a significant amount of power, due to the positions they fill. A power that is much more significant then any club official. A CV official is a mediator between clubs. This involves a high degree of personal communicative skill. Communication being the key function of any CV official.

This is simple to understand when we look at the hierarchy of chess politics.
Players-club officials-cv officials- acf officials. Whilst players and club officials are generally located spatially at 1 or 2 specific locations. a CV official, due to the nature of their job, forms relations with a much larger percentage of the chess community, since this is their job. Therefore any view that a CV official portrays in a public sphere carries much more responsibility then club officials. So when a CV official derides a club publically over a number of years they are in affect politically censoring a club.

We could test this scenario by asking people from the ACF, What is your impression of MCC based on information supplied to you by CV.

As a specific historical example we could ask How did GG when he was President of the ACF form an opinion about MCC without ever meeting RB,EM or any of the MCC committee? An opinion that suggested we sell our club for the benefit of Australian chess? Me thinks GG was misinformed about MCC by some CV officials. Officials who in my opinion would have better served the interest of Australian chess by keeping their mouths firmly shut! Thankfully IM G.West wrote a lovely article that refuted any such suggestion, pointing out the sheer hypocrisy of such a suggestion.

So again I repeat my claim. Whilst CV officials are travelling and communicating with the ACF directly, meeting all club officials, influencing a plethora of tournament players they continue to hold power over the chess community. Politically censoring anybody who disgrees with their policy.

ECONOMICAL CENSORSHIP- This is fairly obvious in Victoria. You can play chess in Victoria without being a registered member of any club. Yet a club cannot have its games rated without belonging to CV. It dosent take a genius to recognise that this is economical tyranny. CV provides no costs for a club like MCC. We do not use your arbiters,equipment etc. But every tournament we collect $5 of every player and just hand it over to CV, regardless of whether the players are members or not, just so the tournament can be rated. So whilst the clubs support CV by running events and collecting CV funds for free, CV does not support the clubs by ensuring that all competitors are registered club members of at least 1 club,since this is unenforcable by their own standards.

Furthermore, while I have no problem with clubs utilising CV equipment. I do have a problem when clubs become dependent on the welfare of CV to provide such equipment against the interests of other clubs. In Victoria we have this ludicrous system where clubs bid for events from CV, despite not being shown what events are actually on offer. All clubs are regarded as equal(sic) bidders for CV competitions. Now compare this to real life for a realisation of the actual stupidity of the claim.

A government department decides to build a road. Asks for tenders for the projects. Actually provides them with information about what is on offer ie where the road is to be built (unlike CV who have never sent us an official calender before the tendering process). The tendering process takes place, contract awarded.

Now how stupid would a government department look if they now provided, workers to run the tournament and equipment to build the road. You can just imagine the screams from the press if one of the companies awarded the contract also worked for the government board.

Yet this is what happens in CV. In some sense this may be unavoidable due to the size of the chess playing community. Ironically however, it must be pointed out that some individuals are employing numeorous people and making vast amounts of money from chess in Victoria. Where the unofficial number of chessgames in Victoria are absolutely booming, to a point where unofficial games in unrated tournaments are making much more money then official games. Whilst official chess waits for the discredited Keating idea of "the trickle down effect". The sad reality is some may also be on the CV executive.

So in summing up. If CV thinks that taxing clubs,forcing them into labour, penalising productivity at the communal level, whilst turning a blind eye to the activities of individual entrepreuners "outside" the official system is not economic censorship, so be it. If CV cannot recognise its own STALINIST tendencies in its bureaucracy, then who am I to point out the bleeding obvious. Meanwhile some chess clubs will repeat the same key questions to themselves:- We pay X for ratings, why don't we just rate our own games.

firegoat7
01-02-2004, 10:37 AM
Hello again,


GG wrote:
I thought the point of the analogy was a simple one, if a business does not provide the services they claim to offer, then they will either go out of business or be shut down by the regulating authority. Yeah thanks GG. I'm glad somebody shows some common sense.

Of course I might add that the analogy also aimed to address-: The rights of the consumer, anti-competitive management and bad business practises.

Garvinator
01-02-2004, 10:41 AM
Hello again,


GG wrote: Yeah thanks GG. I'm glad somebody shows some common sense.

Of course I might add that the analogy also aimed to address-: The rights of the consumer, anti-competitive management and bad business practises.
I might not agree with your opinion alot of the time, but at least I understand what point you are trying to make :hmm:

peanbrain
01-02-2004, 02:18 PM
I thought the point of the analogy was a simple one, if a business does not provide the services they claim to offer, then they will either go out of business or be shut down by the regulating authority.

Is this an accurate portrayel of your analogy firegoat7 :hmm:

I now know the goat is actually a mad cow!

If you don't like a meal in a restaurant - don't go to that restaurant again. But the mad goat is suggesting just because in his view the meal was not good that gives him sufficient reason to expect some "restaurant police" to go and shut it down.

Hey ggraygray, I suggest you don't get too close to the mad goat otherwise you may catch the same disease he's got. BTW, the restaurant analogy was as bad as the goat's earlier analogy about some A+B=nonsense. :wall:

peanbrain
01-02-2004, 02:20 PM
I might not agree with your opinion alot of the time, but at least I understand what point you are trying to make :hmm:

Time to see a doctor! :eek:

ursogr8
01-02-2004, 03:17 PM
To whom it may concern,



fg7
Some of your comments are of concern to me because I am the CV independent auditor and as such I would like the MCC to feel that due process is followed on some of the points you raise.




As a specific historical example we could ask How did GG when he was President of the ACF form an opinion about MCC without ever meeting RB,EM or any of the MCC committee? An opinion that suggested we sell our club for the benefit of Australian chess? Me thinks GG was misinformed about MCC by some CV officials.



Do you want to name names?





ECONOMICAL CENSORSHIP- This is fairly obvious in Victoria. You can play chess in Victoria without being a registered member of any club. Yet a club cannot have its games rated without belonging to CV.



fg7
Your statement is just not correct.
In fact you really do need to read the minutes of CV AGMs to see the motions that have been passed; it would give you a more accurate view of the opportunities.

I am surprised that you still hold this inaccuracy of view given the correspondence on exactly this point on the forthcoming DROUIN tournament. Read this BB thread.






In Victoria we have this ludicrous system where clubs bid for events from CV, despite not being shown what events are actually on offer. All clubs are regarded as equal(sic) bidders for CV competitions.



The full calendar is freely distributed at the CV AGM. As Auditor, I would be personally concerned if any Club was locked out of bidding for events. The calendar comes hard-copy and soft-copy.
E-mail GW and he will send you one immediately.






Yet this is what happens in CV. In some sense this may be unavoidable due to the size of the chess playing community. Ironically however, it must be pointed out that some individuals are employing numeorous people and making vast amounts of money from chess in Victoria. Where the unofficial number of chessgames in Victoria are absolutely booming, to a point where unofficial games in unrated tournaments are making much more money then official games.


fg7
Your argument suffers from the same deficiency I noted above. Unofficial games in unrated tournaments are now more than likely rated, and the trickle-down does indeed flow to CV. My perception is that most adult games where there is an entry fee are in fact rated even if the sponsoring Club is not CV_AFFILIATED.

Your argument that CV makes very little money from commercial coaching is correct. Are you suggesting a method for CV to make a dollar on this?

Finally, if it is your argument that there are many commercial unrated junior games then that would be correct. Do you have ideas on how to charge for these?






We pay X for ratings, why don't we just rate our own games.



fg7
You can rate MCC games. We did that at BH for many years. And we still do it for some junior events at WHJC.

But if you want some-one elses rating system to do the job for you then there is bound to be a payment somewhere. Let me list examples.

A correspondence chess rating.
A FIDE rating.
An internet rating.
A RAPID rating.

An ACF rating

starter

PS The calendar was also advertised in Garry Lycett's weekly e-mailed newsletter. I encourage you to register for this free newsletter.

Kevin Bonham
01-02-2004, 04:34 PM
So when a CV official derides a club publically over a number of years they are in affect politically censoring a club.

The word you are looking for may be "censuring" not censoring.

Censoring is preventing someone from expressing their own opinion.

It is nonsense to suggest that someone merely criticising someone else is affecting that person's or club's ability to express their point of view. :wall: :wall: :wall:

Your entire post contained not one single example of actual censorship. I do not like your use of "curtailing", as it is too vague, and could imply that a person who does not do everything in their power to spread a particular opinion is "curtailing" it.

A dictionary definition for you (OMED):

censor: - n. an official authorized to examine printed matter, films, news, etc., before public release, and to suppress any parts on the grounds of obscenity, a threat to security, etc. - v.tr. 1. act as a censor of, 2.make deletions or changes in ... [hence] censorship n.

The CV representative on the ACF is responsible for conveying the overall wishes of that State Association. This does not imply any requirement to convey the wishes of every member or club that belongs to it.

If the MCC feels it has been misrepresented, it has every right to write to the ACF seeking to redress that misrepresentation.

This is not a debate that concerns me personally but I am really sick of seeing political language get used in this way. If you're going to play the game of political debate, at least learn the rules. :rolleyes:

firegoat7
01-02-2004, 08:05 PM
Hello again,

C'mon Bonham I expected better from you, you really can't be that protestant.

Regards Fg7

P.s Please refer to your illiberalism debate for coomon dictionary definitions :clap:

jammo
01-02-2004, 08:06 PM
The word you are looking for may be "censuring" not censoring.

Censoring is preventing someone from expressing their own opinion.

Thanks Kevin for refuting the Goat's misuse of words far better than I could ever have done.

I like also his "economical censorship" when perhaps he means "economic censorship". I couldn't stop laughing when I read this.

It is apparent that his mind works very differently from most other people.

Thanks,
-Jammo
:lol:

PHAT
01-02-2004, 08:30 PM
... it must be pointed out that some individuals are employing numeorous people and making vast amounts of money from chess in Victoria. Where the unofficial number of chessgames in Victoria are absolutely booming, to a point where unofficial games in unrated tournaments are making much more money then official games.



FG7,

I like your guts. Unfortunately I cannot know if you are generally right or wrong regarding Mexican chess politics - I am not there. Nevertheless, The above quote is very interesting. Can you please elaborate.

firegoat7
01-02-2004, 08:50 PM
Hi starter,

you wrote:
Do you want to name names? damn straight I do

jammo et al

want to know who is persona non grata from MLC?

ursogr8
01-02-2004, 09:21 PM
Hi starter,

you wrote: damn straight I do

jammo et al

want to know who is persona non grata from MLC?

fg7

Thanks for the response.

1 Jammo was not a CV official for many years before gg appeared.
Jammo was not a CV offical for a year or so after gg went back to the perfect state.
Thus your time-frames don't match up.
It is a long bow to draw to say that CV has it in for the MCC on the basis of this alleged incident. It would be fairer to say that the tension is Jammo-MCC on this piece of evidence (not CV-MCC).

I will leave it to Jammo if he wishes comment on the accuracy of your allegation.

2 et al is not a name.

starter

PS The issue of rating games in Clubs/Tournaments that are not AFFILIATED. Have you now understood the error of your position?

ursogr8
01-02-2004, 09:33 PM
Hi starter,

you wrote: damn straight I do

jammo et al

want to know who is persona non grata from MLC?

fg7
Did you mean MCC instead of MLC

If you meant MCC. Then yes, I would like to know.
If you meant MLC. Then, no.

starter

ursogr8
01-02-2004, 09:46 PM
FG7,

I like your guts. Unfortunately I cannot know if you are generally right or wrong regarding Mexican chess politics - I am not there. Nevertheless, The above quote is very interesting. Can you please elaborate.


Matt

You have highlighted one of fg7's quotes. I found this very interesting too; and a new element to be explored.
My post on this thread at 4.17pm today (1/2/4) speculated on three aspects that fg7 may be unhappy with. But he has not responded to my suggestions; so they remain speculations of what he meant.
I think he has based his unhappiness, in part, on the assumption that games played in tournamnets run by non-AFFILIATED organisations cannot be rated. He is out-of-date with his information, and just wrong.
Nevertheless, I would encourage him to elucidate further, just as you have.

starter

firegoat7
01-02-2004, 10:10 PM
Hello people,

Ok starter you want clarification. Now if I have the wrong information please give me a link to the correct information.

1/ Any individual can play at a club in an OPEN tournament and pay their entry fee. The club collects this fee and passes it onto CV. The player does not have to join a chess club to do this.

Now in response to Matts posts.

We have two strange phenomenea's in Victoria.

1/ Recognised chess enterprises run tournaments for juniors making a healthy profit. These juniors may or may not get a rating. These ratings are not CV ratings. There is nothing wrong with this per se. However it is ironic that it can be done under the guise of the RJ shield, or for that matter run by anybody on the CV executive.

2/ Some chess clubs continue to flourish without being CV registered. These clubs have remained viable entities playing chess "outside" the official channels.

Regards FG7

P.S hope you enjoyed your holiday :cool:

Bill Gletsos
01-02-2004, 10:52 PM
1/ Recognised chess enterprises run tournaments for juniors making a healthy profit. These juniors may or may not get a rating. These ratings are not CV ratings. There is nothing wrong with this per se. However it is ironic that it can be done under the guise of the RJ shield, or for that matter run by anybody on the CV executive.
Two points.
Firstly, many NSWJCL events are not rated because they dont meet the time control requirements to be rated in the normal system. They could in theory be rated in the ACF rapid system but the NSWJCL does not believe this is warranted.

Secondly, what time limit is the RJ Shield. I suspect it would not meet the requirements for rating in the ACF normal system. It probaly could be rated in the rapid system.

Kevin Bonham
01-02-2004, 11:05 PM
C'mon Bonham I expected better from you, you really can't be that protestant.

I really don't see anything protestant about objecting to the wanton abuse of political language.


P.s Please refer to your illiberalism debate for coomon dictionary definitions :clap:

Not sure what you're getting at there, but in this case the dictionary definition is quite accurate. Except that in political debate, "censorship" is usually extended to include laws preventing a certain kind of expression whether that kind of expression is presented for review by the authorities or not.

Anyway, it's quite clear that your censorship claim is now looking like the sort of goat stew I ate on New Year's Day, so feel free to continue with the remainder of your case. I didn't actually think of you while I was eating it, but maybe I should have. :boohoo:

ursogr8
02-02-2004, 06:57 AM
Hello people,

Ok starter you want clarification. Now if I have the wrong information please give me a link to the correct information.

1/ Any individual can play at a club in an OPEN tournament and pay their entry fee. The club collects this fee and passes it onto CV. The player does not have to join a chess club to do this.



fg7
Your final sentence is correct. A player does not have to join an AFFILIATED Club to be able to have his/her games rated.
Also, a non-AFFILIATED Club can run a tournament, which includes players who are not members of any AFFILIATED Club, where all games will be rated.

I don't know if there is a link to this information. But I have a printed copy. And I suggest that because this needs to be well understood by your Club officials that one of your office-bearers have another dinner with RJ or GW to get it clear. (I am not on he CV Executive).





Now in response to Matts posts.

We have two strange phenomenea's in Victoria.

1/ Recognised chess enterprises run tournaments for juniors making a healthy profit. These juniors may or may not get a rating. These ratings are not CV ratings. There is nothing wrong with this per se. However it is ironic that it can be done under the guise of the RJ shield, or for that matter run by anybody on the CV executive.




fg7
First, let me say that all you quote here is also true of the Whitehorse Junior Chess Club.
> profit
>> ratings, official and not official
>>> Competition name =Rookies and Queens Cup
>>>> Official on the CV Executive.

Why is this a strange phenomenon (your words)?

I would not be surprised to find this is also the business model in the ACT, NSWJCL, and QLD; but more widespread there.





2/ Some chess clubs continue to flourish without being CV registered. These clubs have remained viable entities playing chess "outside" the official channels.


Regards FG7


fg7 you point about this being ‘strange’ is a little hard to understand. In the past 30 years I think there has always been clubs that are not-AFFILIATED, and remained viable.
And in NSW none of the Clubs is AFFILIATED as I understand it.

Why do you say this is strange?

starter

Rincewind
02-02-2004, 07:28 AM
Mexicans seem to have a little trouble with the word phenomenon. It is phenomenon: singular, and phenomena: plural. So therefore:

We have two strange phenomena in Victoria

Why is this a strange phenomenon?


- A pedantic New South Welshman

ursogr8
02-02-2004, 07:37 AM
Mexicans seem to have a little trouble with the word phenomenon. It is phenomenon: singular, and phenomena: plural. So therefore:

We have two strange phenomena in Victoria

Why is this a strange phenomenon?


- A pedantic New South Welshman

Barry
I tried to find 'weasel words' to get out of admitting you are correct and I am wrong. See, there were four aspects to fg's original 1). But in the end I was sunk by my use of the 'indefinite article'.
So I have corrected the text.
starter

ps :rolleyes:


pps
If you are short of things to do, get 'their' and there' corrected in YKW's posts.

Rincewind
02-02-2004, 08:43 AM
I tried to find 'weasel words' to get out of admitting you are correct and I am wrong. See, there were four aspects to fg's original 1). But in the end I was sunk by my use of the 'indefinite article'.

Yes, I assume you meant the singular though as otherwise you have to change the "is this a" to "are these".


So I have corrected the text.

Thanks.


If you are short of things to do, get 'their' and there' corrected in YKW's posts.

:rolleyes:

I'm just concentrating on words with irregular plurals for now. :wink:

ursogr8
02-02-2004, 08:57 AM
I'm just concentrating on words with irregular plurals for now. :wink:

The low-hanging fruit strategy eh? :rolleyes:

Some-times the best challenge is closer to home and posts a lot. :uhoh:

Rincewind
02-02-2004, 12:13 PM
The low-hanging fruit strategy eh? :rolleyes:

Some-times the best challenge is closer to home and posts a lot. :uhoh:

My interest was only piqued because I saw the same word misused twice by two different posters, and in different ways, in close succession.

Everyone makes mistakes of course. I'm certainly far from the best speller around. Sometimes through ignorance and occasionally due to apathy.

firegoat7
02-02-2004, 02:43 PM
Mr Bonham wrote:
This is not a debate that concerns me personally but I am really sick of seeing political language get used in this way. If you're going to play the game of political debate, at least learn the rules.

What gives you the right to decide what is and what is not on the political agenda? Please feel free to substitute the word ‘censure’ for ‘censor’/’censorship’ if it suits you. Now that we have disposed of that semantic irrelevancy, I would appreciate it if you would answer the specific criticisms that I made in my last post on the issue of the mistreatment of MCC by CV.

Furthermore we then find jammo hiding behind your semantic irrelevancy. So as John McEnroe once said “Answer the question jerk”!

P.S jammo said
It is apparent that his mind works very differently from most other people. To which I respond your sentence construction is both poor and grammatically incorrect. I’m surprised you didn't pick up on that one Kevy baby.

chesslover
02-02-2004, 05:11 PM
Mr Bonham wrote:

What gives you the right to decide what is and what is not on the political agenda? Please feel free to substitute the word ‘censure’ for ‘censor’/’censorship’ if it suits you. Now that we have disposed of that semantic irrelevancy, I would appreciate it if you would answer the specific criticisms that I made in my last post on the issue of the mistreatment of MCC by CV.

Furthermore we then find jammo hiding behind your semantic irrelevancy. So as John McEnroe once said “Answer the question jerk”!

P.S jammo said To which I respond your sentence construction is both poor and grammatically incorrect. I’m surprised you didn't pick up on that one Kevy baby.


That is a bit rude firegoat?

BTW I thought some weeks ago you stated that you were leaving this BB, so that you could study? :eh:

jammo
02-02-2004, 10:42 PM
fg7

Thanks for the response.

1 Jammo was not a CV official for many years before gg appeared.
Jammo was not a CV offical for a year or so after gg went back to the perfect state.
Thus your time-frames don't match up.
It is a long bow to draw to say that CV has it in for the MCC on the basis of this alleged incident. It would be fairer to say that the tension is Jammo-MCC on this piece of evidence (not CV-MCC).

I will leave it to Jammo if he wishes comment on the accuracy of your allegation.



Hi Starter,

The relevant words from Firegoat you should focus on are "Me thinks GG was misinformed about MCC by some CV officials." "Me thinks" gives it away as it is clear from his many posts that the Goat thinks whatever he likes and makes up claims to suit his own agenda.

As you have pointed out I was not a CV official when GG was ACF President and my recollection is that GG's idea was his own. I have not really thought it through to decide whether it has merit, but obviously it is never going to happen.

It is interesting to speculate what sort of mind has to label its perceived enemies as "Nazis" or "Stalinist". Has our beloved leader GW started a programme of genocide of MCC members or shipped them off to labour camps on Xmas Island? Maybe the person using these terms has some sort of personality problem that makes him see the world in such an extreme light. I think it's sad as some apparently claim he's a "good bloke".

Perhaps the simplest solution is to just ignore his outlandish remarks as quite a few people are wasting a lot of time refuting him.

Anyway Starter, I think you add a nice touch of reason to the BB so keep up the good work.

-Jammo

Garvinator
02-02-2004, 10:56 PM
I have a question, if CV is claiming that firegoats claiming are just plain wrong or similar, why has he not been cited by CV for conduct detrimental to CV?

firegoat7
03-02-2004, 04:20 AM
Hello again,


Well jammo we would take your word on things, but of course you have been, let us say, a little misleading with the truth. So unfortunately any of your claims based on your memory are a little suss. Prehaps somebody might ask GG how he came to form such an opinion. That way we could find out if any of your memory claims can be trusted. Afterall, we have your ridiculous historical claims, your secretary conversations, your bulletin board announcements and 3 year old opinions. Needless to say I find it difficult to accept you as a reliable witness. :whistle:

ursogr8
03-02-2004, 06:59 AM
I have a question, if CV is claiming that firegoats claiming are just plain wrong or similar, why has he not been cited by CV for conduct detrimental to CV?

'ray'ray

Your question contains an assumption that is not correct. CV has made no claims about fg7. CV has not claimed fg7 is wrong. Therefore the back-end of your question is not based on a correct assumption.

Do you personally think fg7 has done anything detrimental to CV? fg7 is surely allowed to criticize what he likes within the moderation policy of the board. If he happens to be wide of the mark on occasion is that detrimental to CV?

Jammo is the only official posting here to my knowledge, and Jammo has been extremely clear in his points of debate with fg7. They are not really a CV-fg7 debate.

As far as I can see, CV is not actually engaged in this BB debate. If you asked Executive members (other than ChessGuru and Jammo) then they would probably be totally unaware of the debate proceeding.

starter

Kevin Bonham
03-02-2004, 04:44 PM
Mr Bonham wrote:

What gives you the right to decide what is and what is not on the political agenda?

It's not the agenda I'm concerned about, it's your inadequate vocab.


Please feel free to substitute the word ‘censure’ for ‘censor’/’censorship’ if it suits you. Now that we have disposed of that semantic irrelevancy,

It's not a semantic irrelevancy. To accuse someone of censoring is a far more serious accusation than accusing someone of censuring. If you're just accusing CV of telling you off, well, so what?


I would appreciate it if you would answer the specific criticisms that I made in my last post on the issue of the mistreatment of MCC by CV.

Why me? Bracks hasn't annexed us yet, has he? I am reading as much of this as I can be bothered wading through with interest and an open mind, but if you really want me to pay attention, then don't make silly accusations about censorship and so on.

[quote] P.S jammo said To which I respond your sentence construction is both poor and grammatically incorrect. I’m surprised you didn't pick up on that one [quote]

Grammar flames are generally considered uncalled-for on the internet provided the meaning is reasonably clear. Quite a different matter from your misuse of words to puff up issues and attempt to demonise your opponents. However since you have now employed one against Jammo I shall be watching your grammar very closely. :eek:

firegoat7
03-02-2004, 06:07 PM
Bonham wrote:
Why me? Bracks hasn't annexed us yet, has he? I am reading as much of this as I can be bothered wading through with interest and an open mind, but if you really want me to pay attention, then don't make silly accusations about censorship and so on.

Correct. At last you might comprehend something that has nothing to do with your EGO.

Firstly, Are you any wiser about the state of events with chess in Victoria?
Furthermore does this increase your understanding of how the ACF works?
Because even though these discussions appear unrelated, they show people some of the inherent problems that contribute to Australian chess culture.

Chess like most cultural pursuits is dependent on human relationships. Real people with real feelings participating in real life. Now Kevin it is obvious that we don't see eye to eye on almost everything. Fair enough, your entitled to your opinion, besides it makes the world more interesting.

But, I have not once seen you ask any questions of Jammo's answers. Not one. Instead all we get is some wanky boys club aimed at patting each other on the back (see Jammos first post in clown thread where both you and Bill celebrate).

So when you say you have an open mind what does that mean? Open? I don't think so. You might think its open in your own world, but unfortunately your actions speak louder then your words.

I mean just have a good look at Jammos last post and consider what I am talking about. Just ask some questions instead of pretending you know it all.

regards FG7

Bill Gletsos
03-02-2004, 06:15 PM
Instead all we get is some wanky boys club aimed at patting each other on the back (see Jammos first post in clown thread where both you and Bill celebrate).
Actually I think you will find that all we were doing at that time was welcoming the fact that someone other than Kevin and I was arguing with you. The fact it was jammo was incidental.

In fact you should have noticed I've stopped commenting on yours and WBA's ongoing dispute with jammo.

firegoat7
03-02-2004, 06:18 PM
Dear Bill,

Yes and you asked some interesting questions. Kevin however has not.

Regards FG7

Kevin Bonham
03-02-2004, 08:00 PM
Firstly, Are you any wiser about the state of events with chess in Victoria?
Furthermore does this increase your understanding of how the ACF works?
Because even though these discussions appear unrelated, they show people some of the inherent problems that contribute to Australian chess culture.

Oh, I've learnt things alright, but I don't really see the grand connections you are drawing here. Most of what I have learned is about personalities and their various flaws.


But, I have not once seen you ask any questions of Jammo's answers. Not one. Instead all we get is some wanky boys club aimed at patting each other on the back (see Jammos first post in clown thread where both you and Bill celebrate).

Let's put it this way. Because of your past uncivility towards a number of innocent people on these BBs I reserve the right to get stuck into you at the slightest excuse. Want to change this? Just answer the three remaining questions from the original clowns thread. Want me to respect you? Retract every clown accusation you have ever made on these boards, not one has stood up to scrutiny. Don't want any of these things? Then stop whining about what you're getting. You came in here spraying mindless abuse all over the place, now you want to criticise others for not engaging with you constructively. Sorry, you want that, you've got to mend some fences first . :doh:

Now, one thing that occurs to me is that CV's membership structure makes it a potential target for clubs wanting to opt out of the system because they can do it all cheaper themselves. This is because CV raises state duties through charges levied on tournaments sent in for rating, instead of (for instance) by individual subscription as NSWCA do, or purely by tournament levies as TCA do. It seems that the CV formula is a recipe for perennial threats of "we're quitting and starting our own rating system."

But these threats are hollow, because whatever rating system you might start will be rubbish compared to Glicko and players will soon notice this. Thus I doubt any rebellion is going to last long.


So when you say you have an open mind what does that mean? Open? I don't think so. You might think its open in your own world, but unfortunately your actions speak louder then your words.

A sociology student should show more insight than that. There are many reasons why a person might only express a subset of their opinions on a matter.


Just ask some questions instead of pretending you know it all

You only ever answered one of my questions, so why should I expect any better of jammo? Unless, of course, he's a better person than you. :eek:

Garvinator
03-02-2004, 08:15 PM
But these threats are hollow, because whatever rating system you might start will be rubbish compared to Glicko and players will soon notice this. Thus I doubt any rebellion is going to last long.

I dont think this point has been raised before but I consider it relevant to this discussion.

Leaving CV(in this case) and going it alone, takes away the possibility of players from the left club being able to play in state and national championships, if they remain loyal to the left club.

yes they could join another club and be a member of two clubs. But CV could then list the said representative as a member of the club that is with CV, this in turn would take away the glory from the club that left CV.

I have noticed that mcc have listed players who have been members there and gone onto state and national championships. If they werent part of CV, then this in the future would not be possible.

Therefore leaving the state association voluntarily risks losing the top players from a club because they would have to go somewhere else to be eligible to play in state and national championships.

jammo
03-02-2004, 08:51 PM
Hello again,

Needless to say I find it difficult to accept you as a reliable witness. :whistle:

Better an "unreliable witness" than someone who was not a witness at all (such as yourself). If you wish to pursue your current folly, why don't you ask Graeme?

-Jammo

ursogr8
03-02-2004, 10:03 PM
Now, one thing that occurs to me is that CV's membership structure makes it a potential target for clubs wanting to opt out of the system because they can do it all cheaper themselves. This is because CV raises state duties through charges levied on tournaments sent in for rating, instead of (for instance) by individual subscription as NSWCA do, or purely by tournament levies as TCA do. It seems that the CV formula is a recipe for perennial threats of "we're quitting and starting our own rating system."

But these threats are hollow, because whatever rating system you might start will be rubbish compared to Glicko and players will soon notice this. Thus I doubt any rebellion is going to last long.



Kevin
Both ggrayggray and I have had our eye caught by your perceptive comment about the potential for tension to be solved by 'quitting'. This is a new theory to me to explain the long running Victorian lack of goodwill.
And, although you are probably correct about the threat being hollow (for the consequences that gg' so lucidly points out), the tension does not dissolve until something changes.
What would be the something, in your view?

starter

firegoat7
03-02-2004, 10:14 PM
Hello again,

Jammo wrote:
Better an "unreliable witness" than someone who was not a witness at all (such as yourself). Well thank goodness courts of law don't follow your line of thinking. Next you will be telling us that a public prosecuter cannot draw conclusions based on evidence. I mean honestly do you think GG just dreamt up the idea to sell MCC out of thin air? and are you honestly suggesting that you did not support the idea in anyway verbally or in written form?


Meanwhile Kevin continued his schoolboy antics with:
Because of your past uncivility towards a number of innocent people on these BBs I reserve the right to get stuck into you at the slightest excuse. Want to change this? Just answer the three remaining questions from the original clowns thread. Want me to respect you? Retract every clown accusation you have ever made on these boards, not one has stood up to scrutiny. Don't want any of these things? Then stop whining about what you're getting. You came in here spraying mindless abuse all over the place, now you want to criticise others for not engaging with you constructively. Sorry, you want that, you've got to mend some fences first .

Really it is not that hard to understand. I do not like you and do not care if you like me, it is irrelevant to the discussion. Therefore I do not care what you think about past discussions. So long as the discussion takes place and people draw their own conclusions then all is fine!

Furthermore, What is this obsession with internalising conversation as if it is personal criticism? Isn't that just you moralising us from an egocentric standpoint? Or are the wounds deeper then that. Maybe you honestly believe that the importance you attach to social status is a framework from which every point of reference ought to be judged? In that case Would it be ok to breath?, let alone express an original thought-- before you answer Do you really expect anybody to ask permission?

Your analogy of the discussion is pretty lame, but hey at least you finally made an effort. To begin with the discussion is not really about clubs forming their own rating system. The comparative differences between states and how they collect fees being pretty much unnecessary. The real issue at stake is Who,How,Why and where the Victorian chess community is heading and what is the relationship of this to Australian Chess as a whole.

For dark clouds are on the horizon. Especially if there is a new ACF President next year

ChessGuru
03-02-2004, 10:40 PM
I am sure that Gardiner could have considered the possibility of selling the MCC without any prompting. Had he asked me then I would have recommended that the MCC sell up and move on. Giving the money to the ACF...probably not, but re-establishing itself in a more chess-suitable location and a more human-being friendly building...definately! I think anyone with a head for business would recognise that a $600,000+ asset lying rancid for the benefit of some (i'll use a generous figure) 80 members was a misuse of resources.

I have a suggestion. Why not sell the MCC and go into a management agreement with a commercial enterprise. Along the lines of...you buy a better building for half what you sell the current premises for, invest the rest and use the interest to pay for some staff to run place. The commercial enterprise provides the staff, uses and maintains the building and runs a club, a shop and commercial coaching from there. It actually could be pretty profitable for all concerned...

Now that i have your attention goatboy (because i've realised you only respond to what stirs you), I have heard great things that the MCC is about to do, particularly like...running the Aussie Masters! But i have heard nothing actually ABOUT the masters. I've sent you a private message and a public one. Now PLEASE, i have players who want to play in your tournament....HOW CAN THEY DO SO? Common courtesy would be to talk to the previous organiser to see if there was anything needed to be passed on, common sense would be to talk to the previous organiser to get suggestions, previous players, contact details etc etc. You seem to have plenty of time to abuse people and insinuate various things without being brave enough to actually SAY them but nowhere do i see any results of your fantastic plans.

Oh well, i guess they do say; the best laid plans of goats and men....

Kevin Bonham
04-02-2004, 01:21 AM
schoolboy antics

Your ignorance of self-irony is far, far worse than chesslover's.


Really it is not that hard to understand. I do not like you and do not care if you like me, it is irrelevant to the discussion.

It is very relevant to the way you keep running into problems with me on these threads. Your dislike for me is based pretty much exclusively on the fact that I held behaviour that I disliked, including unwarranted personal attacks on all kinds of people, on the original clowns thread against you. You would have done exactly the same thing in my shoes, as you have proven by holding my reaction to that behaviour against me. If you'd stuck to just criticising me, it would have been different.

Now, if you had a grain of practicality in your skull on this, you would realise that all you would have to do would be back down on some of your more offensive conduct towards completely innocent people (like the small state champions other than me who you insulted in your original clowns post, still unretracted) and for that trivial and miniscule price the barriers to effective communication between us could be gone, even though you'd still be the worst poster on the board. I don't know if you're too thick, too stubborn, too arrogant, too trollishly inclined to publicly accept that you attacked innocent people and make such trivial amends, but don't expect me to just drop it.

I put it to you that you won't do it simply because, while you know you were in the wrong, to admit it would involve losing an ego game to me. Which, given your attempts to paint me as the ego-maniac, is really rather funny.


Therefore I do not care what you think about past discussions. So long as the discussion takes place and people draw their own conclusions then all is fine!

If that is the case, don't complain about the way I respond to your posts. Or complain if you like, but everyone will know you brought it on yourself.


Furthermore, What is this obsession with internalising conversation as if it is personal criticism?

There is none, except that you have personally and explicitly criticised me on numerous occasions, most of them unwarranted. Your posts are so disingeneous and cowardly that you will not own up to doing so and always try to dress up your personal criticisms as something else, whereas I'm quite happy to say that many posts I make in response to you are personal criticisms. Even your post I'm replying to now contains "personal criticism" :rolleyes: - of course, not all your comments are such, but plenty are.


Isn't that just you moralising us from an egocentric standpoint? Or are the wounds deeper then that. Maybe you honestly believe that the importance you attach to social status is a framework from which every point of reference ought to be judged?

What gibberish. I attach no importance to social status. I have no morality in the objective sense, but despite that I still manage to somehow not be as much of a disgrace here as you. I simply attach an importance to an environment of quality debate where individuals are not subject to unreasonable personal attacks, something you violated the moment you showed up and started implying that people who had never posted on this board or done anything even relevant to the issues you were talking about were "clowns".


In that case Would it be ok to breath?, let alone express an original thought-- before you answer Do you really expect anybody to ask permission?

That bit doesn't even make sense. :clap:


Your analogy of the discussion is pretty lame, but hey at least you finally made an effort.

Your attempt to understand my comments is extremely lame. Mine was just a comment on a small but nonetheless interesting part of the debate.


For dark clouds are on the horizon. Especially if there is a new ACF President next year

Well, George has said he's stepping down after this term. So what's your goss, who are you afraid of? Wastell? I could twist his arm into doing it just to see the look on your face. :whistle:

Kevin Bonham
04-02-2004, 01:37 AM
Kevin
Both ggrayggray and I have had our eye caught by your perceptive comment about the potential for tension to be solved by 'quitting'. This is a new theory to me to explain the long running Victorian lack of goodwill.

It's not intended to explain it, it's intended to point out a response to it, and that the CV structure seems to leave itself more open to that than some.


And, although you are probably correct about the threat being hollow (for the consequences that gg' so lucidly points out), the tension does not dissolve until something changes.
What would be the something, in your view?

Kissinger once said "student politics makes me long for the simplicity of the Middle East". Could have said that about chess politics just as easily sometimes.

I will attempt a constructive and detailed comment sometime soon, if I can find anything useful to say, but I need to re-read the three main CV/MCC threads in detail first.

george
04-02-2004, 02:41 PM
Hi All,

The overwhelming reason why I cant stand for another term is that it is almost 100% certain by February or so next year myself and my wife will be living in Europe for a time still to be determined.

But when we come back some time later I would love to again get active in ACF Administration if the chess public and ACF powerbrokers at the time want me to.

Anyway as I said before , there is stacks to do till then.

Regards
George

firegoat7
04-02-2004, 11:04 PM
Hello people,


Starter you really need to educate Mr Bonham, for he wrote:
Well, George has said he's stepping down after this term. So what's your goss, who are you afraid of? Wastell? I could twist his arm into doing it just to see the look on your face Interesting words that will no doubt haunt Mr Bonham.

Just as a little pointer on Kevins logic for anybody who is unsure about his reasoning- (May I suggest two asprins and a nice lie down for you Mr Bonham) Here is a nice example :hmm: -
Your dislike for me is based pretty much exclusively on the fact that I held behaviour that I disliked, including unwarranted personal attacks on all kinds of people, on the original clowns thread against you. If somebody can decipher what this actually means then-'your a better man then me gunga din"

But wait theres more, we then get this classic gem :hand:


I attach no importance to social status. I have no morality in the objective sense, A position Kevy keeps telling us helps to "OPEN" his mind. So how then are we to interpret comments like these using Kevins own criteria?
you would realise that all you would have to do would be back down on some of your more offensive conduct towards completely innocent people (like the small state champions other than me who you insulted in your original clowns post, still unretracted) and for that trivial and miniscule price the barriers to effective communication between us could be gone What a beautiful promise of moral utopia :clap: Almost brought me to tears, if only I was as innocent as everyone else including yourself Kevin (instead of being such a bad firegoat) :owned: Furthermore what you have against clowns I will never understand, I always thought clowns had a positive social status :whistle:

Regards FG7

Garvinator
04-02-2004, 11:24 PM
According to a poll done at MCC, eight of this country's top fifteen players think the current system is complete B******t, also Gletsos should admit that he is an imbecile destroying Australian chess. Whilst Bonham should never have been a selector for the olympiad, well at least until he actually becomes a player of some note.

firegoat this was one of your first 'gems' that got kevin irritated. Also there was the thread about calling some players from the smaller states as clowns, So you were the first one to put clowns in the gutter.

Furthermore what you have against clowns I will never understand, I always thought clowns had a positive social status
so the above mentioned quote is just plain hypocrisy.



KEVIN POSTED:

Your dislike for me is based pretty much exclusively on the fact that I held behaviour that I disliked, including unwarranted personal attacks on all kinds of people, on the original clowns thread against you.

Considering the fact that i have just quoted one of your first posts back at you(first quote here), which clearly explains why kevin is rather disliking of you. Add to that the fact that you have about ten questions that remain unanswered, I can understand why kevin treats you with no respect and punishes the crap you post.

would you like to have a chance to answer those outstanding questions??

firegoat7
05-02-2004, 12:29 AM
Dear plasticpushers,


gg you kibitzed
firegoat this was one of your first 'gems' that got kevin irritated I stand by that claim except In hindsight I was a bit over the top with Bill, still Bill fights his own battles in a similar tone sometimes ,so there is no real need to decontextualise my statement.

Besides I don't even think this was a major issue for Mr Bonham.

Furthermore I still stand by the idea that weak state champions should not be allowed into the Oz champs and to avoid this the 'Clowns' who are on the ACF committee should change this loophole. My idea may be wrong, but I am still allowed to express it. Also it has nothing to do with this thread.

Then you wrote this rubbish
Considering the fact that i have just quoted one of your first posts back at you(first quote here), which clearly explains why kevin is rather disliking of you. Add to that the fact that you have about ten questions that remain unanswered, I can understand why kevin treats you with no respect and punishes the crap you post.
Nice little judgement value there. Pity your not actually saying anything. Do I have to repeat myself again 1.I do not care if Kevin likes or dislikes me or you or anybody ...its like pointless worrying about such things, isnt that sort of obvious? and 2. What does the sentence mean again? You could actually understand what he wrote :hmm:

Yours faithfully
Firegoat7

firegoat7
05-02-2004, 12:56 AM
Dear Youaintnochessgurutome


You made some really startling claims, but it probably would have been better if you engaged your brain instead of your mouth when you suggested


I am sure that Gardiner could have considered the possibility of selling the MCC without any prompting. Had he asked me then I would have recommended that the MCC sell up and move on. Giving the money to the ACF...probably not, but re-establishing itself in a more chess-suitable location and a more human-being friendly building...definately! I think anyone with a head for business would recognise that a $600,000+ asset lying rancid for the benefit of some (i'll use a generous figure) 80 members was a misuse of resources. A really stupid statement that needs to be refuted on a number of levels.

1. You are an elected CV Executive official- as such you have a responsibility to ensure that all clubs including MCC are well represented by CV. Need I remind you of your elected responsibility. :whistle:

2. You are not a member of MCC and to the best of my knowledge have not been sited near the venue for about 2 years. :owned:

3. Since I am an elected MCC official I can reliably inform you that during a special general meeting held in 2003. A sub-committe consisting of Brooking (OAM), Kristic and Wright recommended that MCC not be sold. This recommendation was overwhelmingly supported by the club membership. Thus concluding an exhaustive investigation by the sub-committee. This was an excellent display showing the strength of democracy at MCC. :hand:

4. Using an analogy it is simple to show how stupid your claim sounds.
"I firegoat7 think that you should sell your car Youaintnogurutome because my family needs a bigger vehicle." Of course such a claim is absurd! :wall:

5. It seems that like 'jammo' you simply cannot understand that false accusations are quickly refuted by evidence. If you or any of your CV cronies keep making ridiculous claims about our membership list or the state of our facilities then we will eventually sue you. :hmm:

Yours truthfully,

FG7

Kevin Bonham
05-02-2004, 12:58 AM
(May I suggest two asprins and a nice lie down for you Mr Bonham)

Just proves what I said about self-irony. You are the most frequently irate and irrational poster on here, so this, coming from you, is farcical.


Here is a nice example :hmm: - If somebody can decipher what this actually means then-'your a better man then me gunga din"

Every other poster here is a better man than you, except for jenni, spareanova and one or two other females doubtless lurking somewhere (they are better people!), so you are not exactly telling anyone the news. In any case, that sentence was really not so hard to unscramble, try again.


A position Kevy keeps telling us helps to "OPEN" his mind. So how then are we to interpret comments like these using Kevins own criteria? What a beautiful promise of moral utopia :clap:

Zzzzzzzzzzz. You show no sign of knowing the first thing about moral subjectivism, despite your clueless namedropping of Nietzsche some time ago. It doesn't mean you can't push for standards, or even use moral-sounding language in doing so, it just means you realise that your standards lack objective sanction. Why should that stop anyone from defending what they prefer? Want to debate moral subjectivity and its implications in detail on the off-topic section? You'll get flogged, I promise you. :rolleyes:

In this case I am coming from a practical premise - the board will be a better environment for nearly all posters if people are discouraged from making mindless, inaccurate and unjustified attacks, such as yours on other small state champions. Your behaviour on that was not beneficial to anyone, least of all yourself. :doh:


Almost brought me to tears, if only I was as innocent as everyone else including yourself Kevin (instead of being such a bad firegoat)

Hmmmm, one day you say I act like this to deliberately further my own ego (certainly Matt seems to like this interpretation too) and the next day you say it's out of innocence. It can't be both so make up your mind.


Furthermore what you have against clowns I will never understand, I always thought clowns had a positive social status

Compared to a sideshow geek like you I guess they do. :clap:

By the way, while you keep arguing with me, your thread is getting flushed down the toilet, and I'm quite happy for it to stay there while you keep coming out with this rubbish, so why are you doing it? It's not like any mud you fling at me is actually going to stick. :doh:

PS The Wastell line was trolling, silly. :wall:

WBA
05-02-2004, 01:02 AM
Can I ask what all of this actually has to do with the current, long standing and very real feud between the MCC & CV? I mean by all means you guys have the right to have personal disputes, but this looks as though it should all be part of the clowns post. Any chance we could go back to the original debate, or has the horse been flogged to death? Pity if it has, because that suggests that all the posting was in a sense in vain. Agreed it has put the point of view of some MCC members out in the public eye (though I feel people outside the loop will never fully understand the emotion behind the feud, and as such cannot make a sound judgment on the subject), but it seems very unlikely that any of the real obstacles will be overcome in the near future.

Namely

1 - CV continues to have members on its committee who with have a conflict of interest, or who MCC is not particularly keen to hold association with
2 - CV continues to be a body that fails to accurately represent the clubs under its jurisdiction.
3 - CV is unaccountable, they are not setting agendas of what they intend to achieve taking it to the clubs, asking for feedback and publishing.
4- Whilst CV is publicly prepared to rip into its own, be it the MCC or fellow members of the executive, it continues to look like a disjointed unit. CV needs to clean up its game, and needs to do it soon


I have mentioned before that there are some exciting times on the horizon, and I can only imagine CV falling behind, this is sad because it would only be due to the pig-headedness of some of its executive that this would happen

There of course are other issues, though these are major starting points, and unfortunately considering the position

WBA

firegoat7
05-02-2004, 01:06 AM
Dear Youaintnochessgurutome

This is the second part of my criticism.

You retorted
I have a suggestion. Why not sell the MCC and go into a management agreement with a commercial enterprise. Along the lines of...you buy a better building for half what you sell the current premises for, invest the rest and use the interest to pay for some staff to run place. The commercial enterprise provides the staff, uses and maintains the building and runs a club, a shop and commercial coaching from there. It actually could be pretty profitable for all concerned... This simplistic analysis has already been refuted viz, a democratic vote from the MCC membership. But I would like to contribute my own opinion.

Your claim presumes that having a ROBOTWORLD chessclub based on capitalistic rationality is the bees knees of chess administration. Unfortunately/fortunately not everybody believes in your idealistic utopian vision. Let us just say your feet are firmly planted in the Walt Disney camp of a fascist utopia, whilst others may think that Disneyland is one of the most evil places in the world.

Yours in opposition,
FG7

firegoat7
05-02-2004, 01:18 AM
Dear Whatsortofidiotcallsthemselfchessguru,

This is part3 of my criticism of your feeble discussion,

You wrote:
Now that i have your attention goatboy (because i've realised you only respond to what stirs you), I have heard great things that the MCC is about to do, particularly like...running the Aussie Masters! But i have heard nothing actually ABOUT the masters. I've sent you a private message and a public one. Now PLEASE, i have players who want to play in your tournament....HOW CAN THEY DO SO? Common courtesy would be to talk to the previous organiser to see if there was anything needed to be passed on, common sense would be to talk to the previous organiser to get suggestions, previous players, contact details etc etc. You seem to have plenty of time to abuse people and insinuate various things without being brave enough to actually SAY them but nowhere do i see any results of your fantastic plans.

Please get this piece of advice into that plank you call a head.
MCC DOES NOT conduct its official business through a public bulletin board.
Please pass it onto your guru 'jam(the letter is in the mail)mo' and everyone else connected with CV. In case you have forgotten our number is 9416-3149, our address is 66 Leicester st Fitzroy 3058. The club is open 7 days a week. Since we are an affiliated club of CV it might be nice to get some correspondence. If you really need to- you could even search us with GOOGLE-and email our webmaster, not to mention the link on the ACF homepage. Please remeber that whilst CV may think that conducting business through a public bulletin board is PROFESSIONAL, -MCC DOES NOT CONDUCT OFFICIAL BUSINESS THROUGH A PUBLIC BULLETIN BOARD. Hopefully you can read through the writing on this post.

Yours in eternal gratitude
FG7

Kevin Bonham
05-02-2004, 01:20 AM
Can I ask what all of this actually has to do with the current, long standing and very real feud between the MCC & CV? I mean by all means you guys have the right to have personal disputes, but this looks as though it should all be part of the clowns post.

Any time firegoat insults me I will reply to his accusations in as much detail as I consider necessary in the place where they are posted.

Go back through the thread and you will notice that after I (somewhat sarcastically but sticking to the issue) criticised firegoat's incorrect usage of political language (post 1 Feb 04, 5:34 PM) he was ultimately the one to start getting personally abusive (especially post 3 Feb 04, 7:07 PM and onwards) instead of just simply accepting that his use of "censorship" was wrong and moving on.

If you have a problem with what is now occurring, you might suggest to your clubmate that he manages his own thread better.

firegoat7
05-02-2004, 01:30 AM
Dear Mr Bonham,


You continue to have nothing to say. Please start a new thread and call it "Bonham, some call me a sceptic others call me an irrational basketcase" Better still make it a vote, whatever the case, fulfill your self indulgence somewhere else :whistle:

with love
Firegoat7

P.S Do you like gladiator movies?

WBA
05-02-2004, 01:41 AM
I think anyone with a head for business would recognise that a $600,000+ asset lying rancid for the benefit of some (i'll use a generous figure) 80 members was a misuse of resources.

Yet again an example of a member of CV heaping loving praise upon the MCC, as inaccurate as ever of course. As you have not been a member of MCC in at least 6 years (have you ever been?) how the hell can you make any sort of informed comments on the MCC. I would argue that the MCC is in fantastic shape. Let us look at the facts

MCC is about 300sqm in size, in which the following has occurred

New carpet in

Tournament Hall
TV area
Social playing area
Back room (top boards)
Corridor

Holes in walls etc repaired
Roof panels replaced repainted throughout building
Light fittings repaired (light is fantastic in there at the moment)
Floor boards in old pool room

Following rooms have been painted

Entry
Social
Tournament hall
Old pool room (now an analysis room)
Kitchen
Foyer into kitchen
Toilets
Outside of bookshop
Front entrance

New Blinds in

TV area (great place for parents to sit whilst taking their children)
Social area


Still to be renovated
Old bookshop
Office (old VCA room)
Corridor

How was this achieved you may ask, I mean when the current committee took over there was no money and as already mentioned the club was suspended from the ACF (quite wrongly by the way). Simple really
These 80 members that chessguru inaccurately mentions performed this. The club ran at a profit for the year (including paying for any renovations), and will grow from strength to strength on this basis. Rather than being left rancid I might suggest that the club was following a long proud tradition.

A tradition that drove members to raise funds for an original building.
A tradition that created so much passion in Rudzitis that he left his house to the club (note not to the ACF) so that they may improve their premises.

I have to wonder out loud whether or not Chessguru's detrimental comments are at biased by the fact he runs a rival chess centre??? Hmmmm

Jammo can rave about his, chessgruru’s and GW’s admin skills being so much more advanced than those at the MCC, as much as he wants. This is grassroots chess with members passion being the asset that keeps MCC great.

What has CV done recently??????????????????




have heard great things that the MCC is about to do, particularly like...running the Aussie Masters! But i have heard nothing actually ABOUT the masters. I've sent you a private message and a public one. Now PLEASE, i have players who want to play in your tournament....HOW CAN THEY DO SO? Common courtesy would be to talk to the previous organiser to see if there was anything needed to be passed on, common sense would be to talk to the previous organiser to get suggestions, previous players, contact details etc etc. You seem to have plenty of time to abuse people and insinuate various things without being brave enough to actually SAY them but nowhere do i see any results of your fantastic plans.


What can I say that CG has not already said? Why would MCC contact any membe of CV about running a tournament, in the current environemt? MCC feels very confortable in its ability to run a strong and successful tournament. Read above about MCC, if they are not results then enlighten me. The Australian masters will also be a huge success that is already assured. There will be a web site soon enough, and more details will be available. CG you could easily have gone to the MCC webpage (and still can) to find out about the Australian Masters 2004.
Simply put however. Depending on the strength of your players they have the following options

Play in the pre-qualifying tournament (needed by an player without a FIDE)

Play in the Australian Masters qualifying tournament. You may be suprised at just how strong this tournament will actually be. The winner of this tournament gains automatiic entry into the Australian Masters.

Send in an expression of interest in playing in the Australian Masters to the MCC (you already know the address CG) and they will be in contact.

I cannot see how the above would have been very difficult to work out

Kevin Bonham
05-02-2004, 01:45 AM
gg you kibitzed I stand by that claim except In hindsight I was a bit over the top with Bill, still Bill fights his own battles in a similar tone sometimes ,so there is no real need to decontextualise my statement.

Bill can be pugnacious enough, but he tends strongly to have the facts on his side when he is, or to admit it when clearly in the wrong. Neither of these things apply to you. Don't flatter yourself.


Besides I don't even think this was a major issue for Mr [sic] Bonham.

You are correct. It is not what you have said about me, frothy, irrational and hilariously stupid as so very much of it has been, that is the issue. It is what you have said about others who have done nothing to earn your abuse.


Furthermore I still stand by the idea that weak state champions should not be allowed into the Oz champs and to avoid this the 'Clowns' who are on the ACF committee should change this loophole. My idea may be wrong, but I am still allowed to express it. Also it has nothing to do with this thread.

This is coming after numerous comments from you about me that also have nothing to do with this thread, so obviously its topicality only concerns you when someone else is going off topic to point out your deficiencies instead of your failed attempts at the other way round.

In any case you are covering up what you really said on the original clowns thread, which was:


Firstly, some patzers from Canberra and Tasmania will be being playing in the closed section. Not content with chess being a game of merit, these first clowns will try to justify their places by suggesting that it is for the benefit of Australian chess.

You have since clarified that this was not a reference to me, so it stands as a groundless attack on the character and nature of small state champions other than myself. Is it so much for you to retract these lines and admit that there was no reason or sense behind them and that they were simply flippant and groundless rubbish? Then perhaps we can get on to talking about CV and the MCC.


1.I do not care if Kevin likes or dislikes me or you or anybody ...its like pointless worrying about such things, isnt that sort of obvious?

No, it isn't actually. Because with just a few simple little retractions you could show me that you can be a better person than you have so far shown, and then there would be no need for all this to keep happening.

Kevin Bonham
05-02-2004, 01:51 AM
P.S Do you like gladiator movies?

I can take them or leave them.

The rest of that post except the word "sceptic" was you talking about yourself to yourself under the sad delusion that you shared my name, again. :rolleyes:

firegoat7
05-02-2004, 02:04 AM
Bonham,


I will debate any clown thread in the relevent thread. If you want to start a new one I will debate you there aswell. But for goodness sake stop embarassing yourself, I don't want to debate you in this thread because a), you have nothing to say and b)you have issues with me rather then the content

Please think about your social status as a moderater......I am genuinly concerned Not Muhahahahahahha
P.S Have you ever been in a Turkish prison?

Kevin Bonham
05-02-2004, 02:27 AM
I will debate any clown thread in the relevent thread. If you want to start a new one I will debate you there aswell. But for goodness sake stop embarassing yourself, I don't want to debate you in this thread because a), you have nothing to say and b)you have issues with me rather then the content

Embarrassing? I doubt it - and anyway, I wouldn't care. Now, I am gradually reading through all the MCC-CV threads again to see if it is worthwhile making a detailed and considered post about the whole thing. If you stop your stupid insults, I can get there much faster. If you continue them I may never get there, and that will be your fault entirely.

Now, my initial volley on this thread was in response to your false claims of censorship. There I had issues with your content, not you, and my post in reply was identical to the sort of post I would have written had anyone else with no clue about political vocab written the same post. Indeed I have written similar posts before in response to a wide range of posters. You chose to flood your own thread with insults about me and now you are complaining because I have issues with you. :wall:


Please think about your social status as a moderater....

Yaaaaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwwwn. I don't moderate my own posts. If you have an issue with them take it up with another moderator. This has all been explained before.


P.S Have you ever been in a Turkish prison?

No. In fact I have never been to Turkey at all. But if you want to employ juvenile homophobic-style insinuations (which, FWIW, are false anyway), I will simply ask Paul to warn and then ban you. Your .sig file implies you're "progressive" but no real progressive would employ a line like that. Ever. :rolleyes: Grow up.

ursogr8
05-02-2004, 07:33 AM
Hello people,


Starter you really need to educate Mr Bonham, for he wrote:

fg7

Kevin has already responded to your post. And I would not have felt the need to respond on his behalf.
At the moment I am restricting myself to the topic of the thread; not your differences with Kevin

starter

ursogr8
05-02-2004, 08:13 AM
Can I ask what all of this actually has to do with the current, long standing and very real feud between the MCC & CV? I mean by all means you guys have the right to have personal disputes, but this looks as though it should all be part of the clowns post. Any chance we could go back to the original debate, or has the horse been flogged to death? Pity if it has, because that suggests that all the posting was in a sense in vain. Agreed it has put the point of view of some MCC members out in the public eye (though I feel people outside the loop will never fully understand the emotion behind the feud, and as such cannot make a sound judgment on the subject), but it seems very unlikely that any of the real obstacles will be overcome in the near future.



Welcome back WBA
You bring some sanity and focus that is refreshing.
That said, I am not necessarily going to agree with your points. But at least you have points that we can grapple with and progress. So, thanks.




Namely

1 - CV continues to have members on its committee who with have a conflict of interest, or who MCC is not particularly keen to hold association with


OK WBA. There are 5 of them.
GW, you want to resign from the presidency.
ChessGuru is unashamedly commercial, that is his livelihood. And you seem to be declaring that this is a showstopper for you being involved in a relationship with CV.
Jammo, you (or was it your VP) have accused of having a conflict of interest; and this is a showstopper.
KJ failed the simple test of telling you that the MCC was in default on one bill.

So essentially you will not deal further with 4 out of 5 looks to be the conclusion.
That leaves Phil. And I can assure you he is flat-out and short on time.

WBA, you (MCC if you speak for them) seem to have imposed conditions that will leave the MCC estranged from CV until all of the Executive is changed.



2 - CV continues to be a body that fails to accurately represent the clubs under its jurisdiction.

This problem can be traced to lack of communication probably. We know that the MCC don’t attend CV AGMs. We know that you did not read the weekly e-mailed newsletter. (We don’t know if you have remedied this latter point). Just how are you going to communicate with CV? How are you going to be represented accurately.



3 - CV is unaccountable, they are not setting agendas of what they intend to achieve taking it to the clubs, asking for feedback and publishing.

Granted they have not set a business plan to my knowledge. But not agreed that they don’t discuss agendas, ask for feedback, and publish; see AGM and weekly newsletter comments made in previous para.



4- Whilst CV is publicly prepared to rip into its own, be it the MCC or fellow members of the executive, it continues to look like a disjointed unit. CV needs to clean up its game, and needs to do it soon



Reflecting on the timings of two ‘incidents’
>BB posting of the suspension due to the unpaid bill
>>ChessGuru’s comments this week re sell-up and re-locate,
it is clear that these are recent. That is, they occured in 2004.

But I thought the point of the thread was to explain why MCC had got to the state where they voted to not attend the 2003 AGM of CV , held in November. So the two incidents have to be discounted entirely as explanations of non-attendance.

The alleged suggestion to GG (re sale of your building), has been rejected by Jammo, and was illogical from GW’s standpoint. At the moment there appears to be no substance in this grievance.

My scorecard to this point is that they (CV) have archives in your (MCC) back-room that they should take better care of, and re-locate. Hardly a reason not to go to the AGM. We need more history details.

starter

WBA
05-02-2004, 07:39 PM
I think you are only half painting here, or reading around the edges starter.
I will see if I can help complete the puzzle, or at least a portion


GW, you want to resign from the presidency.

Yes I do, I am not as you notice suggesting he has to leave CV, in fact he should stay on for a year, and assist the incoming president. I think after serving for so long it is completely necessary. I am not asking GW to resign because of a personal vendetta, but more because a major overhaul is required, thinghs are stale and the buck stops at the top.


ChessGuru is unashamedly commercial, that is his livelihood. And you seem to be declaring that this is a showstopper for you being involved in a relationship with CV.

I have absolutely no problem with CG making a career out of chess, and in fact I encourage it. I have only mentioned CG once, and that was in relation to his post indicating MCC was laying rancid etc. I mean seriously starter you must be able to see his comments paint an innaccurate and detrimental view of MCC. Now that would be bad for Vic Chess if only for the fact he is on the CV committee, but it worse, as one could argue to detract members from Melbourne could have a positive effect on his business, meaning he is trying to influence people from his position on the executive for personal gain. Prior to that post I felt those with a commercial interest should have not voting rights on a state committee. You are correct in assuming I think CG should not be on the executive


Jammo, you (or was it your VP) have accused of having a conflict of interest; and this is a showstopper.

I am not now, nor at any stage claiming a conflict of interest, but more a derilict of duty. I think Jammo is too emotional has been involved in the past feuds with MCC, and is a big block in negotiations MCC are to have with CV in my view. I am not on the committee, but looking from a purely professional point of view, i would not hire an organisation that had Jammo on the board. Judging from many comments made throughout many years. How many people read the "Simple Simon" article authored by Jammo around 1997/1998 Aus Champs?


KJ failed the simple test of telling you that the MCC was in default on one bill.
So essentially you will not deal further with 4 out of 5 looks to be the conclusion.
That leaves Phil. And I can assure you he is flat-out and short on time.

I have no qualms with KJ or Phil if KJ insists he was never given the task of informing MCC, and was not at the meeting were the suspension occurred.
And so that cuts two from the current executive, and shifts Wastell to another position, hardly unachievable I feel


WBA, you (MCC if you speak for them) seem to have imposed conditions that will leave the MCC estranged from CV until all of the Executive is changed.

I speak for myself, and what I personally believe are the views of a % of the membership, based on discussions with them throughout the years.
As noted above I do not think everyone on the executive needs to go, I do however believe that a constitutional change needs to occur, which prevents members of the executive speak out in forums such as this in a detrimental way to the clubs that contribute to their coffers, and whom they are meant to represent.


This problem can be traced to lack of communication probably. We know that the MCC don’t attend CV AGMs. We know that you did not read the weekly e-mailed newsletter. (We don’t know if you have remedied this latter point). Just how are you going to communicate with CV? How are you going to be represented accurately.

In a perfect world that could be true starter but this misrepresentation has dragged on for years, and again it is up to the state to approach clubs, certainly not the reverse. They need to be making efforts to represent the clubs accurately and if they fail then clubs have every reason to be upset


Granted they have not set a business plan to my knowledge. But not agreed that they don’t discuss agendas, ask for feedback, and publish; see AGM and weekly newsletter comments made in previous para.

Agsin it CV's responsibility to approach clubs, not the reverse. I have not argued they do not internally discuss agendas, I mentioned they are unaccountable. I ask you by what measure to they deliver or fail? I have however made this point very clear in previous posts I feel


Reflecting on the timings of two ‘incidents’
>BB posting of the suspension due to the unpaid bill
>>ChessGuru’s comments this week re sell-up and re-locate,
it is clear that these are recent. That is, they occured in 2004.

But I thought the point of the thread was to explain why MCC had got to the state where they voted to not attend the 2003 AGM of CV , held in November. So the two incidents have to be discounted entirely as explanations of non-attendance.

I believe FG was trying to shed some light on the past, and I have dabbled a little to. my mentions of incidents is used as a pointer to the type of behaviour that has been continuing for years in Victoria. If the latest two incidents were isolated, then I would recommend that MCC request apologies from CV for inappropriate conduct by the executive, and then move on. The feud is 20 years long in one sense and 100 years in another (and yes I realise the current CV/VCA has not been around that long. There is an underlying resentment I feel between some older admins. The MCC has moved forward, and I am reasonably sure that if CV sleans house becomes more progressive etc the new committeees at MCC will have further associations with them. However MCC is hardly going to deal with CV just because Jammo and GW "outlived" the MCC "old guard".


The alleged suggestion to GG (re sale of your building), has been rejected by Jammo, and was illogical from GW’s standpoint. At the moment there appears to be no substance in this grievance.

My scorecard to this point is that they (CV) have archives in your (MCC) back-room that they should take better care of, and re-locate. Hardly a reason not to go to the AGM. We need more history details.

I will not claim either talked to GG, I will however opine that GG most likely formed opinions through Vic Administrators, is it not strange that neither GG nor George has expressed an interest in opening general discussions with MCC about the state of chess? I mean seriously why wouldn't they

MCC is clearly the biggest chess entity in Australia, yet has no open channels with the ACF, and the ex President honestly felt there was a chance we would give the money to them??? okay......

The scorecard is miles to numerous to fill in Starter, I think that the way Jammo and CG have ripped into MCC should give members of this board some indication into the type of attitudes that drove MCC away from the last CV AGM. If people cannot understand that Jammo's post predate this BB then I am afraid I am unlikely to be able to edify them.

I have an idea, if you want MCC to attend the CV AGM then do the following

Approach Hartland or yourself and ask to run
Approach Dandenong member and ask them to run
Approach someone such as Peter Caissa and see if he is available
Approach Geeliong or Ballarat and ask if someone like AlistairAnderson/Ian Boasman/Patrick Cook/Kevin Perry/John Lavery is prepared to run, giving country Vic representation. Ask someone from another inner city club, and even ask MCC if they have anyone appropriate.

With such an even spread of numbers and views, submit a application for election as a ticket, and ask MCC to come along and vote. I will be very surprised if they do not.

Anyway that is my 20 cents worth

Cheers

WBA

jammo
05-02-2004, 09:23 PM
Hi WBA,

Nice to have you back. May I call you Matt by the way? It's a much nicer name than Malcolm.



I am not now, nor at any stage claiming a conflict of interest, but more a derilict of duty. I think Jammo is too emotional has been involved in the past feuds with MCC, and is a big block in negotiations MCC are to have with CV in my view. I am not on the committee, but looking from a purely professional point of view, i would not hire an organisation that had Jammo on the board. Judging from many comments made throughout many years. How many people read the "Simple Simon" article authored by Jammo around 1997/1998 Aus Champs?

Sorry you didn't like my simple simon article, though I'm not sure what it has to do with MCC. I was responsing to his irrational criticism of ACF selections.

In relation to your not hiring Jammo, there are a couple of flaws in your suggestion. 1. I don't think you are a professional so it makes it hard for you to give a professional point of view. 2. You would not be the person hiring; I see you more as the employee type. Of course you are most welcome to express your opinion.

Now my main point. Can you please tell me about my past feuds with MCC. I know you don't like Wastell but it seems to me that because I also have been around a while you have presumed that I have had past feuds with MCC because it supports your argument. Now we will all agree that my historical recollections may not be as accurate as they used to be. Lord knows I once claimed the MCC was a well respected club with around 250-300 members! Clearly I was mistaken and the MCC has never been that successful. Sorry the picture I painted was too rosey. I can however remember recent events fairly well. Didn't I recently serve on an MCC committee running the Australian Championships? Why would I do that If I have all these alleged feuds with MCC?

So here's the challenge. Please tell me about these feuds or retract your claim.



MCC is clearly the biggest chess entity in Australia, yet has no open channels with the ACF, and the ex President honestly felt there was a chance we would give the money to them??? okay......

Now Matt, concentrate really hard. MCC is a medium sized club (with 61 registered members with CV at the moment). I may be wrong but I suspect that the biggest chess entity in Australia is the NSWJCL which I understand has many hundreds of members. If it's not them maybe it's the CCLA who probably have 400-600 members (not sure of current figure).



The scorecard is miles to numerous to fill in Starter, I think that the way Jammo and CG have ripped into MCC should give members of this board some indication into the type of attitudes that drove MCC away from the last CV AGM. If people cannot understand that Jammo's post predate this BB then I am afraid I am unlikely to be able to edify them.
WBA

I think Starter is correct and MCC boycotted CV AGM before either Jammo or CG posted any anti-MCC stuff on this BB. So you are saying I am posting somewhere else pre AGM. "Please explain".

I have only two problems with MCC in recent times.
1. They did not pay their bills or explain any problems they had with said bills and so were temporarily suspended by ACF then CV.
That problem has now been solved.

2. They allow a drongo like FG7 be their official spokesperson on the BB.

-Jammo

chesslover
05-02-2004, 09:35 PM
Just as a little pointer on Kevins logic for anybody who is unsure about his reasoning- (May I suggest two asprins and a nice lie down for you Mr Bonham) Here is a nice example :hmm: - If somebody can decipher what this actually means then-'your a better man then me gunga din"



firegoat when kevin said this "Your dislike for me is based pretty much exclusively on the fact that I held behaviour that I disliked, including unwarranted personal attacks on all kinds of people, on the original clowns thread against you" Kevin meant that;

you do not like him mainly because in the clowns thread Kevin thought your attacks on others by you unfair

jammo
05-02-2004, 09:44 PM
FIREGOAT SAID:
"I mean honestly do you think GG just dreamt up the idea to sell MCC out of thin air? and are you honestly suggesting that you did not support the idea in anyway verbally or in written form?"

Well Mr.Goat, are you honestly suggest that GG is not capable of dreaming up an idea of his own? You are correct, I did not support the idea in anyway verbally or in written form? Why? Because I am a realist and there is no way MCC is going to sell up and give proceeds to ACF.

Now, I have read CG's post about selling MCC for $600,00 with interest, and I know that you have little understanding of business or ecomomics, but you might be interested in the following similar situation.

In addition to being CV Treasurer I am Treasurer of the Box Hill Tennis Club Inc. We own our land and buildings (value approx $2 million) but have a smallish membership and only around $30,000 in the bank. Recently Tennis Victoria were helping us with a project to have 2 more courts lit, and you'll never guess what they recommended. They said we should consider selling our land, getting the Council to lease us some new land and we could build a great complex for $500,000 and still have $1,500,000 in the bank.

Does this sound similar to CG's suggestion for MCC? It doesn't mean you should take CG's advice, but it does mean that it is a reasonable option that a person with an understanding of business should consider. Maybe there aren't too many people like that at MCC?

-Jammo

ursogr8
05-02-2004, 09:48 PM
I think you are only half painting here, or reading around the edges starter.
I will see if I can help complete the puzzle, or at least a portion



Yes I do, I am not as you notice suggesting he has to leave CV, in fact he should stay on for a year, and assist the incoming president. I think after serving for so long it is completely necessary. I am not asking GW to resign because of a personal vendetta, but more because a major overhaul is required, thinghs are stale and the buck stops at the top.



I have absolutely no problem with CG making a career out of chess, and in fact I encourage it. I have only mentioned CG once, and that was in relation to his post indicating MCC was laying rancid etc. I mean seriously starter you must be able to see his comments paint an innaccurate and detrimental view of MCC. Now that would be bad for Vic Chess if only for the fact he is on the CV committee, but it worse, as one could argue to detract members from Melbourne could have a positive effect on his business, meaning he is trying to influence people from his position on the executive for personal gain. Prior to that post I felt those with a commercial interest should have not voting rights on a state committee. You are correct in assuming I think CG should not be on the executive



I am not now, nor at any stage claiming a conflict of interest, but more a derilict of duty. I think Jammo is too emotional has been involved in the past feuds with MCC, and is a big block in negotiations MCC are to have with CV in my view. I am not on the committee, but looking from a purely professional point of view, i would not hire an organisation that had Jammo on the board. Judging from many comments made throughout many years. How many people read the "Simple Simon" article authored by Jammo around 1997/1998 Aus Champs?



I have no qualms with KJ or Phil if KJ insists he was never given the task of informing MCC, and was not at the meeting were the suspension occurred.
And so that cuts two from the current executive, and shifts Wastell to another position, hardly unachievable I feel



I speak for myself, and what I personally believe are the views of a % of the membership, based on discussions with them throughout the years.
As noted above I do not think everyone on the executive needs to go, I do however believe that a constitutional change needs to occur, which prevents members of the executive speak out in forums such as this in a detrimental way to the clubs that contribute to their coffers, and whom they are meant to represent.



In a perfect world that could be true starter but this misrepresentation has dragged on for years, and again it is up to the state to approach clubs, certainly not the reverse. They need to be making efforts to represent the clubs accurately and if they fail then clubs have every reason to be upset



Agsin it CV's responsibility to approach clubs, not the reverse. I have not argued they do not internally discuss agendas, I mentioned they are unaccountable. I ask you by what measure to they deliver or fail? I have however made this point very clear in previous posts I feel



I believe FG was trying to shed some light on the past, and I have dabbled a little to. my mentions of incidents is used as a pointer to the type of behaviour that has been continuing for years in Victoria. If the latest two incidents were isolated, then I would recommend that MCC request apologies from CV for inappropriate conduct by the executive, and then move on. The feud is 20 years long in one sense and 100 years in another (and yes I realise the current CV/VCA has not been around that long. There is an underlying resentment I feel between some older admins. The MCC has moved forward, and I am reasonably sure that if CV sleans house becomes more progressive etc the new committeees at MCC will have further associations with them. However MCC is hardly going to deal with CV just because Jammo and GW "outlived" the MCC "old guard".



I will not claim either talked to GG, I will however opine that GG most likely formed opinions through Vic Administrators, is it not strange that neither GG nor George has expressed an interest in opening general discussions with MCC about the state of chess? I mean seriously why wouldn't they

MCC is clearly the biggest chess entity in Australia, yet has no open channels with the ACF, and the ex President honestly felt there was a chance we would give the money to them??? okay......

The scorecard is miles to numerous to fill in Starter, I think that the way Jammo and CG have ripped into MCC should give members of this board some indication into the type of attitudes that drove MCC away from the last CV AGM. If people cannot understand that Jammo's post predate this BB then I am afraid I am unlikely to be able to edify them.

I have an idea, if you want MCC to attend the CV AGM then do the following

Approach Hartland or yourself and ask to run
Approach Dandenong member and ask them to run
Approach someone such as Peter Caissa and see if he is available
Approach Geeliong or Ballarat and ask if someone like AlistairAnderson/Ian Boasman/Patrick Cook/Kevin Perry/John Lavery is prepared to run, giving country Vic representation. Ask someone from another inner city club, and even ask MCC if they have anyone appropriate.

With such an even spread of numbers and views, submit a application for election as a ticket, and ask MCC to come along and vote. I will be very surprised if they do not.

Anyway that is my 20 cents worth

Cheers

WBA

Well thanks WBA.
My analysis of your previous post was that is that I thought you were calling for the removal the major players in the CV Executive.
You said I was wandering around the edges.
And now you are calling for a coup, and naming names.

So it is a coup what you call for eh.

This is a history thread.
Can you arrange for a history of the previous (VCA) coup to be pasted on this thread. It is a history thread. Tell us who they were and who they replaced. Tell us which Club nominated them. Tell us how long they stayed.

starter

WBA
05-02-2004, 10:16 PM
Hi WBA,

Nice to have you back. May I call you Matt by the way? It's a much nicer name than Malcolm.

Hi Jammo how lovely to be chatting once again

You can call me anything you want I actually was fond of the drunken dole bludger tag, but Matt, Fred, Barney, WBA anything will be fine



In relation to your not hiring Jammo, there are a couple of flaws in your suggestion. 1. I don't think you are a professional so it makes it hard for you to give a professional point of view. 2. You would not be the person hiring; I see you more as the employee type. Of course you are most welcome to express your opinion.

Enlighten me on what consider a professional is Jammo? An acountant, a doctor, a computer analyst, a lawyer, a computer programmer, an office manager, a real-estate agent, an architect, a business relations officer????

And how many staff must they be responsible for?? Let me know as I am interested in your ridiculous judgment on this. For the record one of the stupid titles above reflects my current employment, not that it is really any of your concern.



Now my main point. Can you please tell me about my past feuds with MCC. I know you don't like Wastell but it seems to me that because I also have been around a while you have presumed that I have had past feuds with MCC because it supports your argument. Now we will all agree that my historical recollections may not be as accurate as they used to be. Lord knows I once claimed the MCC was a well respected club with around 250-300 members! Clearly I was mistaken and the MCC has never been that successful. Sorry the picture I painted was too rosey. I can however remember recent events fairly well. Didn't I recently serve on an MCC committee running the Australian Championships? Why would I do that If I have all these alleged feuds with MCC?

What I will say about the above is that during my time at the MCC there have been a flurry of rumours surrounding comments made by a number of well known chess identities, including yourself, Depas and GW about the state of affairs at the MCC, and also what should be done with the place. Your dealings in regards to the AC may very well have been to impose your will and self-importance on others, who knows for sure.

For the record, you are wrong I do not have a personal problem with GW, but maybe you are you are not the type of person that absorbs much when you read.


Now Matt, concentrate really hard. MCC is a medium sized club (with 61 registered members with CV at the moment). I may be wrong but I suspect that the biggest chess entity in Australia is the NSWJCL which I understand has many hundreds of members. If it's not them maybe it's the CCLA who probably have 400-600 members (not sure of current figure).

Now Jammo concentrate really hard....... Not all membes are registered with CV, we deal with CV, only as necessary, though you may not have realised this as of yet. Yes you are right about the above clubs, do they by any chance have an asset worth about $*00,000.00? Is their future guarenteed forever? You can use member numbers, I will talk about the ability to host strong tournaments, the ability to cater for growth, and a premises to help generate funds if required. By these standards, given the option, I would rather have the MCC, but hey you can have the correspondence chess league



I think Starter is correct and MCC boycotted CV AGM before either Jammo or CG posted any anti-MCC stuff on this BB. So you are saying I am posting somewhere else pre AGM. "Please explain".

So you obviously are admitting your comments and CG's were anti-MCC?? Then why are we paying the organisation you are sitting on to represent us???

yes starter is correct, I am stating that there are certain individuals whom MCC may not generally want to have dealings with, other than those required, people ask why, and I state that they should look at recent posts which display the sort of attitude that MCC thinks sums up CV nicely, namely yours and CG's.


I have only two problems with MCC in recent times.

1. They did not pay their bills or explain any problems they had with said bills and so were temporarily suspended by ACF then CV.
That problem has now been solved.

I have no problem with the recent CV incident in that if bills are unpaid measures need to be implemented to make sure costs are recovered. As already made clear my problems lies with the avenues of communication CV used to inform MCC of the suspension (though a notice of impending suspension if payments are not received would also have been nice), whether intentional or not. However as pointed out earlier the ACF sent the then MCC treasurer EM a bill for a number of tournaments in 2002. EM told the ACF it was ridiculous and he was not paying. The ACF then spoke with the then president of the MCC RM, and again MCC said they did not owe that much there was a mistake and they were not paying. ACF instead of investigating through the state organisation suspend services to MCC. I then proceeded to make contact with GG and discuss ways around this. When the committee changes GG sends me a copy of the bills which includies ratings for CV tournaments such as the Vic Championships. I contact GW we have brunch at the Hide-Out in Brunswick Street, and we sort the matter out, with GW accepting (quite readily) resposibility for the CV tournaments. He signs a copy to verify this. I get in contact with the ACF again, and the matter is sorted out pronto. The ACF were the organisation incorrectly billing MCC, yet the onus was placed on the MCC to prove they were not MCC tournaments, even though we never sanctioned them. and we never submitted them.

So the Drinking, smoking, dole bludgers you mis-inform us are out the front of the MCC no longer both you? In response to that also, members of the club were offended as expected, though I doubt anything in the form of an apology is coming the MCC way in the near future. I do not think it is necessary anyway. I have never believed in hollow apologies.


2. They allow a drongo like FG7 be their official spokesperson on the BB

Neither FG&, myself nor Booby1972 are officially representing the club in this board, even though FG7 attempts to portray the general feeling of members at the club towards CV, as do I, he still posts as an individual. There are other members who may like CV (MR for one), and yet others who are indifferent. I happen to believe the majority are sick of CV, and have absolutely no problem with MCC not attending this organisations meetings at present.

WBA
05-02-2004, 10:25 PM
Well thanks WBA.
My analysis of your previous post was that is that I thought you were calling for the removal the major players in the CV Executive.
You said I was wandering around the edges.
And now you are calling for a coup, and naming names.

So it is a coup what you call for eh.

This is a history thread.
Can you arrange for a history of the previous (VCA) coup to be pasted on this thread. It is a history thread. Tell us who they were and who they replaced. Tell us which Club nominated them. Tell us how long they stayed.

starter

Hi Starter

I am stunned... what the hell are you trying to say exactly.
I actually would prefer for the two individuals who feel they have a right to sling of at member clubs to resign off their own bat.

I am saying simply, give MCC a reason to attend and they would. Give them no reason to attend, and you are unlikely to get them there. I mean why would FG7 bother going to a meeting where 2/5 of the executive are Jammo and CG?

I think if sensible individuals were to take over, and restructure CV then in may be enticing for the MCC to be back. I am certainly not calling for a coup. I believe MCC is happy to exist without involvement in regards to meetings etc with CV. They are happy to offer no commitment of time, or resources. They are happy to pay their fees, bid for tournaments & pay for ratings. MCC would have no problem if there was no CV rep at the AGM etc.

SO no a coup is not absolutely necessary, as long as everyone is happy with the status quo

ChessGuru
05-02-2004, 10:51 PM
Woh! Woh! Woh! I never said that the MCC should be sold, please read my post more carefully. It was a theoretical suggestion... My hope was two fold:

1. To point out that there were reasonable people who could consider the option of selling the MCC and see positives for chess and that these opinions were not necessarily formed based on suggested by members of CV.

2. I felt i had to be somewhat inflammatory because that was the only way to get the Goat's attention. I got his attention, I got abused, I'm now getting misquoted (all of which I expected) but I still got no more information!!!

Thanks WBA for your directing me to the website (btw, looks good) but i could still not find the information I was looking for. I am now giving up the search for information about the Australian Masters. Good luck running the event, I will wait to see the results somewhere!

Also I never claimed to know about the current state of affairs at the MCC, nor would i consider deriding the MCC without more information. My use of the slightly provocative word "rancid" was applying to times gone by (it was in the context of GG's sell-up suggestion some 2 years ago). Certainly you would agree that the condition of the MCC 2-3 years ago was approaching, if not actually, rancid?

Agreed that it is probably hundreds of times better now, I don't know i haven't been there recently. I promise to come and visit soon though.

WBA
05-02-2004, 11:17 PM
CG the information was easily navigated, under the tournaments link

here is the url to the actual 2004 calendar

http://home.vicnet.net.au/~chessmel/calendar2004.doc


CG I am not suggesting you said the club should be sold my comments were in regards to the rancid commentary, which I felt was unnecessary. Now I can openly say that I feel the club was in a less than desirable state a few years back, but if comments like that are made then further comments indicating the current situation and improvement should be included, otherwise it is yet another "bag MCC" comment. Now contrary to what Jammo thinks he knows, the MCC did look at investigations to selling, buying a new property, buying multiple properties, leasing a property etc. A comprehensive report was also produced on the options, with one of the authors being previously mentioned by Jammo in high esteem. So again his little niggles at the end of each post just inflame the situation further becasue they are a - innacurate and b - designed to belittle and degrade, though they are obviously pathetic attempts.

CG where were you misquoted??

firegoat7
05-02-2004, 11:42 PM
Hello again,

By the way youaintnochessgurutome Why don't you change your business name from chesskids to sizzlekids? :eek:

ChessGuru
06-02-2004, 12:25 AM
Thanks WBA for the link, but i still can't get the calendar, when i click on the link it keeps crashing my computer! I tried downloading it and no luck there....perhaps get BJ to put the .doc files up as html....i couldn't read any of them. The photos show that the club is looking MUCH nicer than the last time i was there. Good work with the renovations!

BTW, while on the site i found the following:
"HELP THE CLUB
Several years ago the club had a membership of over 200. The membership is currently under 100."

Please Goatbrain, how many members do you have? Or will i get sued for asking?

Also anyone who even considers the fact that I run a chess centre on the opposite side of town to be a reason for me to view MCC as a threat or anything of that ridiculous nature is clearly VERY short-sighted. Should I also view the Gardiner Centre as a threat then?

I am setting my goals to a time when both MCC and ChessKids centre could be full to the brim (approx. 100 at MCC and 60 at CK) at these numbers would represent a tiny proportion of competitive and club players in Melbourne. Perhaps some at MCC should also set some positive goals rather than run around like brainless goats thinking that everyone is out to get them?

ChessGuru
06-02-2004, 12:40 AM
Also this conflict of interests thing puzzles me. Please tell me how many of the MCC committe members also receive (or have in the past) financial benefit from chess? That means, even if they only do a little bit of coaching. I am pretty sure that Beaumont, Gatto, Pyke and perhaps even Williams all fall into that category?? Speck was formerly a state association President. What about on the ACF, surely Howard, Tanti, and prior to them Gardiner and before that even Parr, and Purdy all had commercial interests in chess?

WBA's suggested replacements:
"such as Peter Caissa" - yet he is commercially involved in chess too.
"like AlistairAnderson/ ..." - Also commercialy invovled.
"Ian Boasman/Patrick Cook/Kevin Perry/" - presumably means Kevin Perrin, and OK, I don't think they are ...
"John Lavery " - doh, there you go again. Commercial involvement.

So you named 6 people, 3 of whom have financial gains to be made from chess. Is that a co-incidence? Probably not, because usually those who are making a living from chess think about chess the most and have the most to lose/gain from it and would therefore be most likely to want and work towards an improved chess situation around the country. In my opinion those are the best people to have on the decision making body.

OK, I'll ask...does MCC have someone appropriate to take a spot on the CV executive? If so who? And why don't they offer?

firegoat7
06-02-2004, 01:00 AM
Dear Hoodooguru,

Actually most of your claims are false, but hey thanks for pointing them out.
Firstly, you stated,
I am pretty sure that Beaumont, Gatto, Pyke and perhaps even Williams all fall into that category

Let us put this in perspective. Gatto has never worked as a chess coach and please refrain from insinuating anything about him, the guys a living legend and beyond reproach.

Pyke works as a coach but he is an employee. He does not direct policy for a private coaching business.
Whilst Beaumont worked more as a volunteer at the MCC junior program.

Lavery is the only other person who has some connection with MCC, but I think he visits about once a year, so your point is?

Furthermore thank you for pointing out the mistake on the Webpage, The club has never had over 200 members and just to point out was established in 1866 not 1888. Yes Bill and the club make mistakes. By the way our current membership is not under 100. I suppose you are familiar with such problems after all don't you advertise certain GMs advertised for your tournaments despite not ever inviting them, let alone them accepting the offer?

Regards FG7
P.S How was the weather at the Australian junior?

firegoat7
06-02-2004, 01:11 AM
Dear Chessguruuaint,


I was wondering whether you could answer a question for me?
According to CV constitution under 8.Meetings(5):

In all cases other than that referred to in sub-cluase (4), the quorum for a General meeting shall be 20 members of the Association personally present and eligible to vote or 30% of the total number of members of the Association at the time, which is fewer. Now could you explain to me,since you are on the CV executive a)were you at the meeting that disffiliated MCC and b) Does that meeting meet the expectations of your own constitution?

Regards FG7

ursogr8
06-02-2004, 07:10 AM
Hi Starter

I am stunned... what the hell are you trying to say exactly.
I actually would prefer for the two individuals who feel they have a right to sling of at member clubs to resign off their own bat.

I am saying simply, give MCC a reason to attend and they would. Give them no reason to attend, and you are unlikely to get them there. I mean why would FG7 bother going to a meeting where 2/5 of the executive are Jammo and CG?

I think if sensible individuals were to take over, and restructure CV then in may be enticing for the MCC to be back. I am certainly not calling for a coup. I believe MCC is happy to exist without involvement in regards to meetings etc with CV. They are happy to offer no commitment of time, or resources. They are happy to pay their fees, bid for tournaments & pay for ratings. MCC would have no problem if there was no CV rep at the AGM etc.

SO no a coup is not absolutely necessary, as long as everyone is happy with the status quo

WBA
We will just have to agree to disagee on the word coup. You call for the Treasurer to step down, another member of the executive to step down, and your express no confidence in the President and you ask him to vacate the position. Then you list a whole group of people to stand as substitutes.
Sounds like a coup to me.
But if you wish to call it a clean-out then sobeit.
And thanks for you invitation to stand, but no. I don't stand against volunteers who I think are doing their best and a good job.
starter

ursogr8
06-02-2004, 07:41 AM
Now Jammo concentrate really hard....... Not all members are registered with CV, we deal with CV, only as necessary, though you may not have realised this as of yet.




WBA

This issue keeps cropping up from your posts and fg7's.
It sounds like you declare one number on your annual AFFILIATION return to CV, and your local members register is a larger number. The difference presumably being individuals who pay the MCC annual subscription but don't play in rated events. The practice is quite legal, and no criticism.
But just for the record, and just for once, could you bench-mark this for us. Tell us the figures say at 1/1/2004.
Otherwise you just score cheapo debating points by scorning the estimates put forward by Jammo, CG and myself in various posts.

starter

ps
Can you just confirm to me that you now get Gary Lycett's newsletter, and have read back copies. Or give me any appropriate e-mail address (in a PM) and I will arrange connection.

george
06-02-2004, 09:22 AM
Chessguru,

I just caught up with an earlier post of yours. Yes I do have a monumental commercial interest in chess as you state - I have for the past three years and will continue this year to coach chess in three schools. I get paid a small consideration for my time - i do it for love of chess not for money - anyone who has been involved in KIDS sport on a volunteer basis knows the pleasure a coach gets fron seeing kids flourish in the sport/game.

The money I get pays for books for the kids ,petrol,photocopying ,postage etc

Please dont try to make cheap points at my expense - do it if you must at someone else's expense - thanks!

Regards
George Howard

ChessGuru
06-02-2004, 10:42 AM
George, I wasn't intending to score cheap points, i am trying to point out to the members of the BB that I believe someone with a commercial interest in Chess on a committee is a good thing (and can still make unbiased decisions for the good of chess as a whole) and it happens often with many good people. (ACF, CV, MCC and other committees all have members with commercial interests - even government has members with commercial interests. I would not agree to have these hidden, but I am pretty certain my interests are plainly declared!) Certainly if my name were mentioned in the same phrase as C.Purdy I would not be complaining! If you would like me to retract the intention of the message that G.Howard is a fair, honest, hard-working and good for chess administrator I would be happy to do so.

FireGoat:
"According to CV constitution under 8.Meetings(5): etc etc."

Firstly I was not present at the AGM this year, so cannot say what happened there. I was nominated for the position on the executive prior to the meeting and accepted, I believe that it was an uncontested position.

I was at the CV executive meeting where the discussion about MCC was raised and i must make some important points here:

1. Thank you for quoting CV by-laws and constitution to me, now please go home and READ them! CV need not vote for a club to be disaffiliated. According to CV rules a club is AUTOMATICALLY disaffiliated if they fail to pay their bills for a period of 60 days. So you have no fear of supposed anti-MCC terrorists with our Politics of MCC Destruction.

2. My understanding is that MCC was not disaffiliated (although technically according to CV rules perhaps you should have been). Disaffiliation would mean you have to re-apply and go through 12 months of non-voting, provisional affilliation before you received full status again. MCC had its services suspended, quite a differance. CV chose to "forget" the date on which the bill to MCC was sent to avoid the MCC automatically being disaffiliated (which we would not need to vote on anyway). It is good to see the thanks you feel for CV's lenience and support in this trying matter.

3. Every meeting I have been to has met the rules of our association. GW is very particular about adhering to the rules.

arosar
06-02-2004, 12:08 PM
Bloody Mexicans!! http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/02/06/1075854027621.html

AR

Garvinator
06-02-2004, 01:07 PM
Bloody Mexicans!! http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/02/06/1075854027621.html

AR
I want to know how they worked out that melbourne's weather is better than brisbane's :hmm:

PHAT
06-02-2004, 01:44 PM
Montreal is one of the nicest (city) places I have been - but only in summer! In winter it is -40C :eek: How can any city that turns into a freezer ever pass muster. This survey is stupid.

jammo
06-02-2004, 06:00 PM
What I will say about the above is that during my time at the MCC there have been a flurry of rumours surrounding comments made by a number of well known chess identities, including yourself, Depas and GW about the state of affairs at the MCC, and also what should be done with the place.


What a pathetic reply. You appear to be arguing that I have some long term grudge against MCC and hence you want me off CV. I invite you to outline these alleged historical feuds which have apparently led to my alleged dislike of MCC and the best you can come up with is the above bland nothingness. It seems that MCC is a hotbed of rumours, but I haven't read one that is true yet. However if you and others at MCC need an enemy (just like the USA needed Sadam) then I'm happy to oblige. I don't spend my time worrying about MCC except when they don'y pay their bills.



Your dealings in regards to the AC may very well have been to impose your will and self-importance on others, who knows for sure.


On the other hand it may have been because the MCC President begged me to be on his committee. It was not an experience I hope to repeat.



Neither FG&, myself nor Booby1972 are officially representing the club in this board, even though FG7 attempts to portray the general feeling of members at the club towards CV, as do I, he still posts as an individual. There are other members who may like CV (MR for one), and yet others who are indifferent. I happen to believe the majority are sick of CV, and have absolutely no problem with MCC not attending this organisations meetings at present.

An interesting double standard. You have labelled me as representing CV on this BB yet FG7 doesn't represent MCC. How so?

I had lunch with CG today and he questioned why I bother debating the likes of WBA and FG7 on the BB. Maybe he is right. It is a waste of time.

-Jammo

Garvinator
06-02-2004, 06:11 PM
im still trying to work out why doesnt cv haul in all the ppl asking questions and accusing each other and sort this out once and for all(i hope) face to face?

I thought we were all supposed to be adults here, but all im seeing is each side blaming the others for their actions.

Now here is a shocker of an idea :uhoh: . I am coming down to victoria, probably for the Victorian Open. I might even have a conversation with each of u to try and find out who is most likely telling the truth and maybe even try and find a way forward, because quite frankly, all this squabbling is not making cv or australian chess any better.

Paul Sikes posted that the biggest problem in chess is a lack of ppl willing to 'do the work'.

Well I dont agree on that one any more. I would say the greatest problem in australian chess is squabbles like this one. No wonder ppl can not be attracted to volunteer their time when this is what they would be walking into.

I have attempted to give you guys a way forward. Maybe my opinion doesnt count much to cv and mcc, but sure as hell it has to be better than the status quo. Because at the moment this is all both sides are doing :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall:

firegoat7
06-02-2004, 06:49 PM
Dear chessplayers


There are a number of issues here concerning protocal that have contributed to a major dispute between CV and MCC.

So lets us clarify a few points.

1.MCC gets a bill in the post during September 2003. The treasurer of MCC is not happy with the bill and seeks to negotiate the payement. ??a) Is the MCC treasurer a liar? b) are MCC entitled to dispute the bill? c) Does the 60 day suspension on MCC start now, in September according to CV---Because according to the CV constitution 4(6)- If, at the expiration of the 60 day period following delivery of an account to an Affiliated Club, the account has not been paid in full to the Association and no decision to the contray has been taken by a general Meeting, the Club shall be disaffiliated.

2. MCC President and Treasurer GG and AT then meet with GW who is CV President to discuss the bills and come to an amicable arangement. CV President promised he would get back to us after he spoke with CV Treasurer about our grievances.?? a)Are MCC right to ensure that everything is now fine and there is no 60 day suspension period? b)Does CV now have to issue another account bill to reactivate 60 day suspension notice.

Because according to CV constitution: 13(1) A document,notice or account may be served by or on behalf of the ASSociation upon any member the Executive regards as authorised to receive it on behalf of a Club either personally or by sending it by post to the member at his address shown in the register of members or, if not a member, to his last known address.

Now if there is no registered correspondence between the clubs between both treasurers (REMEMBERING unanswered or even answered email is not official communication) how does MCC know that it is suspended? Furthermore the general meeting now takes place in December. A moot point because disaffiliated clubs are not allowed to vote. So when Starter and other people complain about MCC not attending the meeting, are they actually allowed? Are they already suspended?

3.Then sometime between the Annual general meeting and the Australian Championships CV has an executive meeting. a)Who was in attendence at this meeting? The CV treasurer-No, The CV secretary- No, Chessguru- Yes, The CV President Yes. b)Who else was there? c)Was any discussion of MCC being suspended discussed at this meeting and was it enacted upon?

I just want to know the truth. If you Jammo or Chessguru don't want to participate in this discussion then that is your choice. But remember action speaks louder then words.

Regards FG7

ChessGuru
06-02-2004, 07:42 PM
Firegoat, let me try to answer your questions. But please if you still don't understand or want more in-depth answers please RING ME on 0411 877 833. If you can't afford the call then expect to see me at MCC either this Monday or the Monday following, please have a chat to me then. :)

"MCC treasurer a liar? b) are MCC entitled to dispute the bill? c) Does the 60 day suspension on MCC start now, in September according to CV---Because "

OK, i am going to assume that you just mistyped something and you really understand that the process goes like this:
1. Bill is delivered
2. 60 days pass
3. If the bill remains unpaid at the end of that time THEN the MCC is automatically disaffiliated.

There is no suspension...

"2. MCC President and Treasurer GG and AT then meet with GW who is CV President to discuss the bills and come to an amicable arangement. CV President promised he would get back to us after he spoke with CV Treasurer about our grievances.?? a)Are MCC right to ensure that everything is now fine and there is no 60 day suspension period? b)Does CV now have to issue another account bill to reactivate 60 day suspension notice. "

I again assume you are simply using the wrong words, remember there is no suspension at this stage. However the 60 days is still counting down...so you should have been thinking here about paying the bill. But you had differing opinions about the amount to be paid, presumably. The onus is on you to ensure you got a new bill from CV. Unless GW and GG/AT actually CAME to an agreement, in which case CV has the onus of resubmitting a bill. If only negotiation and no agreement was reached then the bill still stands, in dispute, but still on the table.

"official communication) how does MCC know that it is suspended? "

The MCC isn't suspended until the meeting this year, much later on! Remember, 60 days counting down, automatic disaffiliation at the end of that time. No suspension.

"Furthermore the general meeting now takes place in December. A moot point because disaffiliated clubs are not allowed to vote. So when Starter and other people complain about MCC not attending the meeting, are they actually allowed? Are they already suspended?"

Sigh. There is no suspension until the meeting later which suspends you! There is a difference between disaffilliation... hang on, does anyone else feel like I am repeating myself? Are my fingers moving, are words appearing on the screen?

"3.Then sometime between the Annual general meeting and the Australian Championships CV has an executive meeting. a)Who was in attendence at this meeting? The CV treasurer-No, The CV secretary- No, Chessguru- Yes, The CV President Yes. b)Who else was there? c)Was any discussion of MCC being suspended discussed at this meeting and was it enacted upon?"

a) You should play that kids game memory instead of chess, you'd be good!
b) Process of elimination, see if you can guess: Members of CV committee are, GW, RJ, DC, POC, KJ & CP. Ok, you already know these 2 important pieces of information. 1) RJ and KJ were NOT there. 2) There were at least 4 members to make up the quorum. Now, i'll leave it to your giant intellect to work out the answer to your own question!
c) My brain is tired now because of all this slow typing. Yes, at some stage there was discussion and MCC had their access to CV services suspended. No major discussion, just "MCC hasn't paid for ages, what should we do?" The options were a) enforce the disaffiliation clause from the consitution or b) a lighter penalty of suspension of services. We legitimately chose b) because the CV Treasurer wasn't there to tell us that the bill was more than 60 days overdue.

"I just want to know the truth. If you Jammo or Chessguru don't want to "

The truth? You can't handle the truth! Well, maybe you could if it came in words of one syllabul and very short sentences.

What actions have been speaking, and louder than what words? And what have they been saying?

eclectic
06-02-2004, 08:41 PM
So when will the National Australian Chess Body (whatever the title one wishes to give it) be constituted to consist of chess clubs directly (thus bypassing and eliminating the state/territory associations)?

We could have it that each club can send a delegate for every 50 (fifty) members they have.

We could base it on equivalent full paying members to factor in concession or junior membership or for people joining more than one club (though I would prefer people be loyal to one).

The Correspondence Chess League of Australia and the Australian Women's Chess League would be given special status.

The NSW Junior Chess League would either be abolished or else upgraded ( or compulsorily amalgamated with similar state level entities) to cater for all of Australian Juniors and given a similar status to the CCLA and the AWCL.

Commercial interests would also have special status ( though clubs which they run would be required to join directly as autonomous entities )

Smaller clubs could combine their numbers for the purposes for being eligible to send a delegate.

We could then have the Annual National Conference actually being concerned with devising an Australia wide chess game plan.

This conference could for example appoint "commissioners" to deal with important events throughout the year or to deal with specialised aspects of chess in Australia.

As I understand it three state championships ( perhaps more ) are held concurrently (Vic NSW QLD) then restricted to state members.

Why not abolish the state championship concept and devise a circuit of 12 or 13 eleven round ( one game per day ) "classics" assigned to various places around Australia according to bids ( or whatever ) with games starting at maybe 4pm to allow those who work some chance to enter ---- ie make this a Super Grand Prix ciruit which determines the Australian Champion or even determines Olympiad selections.

A commissioner would be appointed to oversee the organisation of each of these "classics".

The reason why I am asking ?

How many Grandmasters have we got ?

TWO !!
If there are people of genuine talent here who deserve to be similarly titled their only chance is to study hard, save up, plan an American or European itinerary and hope that the chess gods are on their side ... because ....

WITH THE ABSENCE OF A HIGH CATEGORY LEVEL SPONSORSHIP SUPPORTED TOURNAMENT CIRCUIT STRUCTURE (GM NORM LEVEL) (PRESENTLY UNACHIEVABLE DUE TO THE [DIS]-ORGANISATION AND BICKERING THAT GOES ON IN AUSTRALIAN CHESS) THERE AIN'T NO WAY GRANDMASTERS ETC ARE GOING TO WASTE THEIR TIME COMING HERE TO PROVIDE THEM WITH COMPETITION FOR NORMS !!!

Why have I put this post in this thread ?

It's because the prejorative term "Mexican" can rightly be applied to Australian Chess as a whole compared with chess in the rest of the world (though most likely Mexicans would rightly be insulted anyway).

It's also because this CV - MCC squabbling is becoming a little TIRESOME.

If some potential sponsor saw this "feuding" do you think they would be forthcoming in financial generosity ?

If (certain?) Victorians aren't happy with the state of things in Denmark they should convene the necessary meeting(s) and deal with it there NOT HERE !!!

They might succeed in being the first to formally abolish a state chess organisation? (hyperbole?)

(though not very likely due to the political savvy of some incumbents not to mention clubs would be left in a constitutional limbo due to the ACF presently not admitting clubs directly).

Yeah !!

Australian Chess HAS been standing still for a long long time.


ECLECTIC

Kevin Bonham
06-02-2004, 10:16 PM
I've created another thread for my (rather critical) reply to eclectic's post. See "Australian chess wheel reinvented again!". While I was happy to help firegoat mangle his own thread while he was using it to abuse me, in this case I think the extensive discussion eclectic's post might create is best not left crisscrossing with all the CV-MCC faction-fighting.

firegoat7
07-02-2004, 04:03 AM
Dear CV executive,

You are obviously a politician DC because you cannot seem to answer a direct question. Because I wrote:

a) Is the MCC treasurer a liar? b) are MCC entitled to dispute the bill? c) Does the 60 day suspension on MCC start now, in September according to CV---Because according to the CV constitution 4(6)- If, at the expiration of the 60 day period following delivery of an account to an Affiliated Club, the account has not been paid in full to the Association and no decision to the contray has been taken by a general Meeting, the Club shall be disaffiliated. To which your answer was...

OK, i am going to assume that you just mistyped something and you really understand that the process goes like this 1. Bill is delivered
2. 60 days pass
3. If the bill remains unpaid at the end of that time THEN the MCC is automatically disaffiliated.

There is no suspension...

So your answer was no answer to a) and b) or c). Your lame attempt at answering c) is nothing more then a deluded cover up. Furthermore you appear to only partially understand your our own constitutional procedures. So in defence to c) firstly that is not what I asked you, can you read? Secondly, even if it was what I asked, which it was not, you appear to misunderstand your own constitution because 4(5) states: A fully Affiliated Club which has not paid an account delivered to it in accordance with rule 13 shall, for as long as the account remains unpaid during the 60-day period following delivery, be classified as a Provisionally Affiliated Club etc etc Now I would regard that as some sort of suspension. There are certainly serious problems associated with becoming Provisionally affiliated.

And yet the key question remains. DOES the 60 day suspension (time period) start now? In September? Without any dispute resolution on the amount payed? A figure which was wrong I may add.

Furthermore what sort of stupid rule is 4(5) anyway. Basically it says CV bills any club and as soon as a club get the bill they are Provisionally affiliated until you pay it within the 60 days. Complete and utter nonsense!


At least you made an attempt to answer section 2. You responded:
The onus is on you to ensure you got a new bill from CV. Unless GW and GG/AT actually CAME to an agreement, in which case CV has the onus of resubmitting a bill. If only negotiation and no agreement was reached then the bill still stands, in dispute, but still on the table. Actually your answer appears plausible, that is, until you read the constitutional fine print. According to your own constitution Rule 7 states: The president may,subject to these rules, the Regulations and the Act, exercise all such powers and functions as may be exercised by the Executive other than those powers and functions that are required by these rules to be exercised by Executive or General Meetings So MCC is quite within its rights to expect GW to deal with the situation, which includes re-submitting a new bill to MCC, there is no onus on us to get a bill since we actually had an official meeting with GW, who would look into the situation.

I also might add, I do not understand how you can even talk about a procedure such as onus anyway. It is not written down in your constitution. In fact there appears to be no official line on how CV ought to deal with clubs under these scenarios. The proper procedural chanels you talk about appear then to be nothing but fantasy. Simply your imagination describing an imaginary interpretation that justifies your position on the problem.

Now section 3 was a better effort but still you seem to miss a few points.
Firstly, the alleged meeting is actually irrelevent to your constitutional procedure, since the 60 days had apparently elapsed if September was the initial date. Of course if you answered my first question this would be clear.

But neverthless just to clarify things. Since you were at the meeting. Please tell me in your own words who else was there. We have established that GW was there. Was POC or anyone else there? Please tell me who was there in your own words, that is providing such a meeting took place!

Furthermore did this meeting suspend any other clubs? Whilst finally where in the constitution do you have the right to suspend services to a club? Can you show me the clause? I am interested where this clause is in your constitution.

Now I want to tell you what I think of your little story.Firstly, MCC was never disaffiliated from CV legally. Secondly, It is doubtful a meeting ever took place, let alone whether any club suspension was discussed. Thirdly, The CV Treasurer ought to resign since he freely admits that the amount owing on the bill was in dispute, whilst he also appears to have re-affilliated MCC(according to his own criteria) without any official communication with the CV Executive. An unconstitutional decision which he has no authority to do. His incompetance appears to almost have cost CV one of its biggest customers. Furthermore the CV Treasurers maverick attitude in dealing with the crisis suggests that he is out of control and ought to be reigned in by the rest of the executive. At the very least MCC is owed a written public apology from the CV executive explaining why the CV Treasurer appears to be both incompetent and able to act outside the boundaries of his authority.

Regards FG7

ursogr8
07-02-2004, 02:17 PM
im still trying to work out why doesnt cv haul in all the ppl asking questions and accusing each other and sort this out once and for all(i hope) face to face?

I thought we were all supposed to be adults here, but all im seeing is each side blaming the others for their actions.

Now here is a shocker of an idea :uhoh: . I am coming down to victoria, probably for the Victorian Open. I might even have a conversation with each of u to try and find out who is most likely telling the truth and maybe even try and find a way forward, because quite frankly, all this squabbling is not making cv or australian chess any better.

Paul Sikes posted that the biggest problem in chess is a lack of ppl willing to 'do the work'.

Well I dont agree on that one any more. I would say the greatest problem in australian chess is squabbles like this one. No wonder ppl can not be attracted to volunteer their time when this is what they would be walking into.

I have attempted to give you guys a way forward. Maybe my opinion doesnt count much to cv and mcc, but sure as hell it has to be better than the status quo. Because at the moment this is all both sides are doing :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall:

gr'gr'

Only two hopes appear on the horizon to solve the impasse. And perhaps they are connected.
1 An outsider (not from the CV Executive, and not from MCC) might be able to do the trick and bring the two parties together. It is clear my attempts to do this through the BB have come to simply define a stalemate. If WBA and FG7 speak for the general population at the MCC then they will not engage until Jammo, CG and GW are all out of their current position. Given that still the biggest problem in chess is a shortage of volunteers, it is not a business-minded solution to move three who have volunteered. So, I have run out of ideas. But you may be a new element that succeeds. Good luck. And anyway, if WBA is correct that the feud from the MCC side has been felt for 20 years, and since nothing has self-destructed, then maybe MCC has found a steady-state solution, albeit one where they can use the perceived feud to galvanise their resources.

2 The other hope is that the heads of both organisations see things quite differently and all that we are seeing on the BB is not representative of the organisations positions. Your personal initiative to get folks together may well be appropriate.

I agree with you. Squabbling is counter-productive to gaining volunteers. And squabbling is counter-productive to sponsorship initiatives. It would be good if it would stop; even though it makes for good reading on the BB until Matt re-engages with Bill. On route to VIC, drop into NSW and sort them out too.

starter

Bill Gletsos
07-02-2004, 03:21 PM
It would be good if it would stop; even though it makes for good reading on the BB until Matt re-engages with Bill. On route to VIC, drop into NSW and sort them out too.
I think there is a major difference in the two scenarios.
Matt and I get on just fine face to face. We only really abuse each other on the BB.
That does not appear to be true in the mexican case.

Garvinator
07-02-2004, 03:23 PM
gr'gr'

Only two hopes appear on the horizon to solve the impasse. And perhaps they are connected.
1 An outsider (not from the CV Executive, and not from MCC) might be able to do the trick and bring the two parties together. It is clear my attempts to do this through the BB have come to simply define a stalemate. If WBA and FG7 speak for the general population at the MCC then they will not engage until Jammo, CG and GW are all out of their current position. Given that still the biggest problem in chess is a shortage of volunteers, it is not a business-minded solution to move three who have volunteered. So, I have run out of ideas. But you may be a new element that succeeds. Good luck. And anyway, if WBA is correct that the feud from the MCC side has been felt for 20 years, and since nothing has self-destructed, then maybe MCC has found a steady-state solution, albeit one where they can use the perceived feud to galvanise their resources.

2 The other hope is that the heads of both organisations see things quite differently and all that we are seeing on the BB is not representative of the organisations positions. Your personal initiative to get folks together may well be appropriate.

I agree with you. Squabbling is counter-productive to gaining volunteers. And squabbling is counter-productive to sponsorship initiatives. It would be good if it would stop; even though it makes for good reading on the BB until Matt re-engages with Bill. On route to VIC, drop into NSW and sort them out too.

starter

my personal opinion at the moment is that neither side is interested in solving the conflict unless it is 100% on their terms and only if it totally advantages them.

The mcc speakers have clearly stated that they dont want to be part of the cv committee even if mcc was to be the sitting members without the ones who are there atm.

I mentioned previously that cv should haul the mcc committee in and ask them what is going and what are there issues etc,but this hasnt happened either. So that indicates to me that cv doesnt really want mcc involved in cv either.

I dont know what to suggest for a way forward when all sides are only interested in looking backwards and are only interested in protecting their own backsides.

How can their be any talk of a national league/super grand prix etc when so called administrators cant even look beyond their own noses :wall:

jammo
07-02-2004, 06:44 PM
Dear Everyone,

I'd like to give my overview of MCC v CV. Perhaps it is getting boring for most people, although they have the option of not reading if they wish.

At the moment MCC is a fully paid up member of CV. They are not suspended or disaffiliated. When the next affiliation year begins they can choose whether or not they wish to affiliate. If they don't want their events ACF or FIDE rated and their members do not wish to play in CV or ACF events, then by all means do not affiliate.

If MCC does not like some members of CV Executive then they may turn up to the AGM and vote for someone else. I certainly don't care whether or not I'm CV Treasurer. I have plenty of tennis organisations which want be to be their Treasurer and I enjoy tennis admin (there are far fewer "nutters" and disagreements in tennis).

It is my personal view that FG7 is a drongo and his mate WBA is not far behind, but who cares. I have no dealings with them and have no desire to play chess at the MCC. I do not know the MCC President, Greg Gatto, maybe he is great guy doing a good job at MCC. I have no problems with the MCC Treasurer who is a good guy and I'm sure that he and I can work together to ensure that MCC pays it's bills in future.

So, in summary, I don't see that there is any real problem at the moment.

FG7 and WBA can continue posting their rumours and claims on the BB if they wish and Jammo and Chess Guru will probably respond if they have nothing better to do.

For the rest of you out there you can all make up your own minds. Are GW, CG & Jammo telling the truth and doing a good job in running CV, or are FG7 and WBA correct?

I think the folks at CV will be quite busy soon as they are running the Aust Open, Aust Schools finals and Aust Junior in 2005 say maybe we won't have too much time to play with the goat & WBA. Maybe MCC would like to stage a coup and save us the trouble!

-Jammo

chesslover
07-02-2004, 07:34 PM
im still trying to work out why doesnt cv haul in all the ppl asking questions and accusing each other and sort this out once and for all(i hope) face to face?

I thought we were all supposed to be adults here, but all im seeing is each side blaming the others for their actions.

Now here is a shocker of an idea :uhoh: . I am coming down to victoria, probably for the Victorian Open. I might even have a conversation with each of u to try and find out who is most likely telling the truth and maybe even try and find a way forward, because quite frankly, all this squabbling is not making cv or australian chess any better.

Paul Sikes posted that the biggest problem in chess is a lack of ppl willing to 'do the work'.

Well I dont agree on that one any more. I would say the greatest problem in australian chess is squabbles like this one. No wonder ppl can not be attracted to volunteer their time when this is what they would be walking into.

I have attempted to give you guys a way forward. Maybe my opinion doesnt count much to cv and mcc, but sure as hell it has to be better than the status quo. Because at the moment this is all both sides are doing :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall:

A best post 2004 noble prize award to try and mediate peace :p

But serioulsy, everytime I read this thread the tone and language used becomes more and more vicious

I guess the question is whether both sides want to resolve this issue and compromise and come to better relationship between them or try to prove who is right and win?

If the latter, like gray states there will be no winner, but the loser will be MCC, CV and Australian Chess

ursogr8
07-02-2004, 09:01 PM
I think there is a major difference in the two scenarios.
Matt and I get on just fine face to face. We only really abuse each other on the BB.
That does not appear to be true in the mexican case.

Bill, It was a throw-away line.

Anyhow, it looks as though the NY resolution will avoid that post-inflation occurring in 2004.

starter

Kevin Bonham
07-02-2004, 09:44 PM
You are obviously a politician DC because you cannot seem to answer a direct question.

That would make you Robert Menzies. :whistle:

Garvinator
08-02-2004, 03:13 AM
well it seems the rocket that i put under a few ppls butts has made this thread die. Has everyone gone to ground and isnt talking anymore?

ursogr8
08-02-2004, 07:19 AM
well it seems the rocket that i put under a few ppls butts has made this thread die. Has everyone gone to ground and isnt talking anymore?

g'g'

I think fg7 is too busy tidyng up for CG's promised visit to have time to post. WBA has found that no-one has razzed him for 24 hours so he has nothing to react to. Jammo has come to the conclusion that that there is no 'feud charges' to answer to. CG is busy mending fences with Aus Pres and fg7 so that his commercial enterprise is not jeopardised. And half the rest of us are waiting for you as saviour; the other half have taken electic's advice and put Mexican politics on the IGNORE list.

It would still be good for you to get on your white charger and come to the VIC OPEN. There will be enough chess for you that week-end.

starter

Garvinator
08-02-2004, 10:20 AM
It would still be good for you to get on your white charger and come to the VIC OPEN. There will be enough chess for you that week-end.

starter
ever the business man and tourney promotor hey starter ;) :lol: :owned:

firegoat7
08-02-2004, 06:33 PM
Dear chessplayers,

I am just waiting for a response to questions addressed to CV regarding its own constitution. Basically the idea of a bulletin board in my opinion is to increase communication for everyday chessplayers. By asking questions I hope to help ordinary chessplayers obtain and discuss informaton regarding Victorian chess politics. Information that they might not be privy to if left to the institutions and elite committees, discussing problems behind closed doors.

If you consider my last post, there was a plethora of information that needed to be examined. If people do not want to participate in these discussions then I could simply abandon a strategy of making my questions publically available. After all I can conduct an official paper war with CV, not utilising the bulletin board to repair problems. If the majority find this thread, to public, then I will stop posting. However, I would like to point out that in my personal opinion, public airing of information is very important for all chessplayers. I see no problem in discussing points and improving the general understanding of Victorian chess politics.

Now I think I will rip into Starter for his lame responses. Starter you claim you are interested in finding out once and for all what the problem is with CV and MCC. Instead like a number of people here you ask no questions of CV. You blindly accept almost everything they say without ever attempting to place them on the spot. All I see from you is constant defence of CV positions followed by a spat with WBA. How about this for an :idea:

You pick up on any question that you find interesting in my last post and ask CG or jammo for their interpretation of the question. In this way a civilised debate could actually take place. People could actually find out what the truth is with such claims. Of course the point would need to be debated instead of interpreted.

Just for the record I am not scared of any debate concerning MCC and CV, provided the questions are set in stone on the table and some solution is foreseeable. This bulletin board could be useful for such a discussion if their was a recognised mediator. Unfortunately I do not really know if the bulletin board is ready, or is capable of solving any such attempt at the truth.

Regards FG7

WBA
08-02-2004, 07:50 PM
What can I say, other than this has gone around and arounf in circles, without the slightest glimmer of hope. Starter is so blinded by CV that to continue to debate with him would be a complete waste of time. We are getting nowhere. Now I always suspected Starter was a strong believer in the capabilities of CV, but I though maybe he could be sensibly debated with (as oppossed to Jammo and CG, I knew debating with them would be a waste of time, but they post such absolute garbage, it could not be helped), it appears that debating with started is geting nowhere, so I can see no sense in conitnuing the debate here, unless something fresh appears.

Jammo, I am mortally offended that you find me a drongo ..... (can you feel the sarcasm?). You can think whatever you want I have mentioned before your opinions of me mean absolutely nothing. You keep talking about your tennis clubs, well why not run along and look after them, because I am pretty sure a number of people will heave a sigh of relief to see the back of you. And I will be more than happy to not be reading your dribble in the board anymore.

Like you I have shown this board to other people (non-chess), and they cannot understand why I bother debating with you, I informed them I only do it because we are discussing something I am so passionate about, namely the MCC. But it has gone from that, you make things so personal. To me the things the debates (here and in other threads) have so far shown, is that you

Post mis-information
Have personal vendettas, and resort to childish character assassinations
Hate having your authority {or supposed authority) questioned
Use your position in chess to abuse affiliated members


I mean all of that is fine (more people get to know you for what you are, an emotional, vindictive moron), but this was never the aim, the aim was to talk about MCC, and let the public judge the place for itself, as oppossed to listening to the rantings of either yourself or any other member of CV All this has become clouded now, and is getting nowhere. Unless you have anything worth saying, I do not see the sense in us the debating the poiint any further.

and now for Chessguru

CG if you cannot see anything wrong with CV's actions, then you are a waste of my time, and I could not be bothered arguiing with you, but take in point

a - Did anyone say, I will contact MCC and see what is going on???
b - Did anyone point out, "xx you will need to contact MCC to let them know"?
c- Can you not have worked out when interclub was run, and very easily have decided on whether or not 60 days was reached for sure, or did everyone need Jammo to hold their hands??

My view is very very simple, I came here hoping MCC could work things out with CV. I am now more than ever convinced that with the curent CV committee it will never happen, and then so be it.
I hope and when speaking with my committee will represent to them that we continue to abandon all CV AGM's, and preferably that we abandon interclub, and do not bid for any CV events. That in fact I hope MCC has the barest of dealings with CV. Whether or not they listen is their choice, though I can see absolutely no reason why the MCC would want to have more than the basic dealings with CV, again what the hell is in it for us? Nothing!

gg your comments about CV hauling in all parties


im still trying to work out why doesnt cv haul in all the ppl asking questions and accusing each other and sort this out once and for all(i hope) face to face?

now that is hardly appropriate is it? CV has no constitutional powers over the MCC, and as such can not haul, order or force it to do anything. All they do is offer an overpriced service which the MCC has no choice but to purchase. Until the ACF creates a situation whereby there is an alternative, then the MCC is stuck paying for this service.

Anyway the weekend is over, and I have some work to do, so I am going

Ciao

jammo
09-02-2004, 08:46 AM
Hello Everyone,

I thought that you might be interested on a quick update following our CV meeting last night. We had an exciting meeting, with approx. 106 items on the agenda, which finished at 12.05am.

Now a little poll for you to try. Which items do you think took the most discussion time (please rank them 1 to 3).

A) The 2005 Aust. Open, Junior and Schools Finals at Mt.Buller.
B) The MCC v CV dispute.
C) Whether it is the job of the Secretary to record the minutes of the AGM.

Now, no peeking, the answers are below.

ANSWERS
The order of time spent (highest to lowest) was c, a, b. In fact "b" might have been left of the agenda altogether - no doubt an oversight of the President.

See, I told you there was no dispute!

-Jammo

ursogr8
09-02-2004, 09:15 AM
Now I think I will rip into Starter for his lame responses. Starter you claim you are interested in finding out once and for all what the problem is with CV and MCC. Instead like a number of people here you ask no questions of CV. You blindly accept almost everything they say without ever attempting to place them on the spot. All I see from you is constant defence of CV positions followed by a spat with WBA. How about this for an :idea:

You pick up on any question that you find interesting in my last post and ask CG or jammo for their interpretation of the question. In this way a civilised debate could actually take place. People could actually find out what the truth is with such claims. Of course the point would need to be debated instead of interpreted.


Regards FG7


FG7

I have no problem with you putting your questions. As Kevin pointed out, sprinkling the odd ephithet like 'clowns' did detract from some of your earlier offerings, but we have learnt to live with your colour. So, you place the questions you want; I don't want to influence priority nor phrasing otherwise WBA gives me a serve for skating around the edges.
Given that jammo and CG are continuing to respond then I think we are marching forward to an understanding of positions. Except for GW and the MCC official committee positions.

starter

ps Pity there as no 'lame' smiley; it would have added a touch of humour.

ursogr8
09-02-2004, 09:25 AM
Starter is so blinded by CV that to continue to debate with him would be a complete waste of time. We are getting nowhere.



Well WBA I got some understanding out of the discussion while it lasted, so thanks for your input.

What remains a bit of a mystery is the allusions to problems during the 19 1/2 years to November 2003 CV AGM. Since November 2003 we have heard about the 'suspension' and the 'sell-the-building' issues. Neither side handled the suspension well; but at least we know both sides. CG can hardly be caned for shallow-breathing the words "what about sell-the-building" since your own Committee have had the same thoughts and had a formal vote on the idea previously. So we are left with four people who have rather sharp tongues; CG,FG7,JAMMO,WBA (alphabetical order for impartiality), and share insults. Well at least it is sharing and communicating, so that is something.
But when you called for 3 out of 5 on the Executive to stand down from their positions then I think I got off your wavelength; volunteers are of prime importance to chess admin. and I don't think we can be so dismissive of volunteer contributions.

Finally, if you think I am CV-oriented then that is a curiosity. In fact, my home club declined to vote me in as a delegate at the recent CV-AGM. I had to attend representing another Club. Hardly CV-centric enough according to the majority who voted me out of a delegate role. Yes, at Box Hill we value representation at the CV_AGM and we have a vote to see who gets to be a delegate.

starter

jammo
09-02-2004, 05:47 PM
My view is very very simple, I came here hoping MCC could work things out with CV.

Hello WBA,

Thanks for your latest contribution. It seems that everyone but you (Jammo, CG & Starter) are morons and not worth talking to.

You say you only came here hoping MCC could work things out with CV. Go back to your first post to me and tell me whether it is conciliatory, seeking solutions, etc. or whether it was confrontationist garbage.

Let me summarize your contributions as I see it.
You claim that there is some big problem between CV & MCC (feuds, etc) yet when invited to supply details you come up with nothing. You and FG7 keep throwing up rumours all of which are wrong.

You call for the resignation of GW, CG and Jammo from Chess Victoria. It is interesting in my case to ponder why you don't want me as CV Treasurer. I don't think that we have ever met; I doubt that you've read one of my Treasurer's reports or attended a meeting at which I gave a report, so it must be hard for you to decided whether or not I am a good Treasurer. Oh, but that's right, you don't care about whether or not I am doing a competent job. If you think I am anti-MCC (a claim I do not agree with) then I'm out. Oh, and of course I committed the unforgiveable sin of suggesting that the MCC should pay their bills to CV on time. Sorry about that.

If you choose to reply to this post perhaps you could enlighten us on your thoughts as to what qualities you seek in a CV (or MCC) executive member? I would be very interested for you to compare say FG7 and the CV Secretary (who you appear to support) with GW and CG who you do not.

Take the position of President for instance. I wonder what qualities you think are important in a President. Do you think FG7's particular qualities made him a suitable person to have been MCC President?

Finally, let me explain to you how silly your "feud" idea is when it comes to me.

OPTION 1 - I am feuding with an organisation i.e. "Jammo hates the MCC".
Jammo only came back onto the CV Executive a year ago and I haven't been on CV Executive for about 10 years before that, so if there is a CV v MCC feud I must have missed it. Ask yourself "If MCC Committee consisted of West, Cordover, Raine and Bekker would I be feuding with MCC"? Of course not! They are all my friends. I think the institution of MCC, being a chess club with a wonderful history, is a great thing. Unlike you however I don't see it as the centre of the chess universe.

OPTION 2 - I am feuding with the people running the MCC. I don't know Gatto; Tsag and I get on well; Pyke and I are OK and I barely know Beaumont.

So where is the basis for your feud so far as I am concerned?

Of course I cannot speak for GW. Maybe he has a feud, but I've seen no evidence of it.

Maybe you should just stop being paranoid; stop inventing rumours and just get on with it. As I've said before, so long as MCC pays its bills on time I don't have a problem with them.

-Jammo

WBA
10-02-2004, 12:31 AM
Why the hell am I bothering?

Jammo Said
You say you only came here hoping MCC could work things out with CV. Go back to your first post to me and tell me whether it is conciliatory, seeking solutions, etc. or whether it was confrontationist garbage.

WBA's confrontational garbage????

correct me if i am wrong but I think you are not totally grasping FG's comments. I believe Fg is suggesting that there are retired members of MCC who you may want to approach to stand on the VCA committee. These people (should you be able to entice them), would not be standing as MCC members, but as independants, as anyone on CV should be.

My no involvements policy is well explained, so I will not rant on about it again at the moment. I think you may find that MCC are very unlikely to send official felegates at the moment as has already been expressed, If the state of CV remains the same, you could reasonably confidently suggest MCC will maintain it;s stance, of Business dealings only, and no input into administration.


Now if you are going back to my very first post on this bulletin board and you are calling that confrontational, get serious. Go back to your post of January 7th, on the Firegoat's clowns thread and read the crap I was responding too. My response was to you attempting to sound so bloody superior, and to your completely unwarranted comments about the MCC.


If you cannot see the history behind the MCC-CV feuds them I am unsure where you have been, Do you honestly feel it is conicedental, that about 80% of the elder members I have spoke with throughout my years there hate CV/VCA? Maybe they consider them leeches? Maybe they disagree with the extra powers the president has granted himself throughout the years, maybe they completely disagree with the pathetic fee structure, and maybe they hate the CV executives (their reps), feel they have a right to bag their club in public. Maybe they hate that CV tried to pass a motion which would have effectively dissolved their club in the 80's, maybe their has been a lot on rumour and innuendo on top of this. Maybe they feel CV is incompetent, maybe the recent suspension has not helped either. Maybe they believe they are irresponsible and hold no regard for historical items. Their are a lot of maybe's and I am sure their are other reasons. You good friend Tsag has stated an unwavering hatred of the VCA/CV for as long as I have known him (in fact for many years I debated the CV side against him).

I do not consider Starter a moron, I just do not think we can advance the situation any further. ChessGuru is an antagonist I have not called him a moron on this board, though I disagree with his style of argument completely. Including the cheap shot at the club. I do not believe he should have voting rights on the CV committee, now again people should not interpret that he should not

a) Hold some non-voting post
b) Have a delegate of his organisation on the CV-Executive

Now let us throw you into the equation. The 1st post of yours I read was on January 7th 2004, in the Firegoats Clowns thread. In actual fact it was the very first post I had read on the BB. Hardly awe inspiring stuff. Now this was not however the first piece of literature from you I had read, as you have hardly been shy with an opinion throughout your time in chess. What you posted fitting perfectly with the picture I already had of you. I have acknowledged that you have achieved great things in chess, that legacy is completely undebatable, and is shown still at the club, and with the strength of so many of the stronger players that have been coached by you throughout the years. But having never spoke with you, I am judging you by what I have read and heard throughout the years, and this is where the problems lay. You have a history of dummy-spitting, of character assasination, of being judgemental etc. Now I have heard (admitedly 3rd hand) negative comments attributed to you for as long as I have been in Melbourne chess, both directed towards the MCC, and individuals in general, even before I came to Melbourne I had read commetns attributed to you which were hardly flattering. You see I do not see articles such as the rutherford article (used becaue it was the one that stuck out so much), nor your commetns about the MCC, as those of someone I am comfortable with holding an executive position on either a state or national committee. As you state you do not know me yet you commented that I was

a drong
a drunk
on the dole (but more I was a bludger on the dole)
that I am not in professional employment

The list continues.

I am not debating your ability to perform the admisnisrative tasks (in fact considering your qulas, I would be very disappointed if you were unable) I am completely arguiing against your ability to be a statesman and representative.

Now your options below

option 1 - So you are stating that you would not be calling the MCC a club full of drunken dole bludgers if your friends were running the club?? This is exactly what I am trying to say. If you are firends with the MCC and they suit your style, you are all sugar & spice, because it suits you

option 2 - When you thought I was a drunken dole-bludger did you not think I was Malcolm??? (or were you referring to another Malcolm???). So you do not know Beaumont, yet you have hardly been shy in painting a picture for the BB of him (refer to FG Clowns thread again).


As I've said before, so long as MCC pays its bills on time I don't have a problem with them.

I guess I have not made this clear enough. I could not give a stuff if you, CG and GW stay on the CV executive (I just do not think it is the best reulst for chess in this state), and I do not disagree that clubs need to pay their bills. I just consider that as long as the CV executive is run in the same inefficient manner that it currently is, and with the same core executive, that the MCC should continue to have minimum dealing with CV. You do your thing, and we will do ours. We do however expect that we will not see this same CV executive making negative (and false) comments about the MCC on this board.

Do you not see the irony in you saying you have no problem with the MCC, and yet you have not apologised for insinuating it was a club of drunken dole-bludgers??

If however you do want to mend fences (though I doubt the your role on CV could get in the way of your ego), then why not try starting with a

"I am sorry for my comments about the the drunken members etc, they were s both ill-informed, and inappropriate. I apologise for an offense taken by members of the MCC"

I mean no need for a word for word copy of the above, but you get my gist. Prove you are sincere by admitting your mistake. Otherwise come down next Monday, look around the place chat with you good friend Guy, and judge for yourself if we are the dimly lit, untidy facility you so readily claim.

If you cannot see that your comments potentially detract from our ability to attract members then something is wrong.

And again I find myself posting in a dead thread...... And I still do nto know why I bother.

Jammo do us both a favour, be a better man than me, and ignore this post, then I will have nothing to respond to and we can all be happy. We both know nothing is ever going to be achieved here, so why not let this subject die a natural death, MCC does its thing, CV does its thing, and leave it at that. It will mean I go to work considerably less tired as well!! :)

ursogr8
10-02-2004, 07:43 AM
Jammo Said


If you cannot see the history behind the MCC-CV feuds them I am unsure where you have been, Do you honestly feel it is coincidental, that about 80% of the elder members I have spoke with throughout my years there hate CV/VCA? Maybe they consider them leeches? Maybe they disagree with the extra powers the president has granted himself throughout the years, maybe they completely disagree with the pathetic fee structure, and maybe they hate the CV executives (their reps), feel they have a right to bag their club in public. Maybe they hate that CV tried to pass a motion which would have effectively dissolved their club in the 80's, maybe their has been a lot on rumour and innuendo on top of this. Maybe they feel CV is incompetent, maybe the recent suspension has not helped either. Maybe they believe they are irresponsible and hold no regard for historical items. Their are a lot of maybe's and I am sure their are other reasons. You good friend Tsag has stated an unwavering hatred of the VCA/CV for as long as I have known him (in fact for many years I debated the CV side against him).

WBA

Now you have done it.
Finally, after all my urging, a list of grievances.
Mate. That wasn’t so hard was it.

Now. How much did I know already?
Let me list what is new to my knowledge before NOV 2003
>MCC (some) hate VCA/CV.
>> the extra powers the president has granted himself throughout the years
>>> leeches, pathetic fee structure
>>>> hate CV EXECUTIVE
>>>>> bag Clubs in public
>>>>>> dissolution motion in 80’s
>>>>>>> CV incompetent
>>>>>>>> irresponsible on artefacts

Since Nov 2003 I have become aware of that the MCC was concerned with the ones bolded.
And the one I have italised may just be fallout from the retaliation of FG7's opening broadsides.

When I look at your list I have the impression that there is a way forward through all these issues. But you place a big ask; your call for the key members of the Executive to step down. Remember Paul Sike’s analysis; The biggest problem in chess = Getting volunteers.




I do not consider Starter a moron,

Thanks.

While you are in this frame of mind…
Am I one of the clowns?
Am I from a Mickey Mouse club?

Good; with that out of the way we can get onto the next chapter.


starter

Garvinator
10-02-2004, 10:15 AM
There is no suspension...
"2. MCC President and Treasurer GG and AT then meet with GW who is CV President to discuss the bills and come to an amicable arangement. CV President promised he would get back to us after he spoke with CV Treasurer about our grievances.?? a)Are MCC right to ensure that everything is now fine and there is no 60 day suspension period? b)Does CV now have to issue another account bill to reactivate 60 day suspension notice. "

I am a little confused here, so i think this question goes to Jammo.

One of the major sticking points has been the claim from WBA and fg7 that you announced MCC suspension on this bb. If what chessguru has quoted above is correct, there is no suspension required.

I do remember you saying that MCC has been suspended. Can you explain this differential please Jammo?

Garvinator
10-02-2004, 10:32 AM
I have a question now for WBA and fg7.

I keep hearing feuds/information/motions from the 80's.

I am wondering, how is this relevant 15 years, at least, in the future. the only way this could be relevant is if the same committee members that were there then are there now and are trying to still pass the same motions :eh:

I have offered MCC a way to resolve this impasse. Get to the CV AGM and get rid of the current CV committee. But that was unacceptable to the MCC posters on here. But I am interested, fg7, have you proposed to your fellow committee members that this could be a way past all this conflict? You dont have to agree with an idea to raise it at a committee meeting.

I have tried questioning, answering and debating, but nothing seems to make a difference.

I have kindly offered to meet all the ppl related in this issue in june. But only starter said that could be the way forward. No one else even bothered to reply to my offer. Which says to me that the CV members here and the mcc posters here are not wanting to resolve this conflict, they would rather see it continue than to stop it.

Now here are the two ways forward.

I have offered the meeting everyone involved option- but that has not been rushed at. So two further options.


OPTION 1:

If CV believes that their direction will be supported by the high majority of clubs, then:

Cv should call a special general meeting for all the affiliated clubs asap and make the meeting a think tank type deal where mcc can detail in person their issues with cv and allow the other clubs a chance to question both sides about their concerns. Also other clubs can bring up other points of concern if they have any.

Who knows, maybe each club is having similar concerns and then the CV committee can either address them at the meeting or get back to each club soon after the meeting. :clap:

If mcc declines to send anyone from their club to this meeting, then it is plain to see to all clubs that mcc does not want to resolve the conflicts.

OPTION 2

All members of cv and mcc resign their positions immediately and completely new ppl for both sides are elected. that should help to get rid of the ppl who are a cancer on the game if they are not willing to move on from the 80's.

Kevin Bonham
10-02-2004, 05:20 PM
OPTION 3

Both sides can go on slagging each other off and maintaining a tense and barely functional relationship for another 20 years. :eek:

I get the feeling MCC will be heavily outvoted on anything that comes to a vote and so the only way forward is whatever consensus can be found in the interests of all. A meeting with a neutral chairman would be a better solution if there is real will to resolve this (a big if) rather than just expecting MCC to go along to meetings where they are only going to get outvoted anyway. If there were other clubs with these concerns I'm sure they would have come out of the woodwork by now, sounds like the belief that the $5 is a ripoff is mainly an MCC concern and probably very much coloured by their past experiences.

As an aside I don't think quite a lot of the language used on either side of this argument helps, with Jammo belittling the MCC, which from all accounts is still a good chess club whatever numbers it may have lost over time, and the MCC folks in turn insisting that people who have done a lot for chess should simply resign over this issue. Like starter said, you can't just go having all your top admins resigning; chess can't afford those kind of losses (and anyway, even fresh blood wouldn't necessarily get rid of the tensions.)

Also, since Jammo (quite correctly) argues that only his performance in the role as CV Treasurer should be taken into account in determining whether he should keep that post, I would suggest that he extends the same latitude to firegoat. Just because firegoat got into a fight at the Doeberl, and likes to spout contemptibly uncivil and irrational hothead drivel on the Bulletin Board, does not mean he is incapable of being an excellent President for his club. :D Incidentally I was at the previous Aus Champs presentation Jammo mentioned earlier and didn't even notice any MCC officebearer was drunk, and in any case, after the late Paul Dozsa's eccentric prize acceptance speech I doubt I would have remembered it anyway. These comments may hopefully impress upon firegoat's suspicious cranium that I am not a Jammo sycophant.

Another question is what the ACF should do about this if the parties cannot resolve it themselves. Unless they both agree to refer it to ACF for mediation I would suggest that ACF leave it be. The alternative (ACF having no real direct power over CV) is to set up a structure where clubs pay ratings fees direct to ACF. My concern is that this would lead to more and more clubs dropping out of those state associations that have CV-like structures, in turn meaning that the state associations would not necessarily even represent the majority of the clubs or potentially interested players in their state. This might be solved by going to something like eclectic's club-based model, but that seems grossly impractical.

If anyone has any practical suggestions for what ACF should do about CV vs MCC let me know but it sounds a lot like an internal matter. That said, I'm now in a better position to take into account CV-MCC tensions when MCC-related issues come up in ACF business.

jammo
10-02-2004, 06:57 PM
As you state you do not know me yet you commented that I was

a drong
a drunk
on the dole (but more I was a bludger on the dole)
that I am not in professional employment



Hello Matt,

I read you last post with interest. It was obviously written with great passion.

Believe it or not I think we can come to an appreciation of each other's point of view. I am not going to insult you in this post. I am not writing in anger or passion. This is only a BB and a way for idle people to spend some time amusing themselves, so let's not get too serious.

I would like to try to explain to you where I am coming from. For the purpose of this exercise please try to clear your mind of what you have recently thought of me and my arguments, and let's start from scratch.

Firstly, let me say that If I have said WHAT YOU THINK I HAVE SAID, and if my motivation was AS YOU APPEAR TO UNDERSTAND IT (feuds, etc) then you are quite entitled to feel upset and attack me. (I think you have said far worse about me by the way, but that is not relevant to this discussion).

I'd like you to understand that I am not your usual sort of person. I like a debate, and consider myself to be very good at analysing pros and cons, but perhaps I am usually more careful with words than most people. If FG7 for instance wants to insult someone he calls them a "clown" or a "Nazi" when clearly they are not (i.e. he picks any old insulting word and uses it whether it is appropriate or not). I try choose my words more carefully and generally intend them to mean EXACTLY what they do mean. I have a lot of fun at meetings discussing by-laws etc. when someone discusses a by-law in terms of what they think it means or should mean, whereas I often have to pull them up and point out that the actual words say something slightly different.

DISCLAIMER
I can't be bothered going back to the original posts to quote text (things are getting very hard to find) so I will do my best to remember what people said correctly, but I may be slightly out.

Now let's look at what insults you think I have hurled you way.
1. A drongo.
What I actually said was that I thought FG7 was a dongo and that you were not far behind. A slight difference! If we can come to a rational understanding I am happy to revise my opinion of you.
2. A Drunk
Totally wrong. What I actually said was "If you stop calling me a liar I will agree not to call you a drunken dole bludger who cannot spell." In your anger you may not have noticed that I have never called you a drunk, (or a dole bludger) I merely sought to agree not to hurl FG7-like random insults your way.
3. Not a Professional.
I may have said "I don't see you as a professional" but this is hardly a huge insult, is it?

CONCLUSION
If I had actually said what you thought I said you are entitled to be upset, but what I actually said appears to me to be considerably less insulting. And of course we have to offset the above against "liar", "disgrace", etc. that have come my way.

Now let us examine some of my other statements.

I began by attacking FG7 in response to his "clowns" and "do we want Jammo back" comments. I wrote something like "at first I ignored your comments as I assumed that you were just one of those people smoking and drinking in front of the MCC whilst waiting for their next dole cheque."

First point. Am I attacking MCC or FG7? My intention was to attack FG7.

Second point. Do my words say that all MCC members are smoking, drinking, and on the dole? No they do not. Do they say "most" or "many"? Again no. If the MCC has two members who drink, smoke and are on the dole then my words are true. It only takes two to make "one of" correct. Now I don't know for certain, but I'd be surprised if MCC doesn't have two members who qualify. So in my mind I have not attacked or insulted the general MCC membership with the above comments. If your members believe that I have insulted them then I am sorry that my remarks have been interpreted in that way. FG7 was my target.

Now let us move on to membership figures.

If Jammo says, "MCC had 250-300 members" he may well be lying.

If Jammo says, "I can remember when MCC had 250-300 members" he may still be lying but more likely his memory is merely incorrect. I can confirm from personal knowledge of Jammo that is memory is not what it used to be.

Finally if Jammo says, "I can remember when MCC had AROUND 250-300 members" it is clear that he does not know the precise figure and is only relaying what he believes to be the approximate figures. Of course he could still be lying, but it is far less probable given the words used.

Now the MCC website says MCC used to have over 200 members and now has fewer than 100. Is that so different from what Jammo said? My intention was to say that MCC used to have considerably more members than it currently has (based on the information available to me). It appears that my figures may be slightly exaggerated, but the general comment is probably correct.

CONCLUSION
Obviously as our debate has progressed both sides have probably gotten a little carried away, but I would ask that you judge me on what I actually said, not what, in the heat of the moment, you thought I was saying.

Also my original and prime motivation has been to attack FG7 and his ridiculous remarks. I don't have a long-standing feud with MCC. In the past I had a feud with Wastell but I've learned to cope. It's your choice whether or not you believe me.




I am not debating your ability to perform the administrative tasks (in fact considering your qulas, I would be very disappointed if you were unable) I am completely arguing against your ability to be a statesman and representative.

Finally, I'd like to suggest to you that the Treasurer is not representing anyone, nor does he have to be a statesman. I'll leave that to the Prez. He has to be a good Treasurer. I would hope that CV would attempt to elect competent officers to each position. If you have some other criterion that influences your vote, then we'll have to agree to differ.

If you wish to discuss MCC v CV matters further it would be a good idea for you to imagine there was a totally new committee running CV and to tell me what things you think MCC would like CV to do. Perhaps that will help us to move forward.

Finally, if I can revert for a moment to my normal sarcastic self, I'll leave you with this thought in relation to your friendship with FG7.

"You may be close (not far behind!) to a drongo (FG7) but that does not mean that you have to be a drongo yourself." Please prove me right.

-Jammo

Kevin Bonham
10-02-2004, 07:06 PM
So perhaps when you guys have worked out whether WBA is a full drongo or merely close to a drongo you could relay the results to those of us on the other thread trying to work out if chesslover is a semi-goose. :p

ursogr8
10-02-2004, 09:56 PM
Hello Everyone,

I thought that you might be interested on a quick update following our CV meeting last night. We had an exciting meeting, with approx. 106 items on the agenda, which finished at 12.05am.

Now a little poll for you to try. Which items do you think took the most discussion time (please rank them 1 to 3).

A) The 2005 Aust. Open, Junior and Schools Finals at Mt.Buller.
B) The MCC v CV dispute.
C) Whether it is the job of the Secretary to record the minutes of the AGM.

Now, no peeking, the answers are below.

ANSWERS
The order of time spent (highest to lowest) was c, a, b. In fact "b" might have been left of the agenda altogether - no doubt an oversight of the President.

See, I told you there was no dispute!

-Jammo
hi Jammo

No dispute with MCC, but is one looming with BHCC?

I would have thought your (CV_Executive) priority would be to address an event coming up in June 2004, for which you have a new manager. That is the 2004 Victorian OPEN.
We had an item for discussion which I believe would be easy to decide given the precedents in the previous two Masters.
As I understand it, there was no decision made by the CV Executive. We need the answer, and naturally we would like the decision to follow the previous rulings.
The date of your next meeting is not known to me but is probably going to give us a problem with our financial planning. Would it be possible to arrange a vote on this item by e-mail please.

We would like to avoid having to debate this item as late as the next CV_AGM.

starter

jammo
10-02-2004, 10:03 PM
hi Jammo

No dispute with MCC, but is one looming with BHCC?

I would have thought your (CV_Executive) priority would be to address an event coming up in June 2004, for which you have a new manager. That is the 2004 Victorian OPEN.
We had an item for discussion which I believe would be easy to decide given the precedents in the previous two Masters.
As I understand it, there was no decision made by the CV Executive. We need the answer, and naturally we would like the decision to follow the previous rulings.
The date of your next meeting is not known to me but is probably going to give us a problem with our financial planning. Would it be possible to arrange a vote on this item by e-mail please.

We would like to avoid having to debate this item as late as the next CV_AGM.

starter

Dear Starter,

I'm busy checking out the meaning of semi-goose. Maybe you should contact CV Secretary (that's a joke by the way) or Prez.

Cheers,
-Jammo

PHAT
10-02-2004, 10:06 PM
I am not WBA Matt. I just had to say that, OK. :D

Garvinator
10-02-2004, 10:13 PM
I am not WBA Matt. I just had to say that, OK. :D
can you prove this :p :eek: ;)

ursogr8
11-02-2004, 06:57 AM
can you prove this :p :eek: ;)

is this trolling?
.
.
.
.
.
New metric and counting = 848-710 = 138

ursogr8
11-02-2004, 07:09 AM
Dear Starter,

I'm busy checking out the meaning of semi-goose. Maybe you should contact CV Secretary (that's a joke by the way) or Prez.

Cheers,
-Jammo

Well jammo

I could have a gander at those two 'gooses' (joke only), but you are in charge of the golden eggs.
So what would be superior?
A) I use the BB to ask questions that become increasingly specific,
or
B) You guys do what you should have done the other night and vote (now by e-mail).

I will hold off until 6.30 Friday night to see if GW shows at our Club for a planning meeting.

CG, I think you have an interest in voting too.

starter

ursogr8
11-02-2004, 08:53 AM
Dear chessplayers,



Now I think I will rip into Starter for his lame responses. Starter you claim you are interested in finding out once and for all what the problem is with CV and MCC. Instead like a number of people here you ask no questions of CV. You blindly accept almost everything they say without ever attempting to place them on the spot. All I see from you is constant defence of CV positions followed by a spat with WBA. How about this for an :idea:

You pick up on any question that you find interesting in my last post and ask CG or jammo for their interpretation of the question. Regards FG7

fg7

You asked that I ask a few questions of jammo on your behalf. I ducked by suggesting you ask. In the mean-time, see post #152 on this thread, I think jammo has up-staged the issue and posted Reconciliation?
I think this particular challenge is over?

starter

jammo
11-02-2004, 09:21 PM
Well jammo

I could have a gander at those two 'gooses' (joke only), but you are in charge of the golden eggs.
So what would be superior?
A) I use the BB to ask questions that become increasingly specific,
or
B) You guys do what you should have done the other night and vote (now by e-mail).

I will hold off until 6.30 Friday night to see if GW shows at our Club for a planning meeting.

CG, I think you have an interest in voting too.

starter

Hello Starter,

You seem to know a lot about the recent CV meeting. Do you have a copy of the minutes already? If so keep them. CV minutes are a collectors item these days.

Now, some tricky questions for you.

1. How do you know we didn't vote? We may have voted but not reached a resolution!
2. If CV gives money to one tournament does that mean it has to give money to all tournaments?
3. If CV gives money to support a tournament which would not be held without CV's financial support does that mean that CV should give money to a tournament that normally runs at a profit?
4. If a CV tournament is budgetting for a profit of $X should CV give it a grant of $500 so that the tournament makes $X + $500 profit?
5. Do you think the CV Executive should be expanded to an uneven number so that votes are not tied?

Best Wishes,
-Jammo

PHAT
11-02-2004, 10:00 PM
How about, "The the price of goods/services minus the true labour value needed to produce them equils profit. ie Profit is money stolen from the workers by under paying them."

ursogr8
12-02-2004, 07:09 AM
Hello Starter,

You seem to know a lot about the recent CV meeting. Do you have a copy of the minutes already? If so keep them. CV minutes are a collectors item these days.

Now, some tricky questions for you.

1. How do you know we didn't vote? We may have voted but not reached a resolution!
2. If CV gives money to one tournament does that mean it has to give money to all tournaments?
3. If CV gives money to support a tournament which would not be held without CV's financial support does that mean that CV should give money to a tournament that normally runs at a profit?
4. If a CV tournament is budgetting for a profit of $X should CV give it a grant of $500 so that the tournament makes $X + $500 profit?
5. Do you think the CV Executive should be expanded to an uneven number so that votes are not tied?

Best Wishes,
-Jammo

Jammo
No wonder your meetings go after midnight if you have got to ask for help in setting basic policy parameters for your Executive. If I wanted to be sorting out these easy questions you ask I would have stood for CV Committee. You seem to be diversionary.

Now as to the questions. They are full of implications that my original contention 'that you failed to decide as an Executive' is incorrect. I am not certain if there was a vote; flick back to my posts and you will see 'decision' used not 'vote'.... I know you like accuracy. I don't care why the Executive stalled on such a simple issue given that you had two precedents. BHCC just asks that the Executive do its job and vote, and hopefully in favour of our proposal.

I will be back if GW does not have answers 6.30 Friday.

starter

ursogr8
12-02-2004, 07:42 AM
How about, "The the price of goods/services minus the true labour value needed to produce them equils profit. ie Profit is money stolen from the workers by under paying them."

How about if you really want to debate the effects of profits on community behaviour then you start a thread.

ursogr8
12-02-2004, 10:19 AM
Now I think I will rip into Starter for his lame responses. Starter you claim you are interested in finding out once and for all what the problem is with CV and MCC. Instead like a number of people here you ask no questions of CV. You blindly accept almost everything they say without ever attempting to place them on the spot. All I see from you is constant defence of CV positions followed by a spat with WBA.
Regards FG7

fg7
I invite you to re-read post #110 on the VIC Nazis thread to see where I have not taken CV at face value.
In fact, this was followed by a change in the amount invoiced to your Club.
starter

ursogr8
12-02-2004, 11:04 AM
I hope and when speaking with my committee will represent to them that we continue to abandon all CV AGM's, and preferably that we abandon interclub, and do not bid for any CV events.



WBA

I have thought of one good reason for the MCC to continue nominating teams to play in INTERCLUB.

MCC members that feel they are relatively under-rated at the moment could cash-in and gain some rating points from other Clubs (who must consequently be over-rated relatively) via MCC presenting a few more teams in the 2004 INTERCLUB West or East zones.
Interclub does represent a great opportunity for our chess communities to mingle and reduce tensions, and in the MCC case, with relatively low ratings, it does represent a chance drag a few rating points into your MCC pool.

regards
starter

jammo
12-02-2004, 02:59 PM
Jammo
No wonder your meetings go after midnight if you have got to ask for help in setting basic policy parameters for your Executive. If I wanted to be sorting out these easy questions you ask I would have stood for CV Committee. You seem to be diversionary.

Dear Starter,

I know my policy parameters. What I am trying to find out is what reasoning there is behind your request. Unfortunately you have not answered any of my questions so I am still none the wiser as to the theoretical basis behind your request. I know if I were seeking to have a proposal passed I would make those who vote aware of my arguments, but it's up to you.



Now as to the questions. They are full of implications that my original contention 'that you failed to decide as an Executive' is incorrect. I am not certain if there was a vote; flick back to my posts and you will see 'decision' used not 'vote'.... I know you like accuracy.

Yes I do like accuracy. Who wrote the following words?
"B) You guys do what you should have done the other night and vote (now by e-mail)."
So it seems to me you said we did not vote.



I don't care why the Executive stalled on such a simple issue given that you had two precedents. BHCC just asks that the Executive do its job and vote, and hopefully in favour of our proposal.

Please refresh my memory as to the precedents. Did CV give some money to the Vic Open last year?



I will be back if GW does not have answers 6.30 Friday.

starter

Well Starter, at least you are barking up the right tree now. Me thinks it is up to a meeting chairman to ensure that motions are passed and deadlocks are resolved and urgent issues are decided on time. If the chair has failed to do that then he should wear the consequences.

Cheers,
-Jammo

ursogr8
12-02-2004, 07:41 PM
Dear Starter,

I know my policy parameters. What I am trying to find out is what reasoning there is behind your request. Unfortunately you have not answered any of my questions so I am still none the wiser as to the theoretical basis behind your request. I know if I were seeking to have a proposal passed I would make those who vote aware of my arguments, but it's up to you.


jammo

I surely do appreciate this opportunity to discuss with one of the bigwigs in public. This can only lead to health and transparency. I feel confident that ego and abuse are left parked at the door.


Ok. If address your questions I must, to get a straight answer instead of another diversionary question, then I will
1. How do you know we didn't vote? We may have voted but not reached a resolution! I have already said I don’t know.
2. If CV gives money to one tournament does that mean it has to give money to all tournaments? No.
3. If CV gives money to support a tournament which would not be held without CV's financial support does that mean that CV should give money to a tournament that normally runs at a profit? No, if you imply ‘necessarily’ to be in front of ‘give’.
4. If a CV tournament is budgetting for a profit of $X should CV give it a grant of $500 so that the tournament makes $X + $500 profit? No, if you imply ‘necessarily’ to be in front of ‘give’.
5. Do you think the CV Executive should be expanded to an uneven number so that votes are not tied? No.






Yes I do like accuracy. Who wrote the following words?
"B) You guys do what you should have done the other night and vote (now by e-mail)."
So it seems to me you said we did not vote.



Read the words accurately jammo. In the hypothetical situation that your meeting tied on the vote then my sentence is simply saying can you please vote again.
Just because the words ‘do what you should have done’ would normally be used in the context that something (the vote in this instance) wasn’t done first time, it is not the actual meaning of the words. It can be read as ‘repeat what you did first time’.
I maintain I was accurate and that should please you in the same way as you can appreciate some-one else’s good chess move.




Please refresh my memory as to the precedents. Did CV give some money to the Vic Open last year?



The accounts that I have from the CV AGM show two amounts as tournament expenses: 1) Tournament sponsorship, and 2) Director’s honararium. We are not trying to double-dip. Choose one accounting description, pass the motion, and send the cheque.
The accounts don’t show if this was for the VIC OPEN.





Well Starter, at least you are barking up the right tree now. Me thinks it is up to a meeting chairman to ensure that motions are passed and deadlocks are resolved and urgent issues are decided on time. If the chair has failed to do that then he should wear the consequences.

Cheers,
-Jammo



OK. Will do
kindest regards
starter

jammo
12-02-2004, 10:00 PM
jammo

5. Do you think the CV Executive should be expanded to an uneven number so that votes are not tied? No.

Disappointed with this response starter. In a previous post didn't you support an expanded CV Executive? Maybe you want it expanded to an even number.



Read the words accurately jammo. In the hypothetical situation that your meeting tied on the vote then my sentence is simply saying can you please vote again.
Just because the words ‘do what you should have done’ would normally be used in the context that something (the vote in this instance) wasn’t done first time, it is not the actual meaning of the words. It can be read as ‘repeat what you did first time’.
I maintain I was accurate and that should please you in the same way as you can appreciate some-one else’s good chess move.

Sorry starter, but I don't read it that way.

I wonder, do you want us to vote again or do you want us to pass a motion?
We could do a lot of voting but still be tied.




The accounts that I have from the CV AGM show two amounts as tournament expenses: 1) Tournament sponsorship, and 2) Director’s honararium. We are not trying to double-dip. Choose one accounting description, pass the motion, and send the cheque.
The accounts don’t show if this was for the VIC OPEN.

Then the question remains, why should we send you a cheque for the Vic Open? You have no evidence that we subsidized last year's Vic Open and have supplied no argument in favour of a payment other than the claim of a "precedent" which I am suggesting is not a precedent.

Perhaps instead of asking for a cheque and threatening a dispute with CV if you don't get it you should take up my offer to provide arguments in support of a payment. I'm struggling to think of any arguments in support so I'd welcome your help in this area. It would be great if CV had lots of money to splash around but I'm struggling to convince the Exec to make economies in certain areas and so (as Treasurer) I'd be a goose if I gave away too many golden eggs at the moment.

Best Wishes,
Jammo

firegoat7
12-02-2004, 11:15 PM
Starter wrote:
I have thought of one good reason for the MCC to continue nominating teams to play in INTERCLUB.

MCC members that feel they are relatively under-rated at the moment could cash-in and gain some rating points from other Clubs (who must consequently be over-rated relatively) via MCC presenting a few more teams in the 2004 INTERCLUB West or East zones.
Interclub does represent a great opportunity for our chess communities to mingle and reduce tensions, and in the MCC case, with relatively low ratings, it does represent a chance drag a few rating points into your MCC pool.

This presumes MCC members think they are underated. I see no reason why MCC players would think that. AP might have suggested this, but hey he is a member of both clubs. Furthermore he also called your club a 'mickey mouse' club. A view that would not be shared by myself and most other MCC players.

MCC is not allowed to enter "A" grade teams in the interclub western zone. This is why our teams get seperated into different zones. Our players do not like this but what can you do against CV policy.

Furthermore eastern zones and western zones are always played at the same venues. There is some magical formula where CV decides who gets what, MCC has been unable to win these rights in the last few years.

But just for the record starter we will not be encouraging any teams to enter interclub this year, under the MCC banner. Not after the fiasco of being disaffiliated for a dubious accountancy procedure.

Not that it is even needed. We organised two unrated matches last year, one with Geelong and one with Serbia. We travelled with eight players to both venues and intend to do the same this year. Geelong put on a lovely feed and really made us feel welcome, thanks to Bill Stokie and Oleg Grygorian for helping us to organise this.
The Serbian match was even better, free alcohol, lots of slivonitz. Mirko Rujevic and the players at Serbia chess club really welcomed us with open arms. Mirko was heard lamenting "Next time,every one gets free slivonitz except you Beranjia, we gave you five and you smashed your opponent of the board". It was a fun night.

Regards FG7

ursogr8
13-02-2004, 07:11 AM
Disappointed with this response starter. In a previous post didn't you support an expanded CV Executive? Maybe you want it expanded to an even number.


Mr jammo

Maybe this is why you are such a good chess player; diverting all challenges to all parts of the board and beyond.

All BHCC wanted was a Management Fee for running a CV event, but somehow I am being asked my view of the reform of the CV Executive because we can only presume you had a tied vote or a tied straw poll or something (the minutes are not out yet, but my lights are nearly). Err, ever heard of a casting vote GW?

Maybe I did support an expanded Executive in response to some other posters debating point, but it is unlikely since I know how hard it is to fill the current number in the past 18 years.



I wonder, do you want us to vote again or do you want us to pass a motion?
We could do a lot of voting but still be tied.



How you do authorise it jammo is up to you experts in meeting procedure. We would just like the cheque to recognise we are running/managing one of your tournaments you put out to tender.




Then the question remains, why should we send you a cheque for the Vic Open? You have no evidence that we subsidized last year's Vic Open and have supplied no argument in favour of a payment other than the claim of a "precedent" which I am suggesting is not a precedent.


If you rule that the previous Director’s Hon. and the Tournament sponsorship fees paid for other events is not a ‘precedent’, for recognising your events run on your behalf by third parties, then we are obviously not on the same wavelength. You will be left holding the money in your coffers, and we will be left standing on the moral high ground.




Perhaps instead of asking for a cheque and threatening a dispute with CV if you don't get it you should take up my offer to provide arguments in support of a payment. I'm struggling to think of any arguments in support so I'd welcome your help in this area. It would be great if CV had lots of money to splash around but I'm struggling to convince the Exec to make economies in certain areas and so (as Treasurer) I'd be a goose if I gave away too many golden eggs at the moment.

Best Wishes,
Jammo


Well, ‘dispute’ is a bit strongish. I would have preferred you said ‘extended debate’.

One last try for a reason >> (and there is no logic in this because logic has not worked so far). >>>>> Your cheque will enable us to change the entry fee structure and we will as a consequence start to plan and accomplish a 25% increase in the field size from the current cap that we plan to operate.

Yes, I am oddly aware of CV finances and can appreciate the difficulties that you would have in freeing up the requested amount. Of course given my position you can appreciate that I cannot advise you how to do this particular part of your job.


with the warmest of respect and fond regards
starter

ursogr8
13-02-2004, 07:18 AM
Starter wrote:

This presumes MCC members think they are underated. I see no reason why MCC players would think that. AP might have suggested this, but hey he is a member of both clubs. Furthermore he also called your club a 'mickey mouse' club. A view that would not be shared by myself and most other MCC players.

MCC is not allowed to enter "A" grade teams in the interclub western zone. This is why our teams get seperated into different zones. Our players do not like this but what can you do against CV policy.

Furthermore eastern zones and western zones are always played at the same venues. There is some magical formula where CV decides who gets what, MCC has been unable to win these rights in the last few years.

But just for the record starter we will not be encouraging any teams to enter interclub this year, under the MCC banner. Not after the fiasco of being disaffiliated for a dubious accountancy procedure.

Not that it is even needed. We organised two unrated matches last year, one with Geelong and one with Serbia. We travelled with eight players to both venues and intend to do the same this year. Geelong put on a lovely feed and really made us feel welcome, thanks to Bill Stokie and Oleg Grygorian for helping us to organise this.
The Serbian match was even better, free alcohol, lots of slivonitz. Mirko Rujevic and the players at Serbia chess club really welcomed us with open arms. Mirko was heard lamenting "Next time,every one gets free slivonitz except you Beranjia, we gave you five and you smashed your opponent of the board". It was a fun night.

Regards FG7

Thanks for the response fg7.

OK, so AP doesn't speak for the whole Club (MCC that is) and you don't feel under-rated. Actually this is a goodness that Bill, for one, will be glad to hear.

We cannot compete with free liquor. All we offer is competitive games.

Of course there is no longer any need for you to play un-rated games on these expeditions to other venues. The change at the previous CV AGM gave an avenue to get these games rated.



regards
starter

ps Could you make it known to your 81 members (who play rated games) that even though their (MCC Committee) is arranging events alternative to Interclub that those members are still welcome at Western and Eastern INTERCLUB and that teams made-up under a 'flag-of-convenience arrangement' can be constructed to allow participation? This arrangement has operated well for quite a few non-affiliated groups in previous years. E.g. Monash Uni.
tks

jammo
13-02-2004, 06:07 PM
Maybe this is why you are such a good chess player; diverting all challenges to all parts of the board and beyond.

All BHCC wanted was a Management Fee for running a CV event, but somehow I am being asked my view of the reform of the CV Executive because we can only presume you had a tied vote or a tied straw poll or something (the minutes are not out yet, but my lights are nearly). Err, ever heard of a casting vote GW?

Maybe I did support an expanded Executive in response to some other posters debating point, but it is unlikely since I know how hard it is to fill the current number in the past 18 years.


Hi Starter,

I hope things went well with GW tonight.

I was not attempting to employ a diversionary tactic. When I see a problem I try to find a solution. You appear to think it is a problem that no motion was passed by CV at its last meeting. I was seeking your view on a way of overcoming this in the future.

I note you have now changed your tactic and asked for a "management fee". I am not aware that it was described as such in your club's proposal nor am I aware of CV paying a management fee for someone to run other CV events. I think the Vic Open can be run at a good profit by a competent organiser (which BH definately is) so why do you need more?




Well, ‘dispute’ is a bit strongish. I would have preferred you said ‘extended debate’.

I agree! However "dispute is your word not mine. Please refer to your original post to me "No dispute with MCC, but is one looming with BHCC?"



One last try for a reason >> (and there is no logic in this because logic has not worked so far). >>>>> Your cheque will enable us to change the entry fee structure and we will as a consequence start to plan and accomplish a 25% increase in the field size from the current cap that we plan to operate.

My understanding of economics is that you should set an entry fee which maximizes your income. If you think lowering the entry fee will increase entries and give you a net increase in entry fees please do it. As to "logic has not worked so far", they are nice sounding words but I must have missed the logical bit you refer to. What I see looks more like a demand for money. If there is a logical reason why CV should give you $500 (not budgeted for) from its reserves I'm sure that the logical chaps at CV will agree.


with the warmest of respect and fond regards to you too!

-Jammo

firegoat7
13-02-2004, 06:19 PM
Starter wrote:
ps Could you make it known to your 81 members (who play rated games) that even though their (MCC Committee) is arranging events alternative to Interclub that those members are still welcome at Western and Eastern INTERCLUB and that teams made-up under a 'flag-of-convenience arrangement' can be constructed to allow participation? This arrangement has operated well for quite a few non-affiliated groups in previous years. E.g. Monash Uni.

Before I fly of the handle here. I would like to clarify a few points, thus giving you the benefit of the doubt here, Starter.

I presume you are not suggesting that MCC is disaffiliated. In fact I'm reasonably sure that is not what you are saying. I at least hope it is!

Secondly, I personally wont be making any such thing known to our members until CV clarifies its billing procedure for clubs. Because we do not want a repeat of last years billing fiasco. As you are undoubtly aware Starter a clubs first team is charged $100 with the second and subsequent teams $50. It would obviously make more sense for a club to enter teams collectively thus sharing the burden of the cost fairly. Until CV gives us guarantees about the structures and changes its billing arangements to allow for proper review of incorrect billing procedures, I personally will recomend that our club does not enter any interclub teams this year.

Furthermore, I presume interclub is again only being played at two venues thus reducing the whole tournament structure to a club event. If you seriously think that this is anything more then a round robin club tournament then you should think again..

If Box Hill and Hobsons bay want other clubs to compete then their has to be some give and take. Games should be played at all venues much like a home and away season of football. Then and only then would interclub be able to regain its place as a premium team event that installs club pride. Instead of the in house round robin tournament that it has become.

By the way it is an interesting fact you point out for our interstate bulletin board members. Notice how players can form a team and play in Interclub despite not actually representing a club in any official way. I.E you can call your club any old name like "jammos canaries" and they get to play in Interclub. This is despite the fact that these teams are not clubs? Is it just me or does this sort of thing go against the spirit of interclub? I mean why call it Interclub you may aswell call it -Interwhatever!

regards FG7

firegoat7
13-02-2004, 06:27 PM
Dear Starter,


By the way I actually agree with Jammos point. Why should CV susidise Box Hill chess club $500 to run the Vic Open?

But then again you could always insist that since it is a CV tournament you insist that the tournament uses CV Chessclocks and arbiters instead of your own clubs resources. Thus ensuring that CV meets its obligations to provide all clubs with the necessary equipment to run its (CVs) events.

Food for thought.

After all why should Box Hill damage its own chess equipment whilst running a CV event? ;)

Regards FG7

firegoat7
13-02-2004, 06:35 PM
Dear chessplayers,

Rumors abound that Chessguru was seen at MCC and intends to visit again next Monday night. One can only guess what his intention of such a visit is?
It should be noted for the record that he is not a member of MCC and does not contribute financially to the orgainsation in any way. One can only Speckulate why he even finds it necesary to visit the club, since he plays no chess there and hasn't even bothered to offer the bulletin board what he thought of MCC. Could it be that his opinions about MCC were outdated and misinformed?

P.S Just for the record their is a historical rumour that Bobby Fischer once visited the club in the 80's- Could be an urban myth much like chessgurus visits.

Cheers FG7

Rincewind
13-02-2004, 06:43 PM
.S Just for the record their is a historical rumour that Bobby Fischer once visited the club in the 80's- Could be an urban myth much like chessgurus visits.

I'd like to see photographic evidence of that. :eek:

ursogr8
13-02-2004, 11:16 PM
Hi Starter,

I hope things went well with GW tonight.


Salutations Jammo

We focussed on tournament details for the VIC OPEN, but not the financials. So no progress on my claim.




I was not attempting to employ a diversionary tactic. When I see a problem I try to find a solution. You appear to think it is a problem that no motion was passed by CV at its last meeting.


Yes, CV’s lack of an announced (there is that word again) decision is making our financial planning to a degree difficult


I was seeking your view on a way of overcoming this in the future.



And right charitable you have been Jammo…..with words and questions and homework for me.




I note you have now changed your tactic and asked for a "management fee".



Yes, I have changed tactic because you keep asking for a rationale for the CV support and I am working my way through the Thesaurus. Is ‘management fee’ likely to be the magic words?


I am not aware that it was described as such in your club's proposal nor am I aware of CV paying a management fee for someone to run other CV events. I think the Vic Open can be run at a good profit by a competent organiser (which BH definately is) so why do you need more?


Finally a question I can answer, but first I am going to respond to fg7’s posts.





I agree! However "dispute is your word not mine. Please refer to your original post to me "No dispute with MCC, but is one looming with BHCC?"



oops, that cost me a few rating points.




My understanding of economics is that you should set an entry fee which maximizes your income. If you think lowering the entry fee will increase entries and give you a net increase in entry fees please do it. As to "logic has not worked so far", they are nice sounding words but I must have missed the logical bit you refer to. What I see looks more like a demand for money. If there is a logical reason why CV should give you $500 (not budgeted for) from its reserves I'm sure that the logical chaps at CV will agree.


with the warmest of respect and fond regards to you too!

-Jammo


Jammo, you seem to have all my pieces pinned, lacking mobility, can’t castle. All that I am missing is the cheque. Will be pleased when you send.


I have more arguments to put.

In sincere appreciation of you engagement and input.

starter

ps
I think it is 'definitely'; I know you like accuracy.

ursogr8
13-02-2004, 11:31 PM
Dear Starter,


By the way I actually agree with Jammos point. Why should CV susidise Box Hill chess club $500 to run the Vic Open?

But then again you could always insist that since it is a CV tournament you insist that the tournament uses CV Chessclocks and arbiters instead of your own clubs resources. Thus ensuring that CV meets its obligations to provide all clubs with the necessary equipment to run its (CVs) events.

Food for thought.

After all why should Box Hill damage its own chess equipment whilst running a CV event? ;)

Regards FG7

fg7
How are you.

I can’t answer your question on why we should get a subsidy until I find another set of words to replace subsidy; because ‘subsidy ‘ is clearly not convincing the CV EXECUTIVE. When I find the magic words it will all become clear.

Thank you for your ‘food for thought’ attempt to call the money …<clock damage recompense>. But they are hard nuts to crack at CV, and I don’t think the clock angle will work. (Late edit the next day; fg7, I have re-read your very interesting post and I see I overlooked your wonderful suggestion to suggest CV pay for the arbiters for THEIR event. Now this is an excellent idea. Owe you one.)
Look, I will sleep on it and have another go tomorrow.
Just to summarise
A) CV run an event like the VIC CHAMPS for select players and lose heaps. And pay no tax.
B) BHCC runs one of our events like the Box Hill OPEN, makes a small profit, and pays $500in TAX (actually called a rating fee, but the CV blokes are much better at word games than me).
C) CV has one of THEIR events that the want us to manage and run, called the VIC OPEN. Now, they (CV) don’t want to run the event because…….see A). You would think that having found us to run the event and avoid a BIG loss for them that they would indulge a little GIVE-BACK (hey, there is a word I have not tried on JAMMO; give-back, I like it). Any how, they (CV) say no; they like holding onto the money rather than increase prize-money or reduce entry fees. So that is it basically. Oh, and you guessed the sting in the tail fg7; yes, they (CV) will TAX us for running THEIR event.

Perhaps it will be clearer to me in the morning.

starter

ursogr8
13-02-2004, 11:45 PM
Starter wrote:

Before I fly of the handle here. I would like to clarify a few points, thus giving you the benefit of the doubt here, Starter.

I presume you are not suggesting that MCC is disaffiliated. In fact I'm reasonably sure that is not what you are saying. I at least hope it is!


Rest easy fg7, I am not buying into you affiliation status. You used the word in your post #170 on this thread. Not me.
I was taking about players from other Clubs.




Secondly, I personally wont be making any such thing known to our members until CV clarifies its billing procedure for clubs. Because we do not want a repeat of last years billing fiasco. As you are undoubtly aware Starter a clubs first team is charged $100 with the second and subsequent teams $50. It would obviously make more sense for a club to enter teams collectively thus sharing the burden of the cost fairly. Until CV gives us guarantees about the structures and changes its billing arangements to allow for proper review of incorrect billing procedures, I personally will recomend that our club does not enter any interclub teams this year.


Your choice of course.



Furthermore, I presume interclub is again only being played at two venues thus reducing the whole tournament structure to a club event. If you seriously think that this is anything more then a round robin club tournament then you should think again.



A little harsh in your judgement on this one. We get entries from Dandenong, Mentone, New Life, Monash, Whitehorse and Chess Ideas, and Melbourne (once). But yes, Box Hill does have a lot of teams; so I see your point.




If Box Hill and Hobsons bay want other clubs to compete then their has to be some give and take. Games should be played at all venues much like a home and away season of football. Then and only then would interclub be able to regain its place as a premium team event that installs club pride. Instead of the in house round robin tournament that it has become.



What you describe would be a terrific model fg7.





By the way it is an interesting fact you point out for our interstate bulletin board members. Notice how players can form a team and play in Interclub despite not actually representing a club in any official way. I.E you can call your club any old name like "jammos canaries" and they get to play in Interclub. This is despite the fact that these teams are not clubs? Is it just me or does this sort of thing go against the spirit of interclub? I mean why call it Interclub you may aswell call it -Interwhatever!

regards FG7



You know, you have got a good point there. It is not exactly ‘pure’ INTERCLUB is it.
Interwhatever………now that is good. You have a way with words. Bit like your
UAINTNOCHESSGURUTOME. I liked that one also. But 'jammo's canaries'; I am not so sure about; I am debating with him hoping ego and abuse are parked at the front door; 'canaries' is like a small, but growing, goose...and we don't want to return there.

Anhow, I digress. Probably because I didn't understand your point. What is it about 140 enthusiastic entrants playing competititive team chess in a large Hall that you don't like?

It is a bit hard to have purity of purpose when there are 140 players in the one Hall at the one time.

Appreciate your input and we can learn from you.

starter

jammo
14-02-2004, 10:11 AM
Salutations Jammo

Jammo, you seem to have all my pieces pinned, lacking mobility, can’t castle. All that I am missing is the cheque. Will be pleased when you send.


I have more arguments to put.

In sincere appreciation of you engagement and input.

starter

ps
I think it is 'definitely'; I know you like accuracy.

Hi Starter,

Not sure why I should resign and give you a cheque when I think I have you in CHEQUEMATE!

Thanks for the spelling correction. If you are going to correct my spelling and typing boobs you have a big job ahead of you. Would you like me to correct yours?

You said "CV has one of THEIR events that they want us to manage and run" to FG7. Now, did we force the event upon you or did you beg us to run it?? Not sure. If you don't want it just give it back. MCC used to run Vic Open (at a huge profit) maybe they would like it back?

Alternatively, if you are dying for a subsidy maybe we can give you the 2005 Vic Masters and CW will run the 2005 Vic Open. I think that would please CG.

By the way, just between you and me, I think I might have said a rude word in this thread which has killed off all debate on a certain topic. Yes, the "R" word. Interesting isn't it.

Must go now, tennis awaits.

Cheers,
-Jammo

ursogr8
14-02-2004, 07:23 PM
Hi Starter,

Not sure why I should resign and give you a cheque when I think I have you in CHEQUEMATE!

Nice touche.




Thanks for the spelling correction. If you are going to correct my spelling and typing boobs you have a big job ahead of you. Would you like me to correct yours?

No. Don’t correct mine. I don’t have a professed inclination for accuracy.




You said "CV has one of THEIR events that they want us to manage and run" to FG7. Now, did we force the event upon you or did you beg us to run it?? Not sure.


I knew it would come to this.
I just knew it would come to this.
I knew it.

You have played the highest card in the pack: the GW card. ‘The forms have not been filled in correctly/completely’ card.

Forget about the ‘R’ word being a thread stopper. The GW forms card beats all. What an alliance you two have formed.




By the way, just between you and me, I think I might have said a rude word in this thread which has killed off all debate on a certain topic. Yes, the "R" word. Interesting isn't it.

Must go now, tennis awaits.

Cheers,
-Jammo


OK, jammo. In my view we have established that your criteria for allocating funds is to those tournaments that are suffering the biggest losses. Whereas we were arguing that equity, support of successful fledgling ventures, and a holiday for year 1 TAXATION, were reasonable criteria.

But it seems you will not be moved. Nevertheless, your position has weakened because for the next round I will now know the rules. Secondly, I have fg7 on my side advising me.

jammo-starter 1-0

And next time I have the white pieces.

With luke-warm regards
starter

jammo
14-02-2004, 08:27 PM
Nice touche.

Nevertheless, your position has weakened because for the next round I will now know the rules. Secondly, I have fg7 on my side advising me.

jammo-starter 1-0

And next time I have the white pieces.

With luke-warm regards
starter

Hi Starter,

Thanks for the game. I enjoyed it more than some of my other recent games. My ego has of course grown even bigger as I did not have to play the abuse card.

I am happy to play the next game on your home ground. Have been thinking of visiting for some time. May even play if you have an event where old people don't lose too many rating points.

As to our next game, I think you should choose your seconds more carefully and ...... of course ...... beware the Pelikan!

-Jammo

ursogr8
15-02-2004, 07:49 AM
Hi Starter,

Thanks for the game. I enjoyed it more than some of my other recent games. My ego has of course grown even bigger as I did not have to play the abuse card.

I am happy to play the next game on your home ground. Have been thinking of visiting for some time. May even play if you have an event where old people don't lose too many rating points.

As to our next game, I think you should choose your seconds more carefully and ...... of course ...... beware the Pelikan!

-Jammo


My dear most retired Jammo,

Some options for you to consider would be the
> next event is the Box Hill Championship. This and the MCC Championship are probably the last remaining titles you have not won. So, could be an idea to complete your collection.
>> Winter Interclub has two points going for it. Guaranteed competitive games since there is no SWISS pairings junk rounds. And second, you will not jeopardise any rating points. I have been thinking of starting discussion with Bill about a change to the rating system where he could introduce the HIATUS factor. The factor works this way >>>> it recognises that a player who has been in retirement and now returns to play (after a HIATUS), doesn’t have his rating adjusted until his most recent performances match his previous rating before the hiatus. I will not detail more here but it seems tailor-made for your situation.
>>> The third option is the VIC OPEN week-ender. Now I have already offered Ascaro the head-line billing, but as he has not accepted yet, then a quick reply by you could be successful. BTW your previous exploits give discounted entry. (Now just a word for Barry Cox…please advise us on the group name for Pelikans, but only print if it does not disturb the head-liner).

Yours, in anticipation
starter

Rincewind
15-02-2004, 10:16 AM
(Now just a word for Barry Cox…please advise us on the group name for Pelikans, but only print if it does not disturb the head-liner).

On the water it's a raft of pelicans. As there seems to be certain similarities (in come people's minds) between CV and the Raft of the Medusa, perhaps that's apt. :eek: :)

On the wing it is (apparently) a squadron of pelicans. I'll leave the visual devices of that one well alone.

ursogr8
15-02-2004, 07:01 PM
On the water it's a raft of pelicans. As there seems to be certain similarities (in come people's minds) between CV and the Raft of the Medusa, perhaps that's apt. :eek: :)

On the wing it is (apparently) a squadron of pelicans. I'll leave the visual devices of that one well alone.

Barry
Good research mate.

I can almost see the 2004 VIC OPEN tournament flyer now >>
Come and see a squadron of PELIKANS

Probably more attractive than that 'flocking' disaster we had before. (In your role as moderator I feel sure that the 'flocking' will not be beeped out; it has historical accuracy after all. I think I am trying to say it is not gratuitous swearing.)

And you will have to give me more clues about the Raft of Medusas. I used to be a D&D DM but missed on the hit points etc of a Raft of Medusas. And the significance to CV? hmm, I will think about that.

starter

Garvinator
15-02-2004, 07:04 PM
Barry
Good research mate.

I can almost see the 2004 VIC OPEN tournament flyer now >>
Come and see a squadron of PELIKANS

Probably more attractive than that 'flocking' disaster we had before. (In your role as moderator I feel sure that the 'flocking' will not be beeped out; it has historical accuracy after all. I think I am trying to say it is not gratuitous swearing.)

And you will have to give me more clues about the Raft of Medusas. I used to be a D&D DM but missed on the hit points etc of a Raft of Medusas. And the significance to CV? hmm, I will think about that.

starter

pelikans, medusa hmm, the trip to perth for a tourney is looking better than the trip to melbourne atm :p :owned:

Rincewind
15-02-2004, 07:15 PM
And you will have to give me more clues about the Raft of Medusas. I used to be a D&D DM but missed on the hit points etc of a Raft of Medusas. And the significance to CV? hmm, I will think about that.

It's a very famous painting by Theodore Gericault.

http://www.austlit.com/pix/raft-medusa.jpg

ursogr8
15-02-2004, 10:10 PM
Barry

I visited
http://www.louvre.fr/anglais/collec/peint/inv0488/peint_f.htm
and I see what you mean. Remarkable likeness to the end of a CV EXECUTIVE meeting (pre-jammo of course).

And the other bodies bear an unmistakable resemblance to the coup members.
Goodness me, this history thread is bringing all the loose ends together. First reconciliation, then the artefacts and human remains, and the possible resurrection of jammo. It only needs CG to post that he has seen the light (paint colours) at the new MCC, and all will be complete.

starter

firegoat7
17-02-2004, 05:12 AM
Starter,


Its all too cryptic, I just don't get it Starter.

Cheers.

ursogr8
17-02-2004, 06:49 AM
Starter,


Its all too cryptic, I just don't get it Starter.

Cheers.

You are correct fg7.
Barry and I wander into unmapped by-ways. Perhaps we should have our own thread; apology for diverting yours.

starter

firegoat7
17-02-2004, 05:21 PM
Hey Starter,


It was getting weird, in a nice way. I was hoping somebody would bring around the cheese and red wine and pass a few enlightening phrases about the picture. Maybe I could begin. "Taken in a modern context does the raft represent CVs despair and inability to steer the chess community towards civilisation?." :whistle:

yours in tongue and cheque
FG7

ursogr8
17-02-2004, 09:35 PM
Hey Starter,


It was getting weird, in a nice way. I was hoping somebody would bring around the cheese and red wine and pass a few enlightening phrases about the picture. Maybe I could begin. "Taken in a modern context does the raft represent CVs despair and inability to steer the chess community towards civilisation?." :whistle:

yours in tongue and cheque
FG7

fg7

Your thought is virtually what I said.
And now if you go to the louvre link I quoted you can read about the corpses; hence my coup members aside.
Anyhow, it is that Barry Cox; he leads the flock astray.

starter

Rincewind
17-02-2004, 10:26 PM
Anyhow, it is that Barry Cox; he leads the flock astray.

And here am I thinking I was building common ground to bring you guys closer together. :wall:

firegoat7
20-02-2004, 08:11 PM
Just a little question to kick off this thread again?
Can anybody reliably inform me who is running the 2004 Primary Interschool Chess Championships in Victoria?

Cheers FG7

eclectic
21-02-2004, 03:45 AM
Just a little question to kick off this thread again?
Can anybody reliably inform me who is running the 2004 Primary Interschool Chess Championships in Victoria?

Cheers FG7
According to the Chess Victoria Office Bearers List and the 2004 Schools Teams Page

it would "seem" to be

Peter Caissa

:cool:

eclectic

ursogr8
21-02-2004, 02:24 PM
Just a little question to kick off this thread again?
Can anybody reliably inform me who is running the 2004 Primary Interschool Chess Championships in Victoria?

Cheers FG7

fg7

I don't know the answer.
You could ring your mate Phil. Or you could lodge a letter in Garry Lycett's weekly column; I know Gary Wastell reads there and responds. Or probably your visitor from Ormond would know the answer.

starter

ChessGuru
26-02-2004, 04:32 PM
FG

Peter Caissa is the Interschool Director and presumably will run the competitions. His immediate superior is the Junior Chess Director, Chris Potter. And all this is under the umbrella of Chess Victoria Inc.

Your reliable source of all information.

Chess Guru

firegoat7
26-02-2004, 07:52 PM
So we have clarified that Peter Caissa is the interschool directer in Victoria.
Now for my second question which is directed towards Cordover.

1.Do you think that it is ethical for chess kids to send flyers to schools advertising "Chess kids" Interschool competitions? (Especially schools not employing chess kid coaches).

2.Could you confirm if you actually facilitated such a practice?

3.Do you think that advertising such a tournament in connection with the Mt Buller tournament (for the winners) is both ethical and a legitimate business practice, especially for a CV directer?

Holding my breath in anticipation of your response
FG7

ursogr8
26-02-2004, 08:55 PM
So we have clarified that Peter Caissa is the interschool directer in Victoria.
Now for my second question which is directed towards Cordover.

1.Do you think that it is ethical for chess kids to send flyers to schools advertising "Chess kids" Interschool competitions? (Especially schools not employing chess kid coaches).

2.Could you confirm if you actually facilitated such a practice?

3.Do you think that advertising such a tournament in connection with the Mt Buller tournament (for the winners) is both ethical and a legitimate business practice, especially for a CV directer?

Holding my breath in anticipation of your response
FG7

starter here
Can I add six pennyworth?

If you substituted Whitehorse Juniors for Mr Guru's organisation in questions you would get
1 Yes, we send flyers to schools advertising events in competition with CV events. (Incidentally we have 2 not 1 members on the CV Executive. ETHICAL? Dunno, never really thought about it.
2 Yes. What we do is facilitated by those on the CV EXEC.
3 Not applicable.



The point of my response is to question whether you are annoyed with Mr Guru's practices, or with the fact that he makes personal money from the practices? Is it OK that WHJC do similar but are not commercial-for-profit on a personal basis?

BTW, should the debate be proceeding on the 'Mexicans thread' because it is not really a MCC v CV issue is it. Rather, it is a who-can-coach-who issue. Agreed?

starter

eclectic
26-02-2004, 10:00 PM
According to the Chess Victoria Office Bearers List and the 2004 Schools Teams Page

it would "seem" to be

Peter Caissa

:cool:

eclecticI guess my "seem" was misinterpreted as "not sure" whereas it referred more to the reliability of having updated CV webpages and thus of the information therein being correct.

I suppose waiting only five days for an official response gives some comfort --- the cogs within the tight knit CV machinery must be starting to get well oiled early.

Some really BIG event must be coming up.

:evil:

eclectic

ChessGuru
26-02-2004, 10:05 PM
Mr Beaumont...thank you for your insightful questions. Let me respond:

"Q1.Do you think that it is ethical for chess kids to send flyers to schools advertising "Chess kids" Interschool competitions?"

Yes, i do believe that this is ethical. I run a business and advertise my services to any who I believe might benefit from them.

"Q2.Could you confirm if you actually facilitated such a practice?"

Facilitated is not really the correct word. I actually did it. I regularly advertise a number of my services to schools, both to those that I coach at, and those that I don't. By the way, I do the same in South Australia, I don't limit my practices to just Victoria...

"3.Do you think that advertising such a tournament in connection with the Mt Buller tournament (for the winners) is both ethical and a legitimate business practice, especially for a CV directer?"

Again, yes. If I didn't then I wouldn't do it!

Finally, I appreciate the publicity you are giving to my chess business, it is interesting that other CV officebearers can do the same thing as I do and not get the brunt of your goatiness...

Example 1: Thank you Mr Starter, example well taken.
Example 2: Mr Peter Caissa (Interschool Director) is also the proprietor of a chess business (Caissa Chess Coaching or CCC). He too runs a private Interschool League (see CV News latest issue) ... is he not more closely involved than I with interschool? After all, his role for CV is to ring up schools and suggest they play Interschool chess! Is his a conflict of interests? Perhaps because I make more money than him I am somehow unethical? Is it your wish that all chess be not for profit?

I have no problem with what I do, nor with what WHJC or CCC does. I find it difficult to see where you are going with all this...

ChessGuru
26-02-2004, 10:09 PM
Eclectic...apologies for not replying earlier. Though i should warn you that my posts on this BB are not "official" CV responses...they are my personal opinions and thoughts.

As much as I wish I had nothing better to do with my life than sit on the BB all night you are right...something BIG is happening.

The Australian Open Championships!!!
www.mindsports.com.au

GM's playing, IM's playing, hundreds of people!! I hope you'll be there...
:)

firegoat7
27-02-2004, 12:09 AM
Dear Starter,Chessguru and any other chess business in Victoria,



Thank you for your quick reply Mr Chessguru your honesty is refreshing.

Meanwhile Starter wrote,
BTW, should the debate be proceeding on the 'Mexicans thread' because it is not really a MCC v CV issue is it. Rather, it is a who-can-coach-who issue. Agreed? No not agreed, I need to establish the link your honor.


Ok now for anyone interstate who does not understand what is going on in Victoria here are the answers.

Junior coaching is booming in Victoria. Some clubs like the Box Hill Chess club have capitalised on this and recognised that forming alliances with Private Chess Businesses is critical for a clubs long term security. Kudos to Box Hill they are both professional and visionary in their ideas of how to succeed.

Here at MCC we too have recognised the importance of such an arrangement and have strategically aligned ourselves with Chess ED. An organisation that is run by Nick Speck. A neccesary decision in my opinion to ensure a clubs long term survival.

In my opinion any club that fails to recognise the new environment for chess is doomed to failure and will actual flounder under current CV policy.

Now there are a number of private companies competing for schools in Victoria. Chess Ideas, Chess kids, Chess Ed etc etc.

I would also like to point out that Chess Ideas and Chess Kids also offers venues where people can play chess. With both organisations being elected to CV as clubs.

So my question now is... What role does CV provide for junior ches in Victoria.Since CV is the governing body that is supposed to organise such things. It appears like not much at all is being organised.Let us consider. Could anybody tell me when the Official Victorian Interschool competition is being played. We hear a lot about the Australian Open but what about Interschool?

Or maybe I should rephrase that question. Why would anybody organise CV Interschool when everybody has their hands in their own pockets organising their own interschool? This is the crux of the issue for me and something that I feel very passionate about.

I have donated over 12 years of my life to volunteering my time as a club official, fulfilling many roles in an effort to ensure that chess is available to the public. In fairness I know that Chessguru,Caissia and Starter also have similar credentials. However what we are witnessing know in Victoria really concerns me. Please let me elaborate.

1.Does it make any sense that any competing 'private' interschool would be bigger or promoted before 'Official Victorian Interschool'?

2. Should an individually owned business be allowed to be a CV affiliated club? maybe yes maybe no? ....at the very least should their directors then be on a board that decides collective policy for all clubs.

3.Should the name Interschool be allowed to be used for any private business?

4. How can community clubs survive if private businesses continue to run tournaments outside chess clubs?

5. Should Private clubs be allowed to borrow CV equipment?

6. Does unregulated marketing confuse schools and their understanding of what a legitimate credential is in chess? For example when a 'chess kids interschool' is sent to a school, is that school really in an informed position to understand what is happening or being sold to them?

7. Who is the official governing body that hears complaints about an individual or company concerning chess coaching?

8. Should chess coaches have officially published ratings and certificates to back up any claim of their credentials?

9. Does CV have a future plan or policy aimed to take advantage of this new boom in Victorian chess.

10. If clubs have to align themselves strategically and financially with private chess businesses to survive does this mean that CV is doing its job?

11. Why does a club in Victoria pay $5 per player for a rating fee every tournament when an unrated private chess business tournament pays no fee whatsoever.

12. If somebody is collecting unrated tournament entry fees in a business capacity, do they deserve to be on the CV board, deciding policy and agenda for 'Official chess'

13. Why is unofficial chess booming whilst 'official chess' appears stagnant.

14. If private chess is the future of Victorian chess does that mean that clubs should seriously start thinking about disbanding CV?

Would appreciate anybodys input on these questions.
Regards FG7

ursogr8
27-02-2004, 08:11 AM
Dear Starter,Chessguru and any other chess business in Victoria,



Ok now for anyone interstate who does not understand what is going on in Victoria here are the answers.

Junior coaching is booming in Victoria. Some clubs like the Box Hill Chess club have capitalised on this and recognised that forming alliances with Private Chess Businesses is critical for a clubs long term security. Kudos to Box Hill they are both professional and visionary in their ideas of how to succeed.



Mr firegoat7
Thanks for your observation re BH. And in particular thanks for this excellent post outlining your views on junior coaching. I am going to react and comment on many of your sentences. This should not be seen as criticism of your views but rather it should be seen as my feedback on how we see the issues you raise.

First, long term security in our view requires a) Club membership greater than 80, b) a culture of volunteering, c) tools for repeatable processes d) handle growth through capitalisation by computerisation. One mechanism for ensuring a) in the above list is a coaching program for juniors. An alliance is not a necessity.





Here at MCC we too have recognised the importance of such an arrangement and have strategically aligned ourselves with Chess ED. An organisation that is run by Nick Speck. A neccesary decision in my opinion to ensure a clubs long term survival.

In my opinion any club that fails to recognise the new environment for chess is doomed to failure and will actual flounder under current CV policy.



I think you need to expand on why CV has any influence at all on your Club’s success; what CV policy do you mean? You (and I mean MCC) can stand alone and be successful.





Now there are a number of private companies competing for schools in Victoria. Chess Ideas, Chess kids, Chess Ed etc etc.



Yes, and a few years back there was battle royal for market share. One firm was principalled by a Russian and naturally expected a centrist approach where CV would control who had what part of the market. They were peeved that another company was better at lobbying for market share.
But the centrist approach is not the only way of arranging chess affairs. There are some who would let the various enterprises have a relatively free hand at competing for market share and CV simply regulate at a minimum.
Can I ask if this is your root-cause issue. Do you want CV to guarantee some part of the market to the particular commercial enterprise you have aligned with? Well, this battle has been fought and laissez faire is the ruling policy. Even the emergence of David Potter may not change the policy. If you don’t like the policy fg7 you may have to (shock, horror :eek: ) get a MCC member on the CV Executive to move to change policy.





I would also like to point out that Chess Ideas and Chess Kids also offers venues where people can play chess. With both organisations being elected to CV as clubs.



I don’t know Chess Kids exactly. Is that belonging to our mate from Ormond (ChessGuru for the non-Mexicans)? If so, I don’t think his Club is elected to CV; I don’t think he is affiliated.





So my question now is... What role does CV provide for junior chess in Victoria.Since CV is the governing body that is supposed to organise such things. It appears like not much at all is being organised.



I think that CV has a laissez faire policy which is about to be strengthened by
a) David Potter
b) Matthew Sweeney’s accreditation scheme for coaches




Let us consider. Could anybody tell me when the Official Victorian Interschool competition is being played.



Ask the contact name you have been given. This BB helps you but is not the official communication channel for your questions about CV matters.




We hear a lot about the Australian Open but what about Interschool?



Aus OPEN publicity is run by CG.
Junior coaching is David Potter.
It is natural they have different approaches to publicity.




Or maybe I should rephrase that question. Why would anybody organise CV Interschool when everybody has their hands in their own pockets organising their own interschool? This is the crux of the issue for me and something that I feel very passionate about.


I have donated over 12 years of my life to volunteering my time as a club official, fulfilling many roles in an effort to ensure that chess is available to the public. In fairness I know that Chessguru,Caissia and Starter also have similar credentials. However what we are witnessing know in Victoria really concerns me. Please let me elaborate.

1.Does it make any sense that any competing 'private' interschool would be bigger or promoted before 'Official Victorian Interschool'?


Market forces.





2. Should an individually owned business be allowed to be a CV affiliated club? maybe yes maybe no? ....at the very least should their directors then be on a board that decides collective policy for all clubs.



Hypothetical only.
I don’t know any business that is affiliated. I asked all this before on the old BB BTW.




3.Should the name Interschool be allowed to be used for any private business?



Marketforces and open IP.





4. How can community clubs survive if private businesses continue to run tournaments outside chess clubs?



Provide services and get market share.





5. Should Private clubs be allowed to borrow CV equipment?



A fair question. It may have an answer that is innocent.





6. Does unregulated marketing confuse schools and their understanding of what a legitimate credential is in chess? For example when a 'chess kids interschool' is sent to a school, is that school really in an informed position to understand what is happening or being sold to them?



Sure to confuse. But a controlling centrist approach is labour intensive and CV don’t have that labour at the moment.





7. Who is the official governing body that hears complaints about an individual or company concerning chess coaching?



In the battle royal, we heard it loud and long at CV Executive and AGM meetings.





8. Should chess coaches have officially published ratings and certificates to back up any claim of their credentials?



Yes.
Hurry up Matthew Sweeney, we need your plan.





9. Does CV have a future plan or policy aimed to take advantage of this new boom in Victorian chess.



Send your MCC rep. to a meeting and ask CV.





10. If clubs have to align themselves strategically and financially with private chess businesses to survive does this mean that CV is doing its job?



My opening remarks indicate that the Club-survival-strategy is not the alignment action you write about. So, no, Clubs don’t have to align themselves with any commercial business. At Box Hill there are 11 visiting coaches. Only 2 belong to a business.





11. Why does a club in Victoria pay $5 per player for a rating fee every tournament when an unrated private chess business tournament pays no fee whatsoever.



You are just incorrect on this. I have tried to explain a number of times. They pay $5 plus a penalty of $x for every player in the tournament.





12. If somebody is collecting unrated tournament entry fees in a business capacity, do they deserve to be on the CV board, deciding policy and agenda for 'Official chess'



CG has already commented on this.





13. Why is unofficial chess booming whilst 'official chess' appears stagnant.



Box Hill appears stagnant?
MCC appears stagnant?
Begonia appears stagnant?
Drouin appears stagnant?





14. If private chess is the future of Victorian chess does that mean that clubs should seriously start thinking about disbanding CV?



Not from BH nor WHJ point of view. We are comfortable paying our ratings fees and our affiliation fees, and receiving the services provided by CV. And when we are unhappy we put a few more candidates on the CV Executive and get things changed. It is not rocket science, just a willingness to be part of the chess community.





Would appreciate anybodys input on these questions.
Regards FG7


Thanks for the invitation. :)

starter

ChessGuru
27-02-2004, 08:52 AM
FG, I can't guarantee that my replies will be as quick every time. I am a busy man...however if you would like to contact me privately you are welcome to do so.


I would also like to point out that Chess Ideas and Chess Kids also offers venues where people can play chess. With both organisations being elected to CV as clubs.


Apologies, but this blantantly incorrect. Chess Ideas runs a "club" and was affiliated with CV, they have not been paying their fees and as far as I am aware are currently either "suspended" or "disaffilliated".

Chess Kids/Chess World does run a venue, however we have never, nor do we intend to, pretended that we are a "club" in the sense that we should affiliate with CV. A number of people have recommended that Chess Kids become an affiliated club, however we have never applied because I don't think that a business should have voting rights over CV. If CV changes its structure and we are able to purchase services at a reasonable price from CV then most likely we will.



Could anybody tell me when the Official Victorian Interschool competition is being played. We hear a lot about the Australian Open but what about Interschool?


Perhaps this is to do with the individual office-bearers who run things! If I were running the CV Interschool Championships you would be hearing a lot about that. I am running the Aus Open and Aus Junior ... not everyone is as motivated to advertise as I am! Further, many of the places you would find information about tournaments would be inappropriate to advertise interschool...you should do that through schools.



Or maybe I should rephrase that question. Why would anybody organise CV Interschool when everybody has their hands in their own pockets organising their own interschool? This is the crux of the issue for me and something that I feel very passionate about.


Perhaps CV should take the lead from MCC and BHCC and sub-contract a Private Business to run the CV competition?



1.Does it make any sense that any competing 'private' interschool would be bigger or promoted before 'Official Victorian Interschool'?


Perhaps the "official" season starts later in the year?
Perhaps the individuals running the events will have differing levels of success depending on their skills?



2. Should an individually owned business be allowed to be a CV affiliated club? maybe yes maybe no? ....at the very least should their directors then be on a board that decides collective policy for all clubs.


Probably no. BUT this was discussed at an AGM when Chess Ideas attempted to affiliate. The clubs voted YES. Maybe you weren't at that AGM?

I think that there are MANY MANY instances where Directors of Private Business are on Advisory or Executive boards in various industries. This is natural as it is in their best interest that the industry flourish. For me to be on CV executive seems the most sensible thing in the world because nobody has more to gain from the growth of chess in Victoria than I do. So surely I would work the hardest (Vested self-interest) to ensure that chess grows?
3.Should the name Interschool be allowed to be used for any private business?



4. How can community clubs survive if private businesses continue to run tournaments outside chess clubs?


Suppy and demand. Simple economic principals. Community clubs will always survive because they can be much more price competitive. Look at BHCC for example...look at the Vic Open. A Private Enterprise could never run events as successfully as these because we couldn't afford the running costs (ie. Labour) which is free for a club. Community clubs should THRIVE in this environment...



5. Should Private clubs be allowed to borrow CV equipment?


Well, I have about 200 chess sets and 100 DGT's of my own, so I hope that isn't directed at me. However, YES CV has the goal of promoting chess in Victoria. We have all realised that Private Enterprise is helping chess greatly, so of course CV should assist start-up business with equipment. Much the same way as governments assists industry for the benefit of the whole...



6. Does unregulated marketing confuse schools and their understanding of what a legitimate credential is in chess? For example when a 'chess kids interschool' is sent to a school, is that school really in an informed position to understand what is happening or being sold to them?


I have instructed my staff to clearly define to schools what they are playing in. Schools who participate are also told of the CV tournaments, how to enter and what to expect. So i would have to answer YES, schools are well informed.



11. Why does a club in Victoria pay $5 per player for a rating fee every tournament when an unrated private chess business tournament pays no fee whatsoever.


If a tournament requires no services provided by CV then they shouldn't have to pay anything! User pays system...



12. If somebody is collecting unrated tournament entry fees in a business capacity, do they deserve to be on the CV board, deciding policy and agenda for 'Official chess'


Already answered before. Yes is my first answer, and secondly these are ELECTED positions...

I hope i have helped you in some way...

Regards
Chess "Business" Guru

arosar
27-02-2004, 09:22 AM
Wow! Economics, corporate governance, truth-in-advertising, ethics, management theory. You Mexicans leave us gringos for dead.

AR

arosar
27-02-2004, 10:20 AM
Probably no . . . I think that there are MANY MANY instances where Directors of Private Business are on Advisory or Executive boards in various industries. This is natural as it is in their best interest that the industry flourish. For me to be on CV executive seems the most sensible thing in the world because nobody has more to gain from the growth of chess in Victoria than I do. So surely I would work the hardest (Vested self-interest) to ensure that chess grows?

Look, fg7 is suggesting 'conflict of interest'. The problem may arise when the CV finds itself deciding on a tender, say, that involves selection of a private interest. In such a situation, why don't you just recuse yourself?


. . . However, YES CV has the goal of promoting chess in Victoria. We have all realised that Private Enterprise is helping chess greatly, so of course CV should assist start-up business with equipment. Much the same way as governments assists industry for the benefit of the whole...

Somehow, I can sorta smell a problem with this analogy. It doesn't quite work. Maybe fg7 can see it more clearly.

AR

jenni
27-02-2004, 11:04 AM
Somehow, I can sorta smell a problem with this analogy. It doesn't quite work. Maybe fg7 can see it more clearly.

AR
The ACTJCL has always lent equipment to anyone in Canberra who has a genuine need. That includes business - e.g Geoff Butler runs camps in the school holidays and we have lent analogue clocks to him in the past. We lend to schools who are starting up clubs, to adult competitions (a large number of the chess sets at Doeberl are ours and we even lend our precious digitals - you will normally find me at the end of Doeberl hovering over our digitals that get taken to outlandish places like bars, ready to snatch them away as soon as I can) and to community groups. Our constitution states that our primary aim is to foster chess and we perceive our assets should be used in any way that will assist chess to grow.

firegoat7
28-02-2004, 10:43 PM
Part 1

CG wrote:
Chess Ideas runs a "club" and was affiliated with CV, they have not been paying their fees and as far as I am aware are currently either "suspended" or "disaffiliated" I apologise I thought they were affiliated. I hope when you announce their suspension to us here on the bulletin board, that CV have informed the clubs personally about their suspension beforehand. Lest you follow Jammo’s precedence of suspending clubs without telling them. Oh and please don’t give me that bureaucratic line of sixty days automatic etc etc as being a reason for not telling a club personally.


I also apologise for presuming that a private club run by a CV Executive member would actually be CV affiliated because when you wrote:
Chess Kids/Chess World does run a venue, however we have never, nor do we intend to, pretended that we are a "club" in the sense that we should affiliate with CV. A number of people have recommended that Chess Kids become an affiliated club, however we have never applied because I don't think that a business should have voting rights over CV. If CV changes its structure and we are able to purchase services at a reasonable price from CV then most likely we will. I naturally presumed you were a CV club. Just goes to show you should never presume anything about the truth, still your answer fascinates me. If your organization is not a CV club does that mean that really none of your tournaments should be CV rated? It strikes me as strange for example that Chess Kids can compete for tender against clubs like Box Hill and Melbourne Chess Club and yet they are not even part of the affiliated body. Furthermore if Chess Kids is running a weekender at the same time as say MCC is it fair that Chess kids tournaments are rated?

Your opinion that CV should change its prices for reasonable prices also amazes me. I must remember that. Every year MCC gets billed $3 per registered member as well as $50 dollars for being an affiliated club. A quite substantial amount of money for a club that declares 60-80 members. I could understand why you would not want to pay such a substantial fee. Still it does seem strange that MCC, Box Hill, Dandenong, Elwood ,Hobsan bay etc etc pay this fee but a private club run by a CV executive does not pay this fee, even more so when this club then wins tendering contracts against other clubs.

Furthermore, If you are on the CV Executive why don’t you change things so that the CV price rate is reasonable. I mean it is pretty lame that you of all people would hide behind bad CV policy as a reasonable excuse for not becoming affiliated.

I think you are right about business conflicts. In my opinion private business interests should not be on the CV executive, at the very least they should not vote on any issue that has a competing interest. I presume this is of course already being enforced.

Cheers FG7

firegoat7
28-02-2004, 10:48 PM
In response to starter posts I will go through it with a fine toothcomb, but I want to say just one thing. I do not support a centrist approach to Interschool organisation. You misunderstand me completely if you think that is true Starter. I support a workable efficent bureaucracy of responsible govenmental management. A well regulated industry as opposed to unregulated self regulation. I want to see accountability not control.

Cheers FG7

ursogr8
28-02-2004, 11:42 PM
Part 1


I also apologise for presuming that a private club run by a CV Executive member would actually be CV affiliated because when you wrote: I naturally presumed you were a CV club. Just goes to show you should never presume anything about the truth, still your answer fascinates me. If your organization is not a CV club does that mean that really none of your tournaments should be CV rated?



hi fg7
starter here

Can I butt in?

You were wrong to presume ChessGurus’s clubs were affiliated.
And you are wrong to presume that non-affiliated organisations cannot get events rated. I have posted many times that they pay the $5 rating fee and $x penalty per player. This was a motion passed at an AGM. Ring your mate Keith, who you regard highly, and get the minutes.






It strikes me as strange for example that Chess Kids can compete for tender against clubs like Box Hill and Melbourne Chess Club and yet they are not even part of the affiliated body.



Can you name one tender that you have lost against ChessGuru’s organisation? Two?





Furthermore if Chess Kids is running a weekender at the same time as say MCC is it fair that Chess kids tournaments are rated?



Yes, if they pay the fee and the penalty. That is the motion on the books; and by definition ‘fair’.




Furthermore, If you are on the CV Executive why don’t you change things so that the CV price rate is reasonable. I mean it is pretty lame that you of all people would hide behind bad CV policy as a reasonable excuse for not becoming affiliated.

Cheers FG7


fg7, I explored the issue of whether ChessKids could become affiliated with CV given that CV is INCORPORATED, and has special rules of its constitution derived from the model rules from the Victorian Government. The exploration was on the old BB. The posters at the time advised me that CK could not become affiliated with CV. They may be wrong. I am no legal expert. But before you beat up on CG for not affiliating you may need to check that he could do so legally.

starter

ChessGuru
29-02-2004, 01:19 PM
</QUOTE=firegoat7>Furthermore if Chess Kids is running a weekender at the same time as say MCC is it fair that Chess kids tournaments are rated?</QUOTE>

I think that it is fair to have a tournament rated if I pay for it. Regardless of when or where.

However, I also think it is silly for both of us to be running weekenders at the same time. I would be quite happy to receive information about your weekend events which are planned and we can work together in a mutually beneficial way to ensure a) our events do not clash and b) both our organisation events are successful. Are you planning something on ANZAC Day weekend?

I know you have "strategically aligned" yourself with a chess business other than mine, but does that mean you cannot work with ANYONE else when it is clearly in your own best interests (and the best interests of CHESS)? Have a think about it and let's have a talk about (particularly ANZAC Day) how we can work together in some way.

-David

Bill Gletsos
29-02-2004, 02:00 PM
However, I also think it is silly for both of us to be running weekenders at the same time.
In NSW the NSWCA try and ensure that none of our tournaments clash with any other NSW tournaments or with any other significant interstate tournaments. We therefore dont schedule our tournaments to clash with the Doeberl, Ballarat, ANU Open.
If however individuals schedule tournaments to clash we cant control this.

ursogr8
29-02-2004, 06:38 PM
In NSW the NSWCA try and ensure that none of our tournaments clash with any other NSW tournaments or with any other significant interstate tournaments. We therefore dont schedule our tournaments to clash with the Doeberl, Ballarat, ANU Open.
If however individuals schedule tournaments to clash we cant control this.

Yes Bill, we have the opportunity to do this too since our CV president provides (as a service for fees paid) an electronic calendar which we all populate to avoid such clashes. The calendar is sent to affiliated Clubs. Of course CG's entities are not affiliated and so he probably does not get a calendar from this rationale. But he is on the CV Executive and therefore would be certain to get a calendar. And we would expect him to schedule appropriately. The issue has been formally raised by Whitehorse formerly, as a consequence of a clash.

Indeed the Mexicans are good at looking after their own. Box Hill suspends the Autumn Cup so that players can travel to Ballarat for the Begonia event. In a nice touch, the Ballarat people struck a prize 'the best Box Hill player at the Begonia', in recognition, last year.

starter

firegoat7
29-02-2004, 06:51 PM
Dear Starter,

Let us clarify a few points here. You wrote
And you are wrong to presume that non-affiliated organisations cannot get events rated. I have posted many times that they pay the $5 rating fee and $x penalty per player. This was a motion passed at an AGM. Ring your mate Keith, who you regard highly, and get the minutes.

Firstly,I never presumed non-affiliated organisations could not get events rated. I am well aware that they can. As is evidence by the Australian Masters last year. Furthermore I have spoken to Keith Jenkins twice in my life, hardly a mutual friend. My initial opinions of him are of a person who tells it like it is in a mild sort of way. I certainly found him reasonable to talk to.

But just getting back to your point. I will argue that since games can still be rated regardless of whether the club is an affiliated body or not, means that belonging to the organisation serves no financial or practical incentive. It would be financially inappropriate to not recommend disaffiliation if it means a saving for MCC and its members.

You also wrote:
Can you name one tender that you have lost
against ChessGuru’s organisation? Two?
I don't really understand why you are tying up this statement with what I was talking about? Firstly, it seems to me that being affiliated would need to be a pre-request for bidding for CV events. You obviously do not think this matters. I ask you then to tell me what is CV? Surely CV is a collection of Victorian chess clubs? I mean if this is no longer the case then I will at least know to recommend to MCC members ,seriously, that we should disaffiliate since their is no advantage for a club to belong to CV anymore.

A case in point you might like to consider. Box Hill is running the Victorian Open this year. An event that was historically founded by MCC. An event that MCC handed over to CV to run, obviously, so all affiliated clubs can benefit.

Now if being affiliated means nothing then would MCC be wise to hand over an event like the Victorian Open ever again?

I would also like to point out that I have not seen a CV tendering form for at least two years. We had absolute hell CV the last time we bid for the Victorian Open(Dandenong withdrew their bid for us to win the event). We also had to jump through incredible hoops to get the Xmas swiss one particular year. We have always been interested in running interclub and have not had a look in for a number of years. Furthermore the merry go round that is the Victorian championship always has a few rounds at MCC every year. But the whole process for this seems to driven by GW and word of mouth. I mean honestly Starter I don't not know how Box Hill deal with CV but I can tell you honestly that MCCs relationship with CV has no logical basis or structure, there is basically no communication between the two organisations except word of mouth.

Chessguru wrote:
However, I also think it is silly for both of us to be running weekenders at the same time. I would be quite happy to receive information about your weekend events which are planned and we can work together in a mutually beneficial way to ensure a) our events do not clash and b) both our organisation events are successful. Are you planning something on ANZAC Day weekend?

Thanks for your concern Chessguru. I will be honest and upfront with you. We will be running competitions against your interests. We will not be doing any deals to ensure that events do not clash. We are in the business of running chess tournaments for competition players, we will be attempting to ensure that as much competitive chess gets played at MCC that is physically and financially viable. I think Starter is right here, this is lassez faire economics where markets decide. If MCC has no faith in the tendering process or the accountability of CV to civilly administer Victorian chess, then we will simply compete against everybody else for a financially viable share of the market. If that means running an Anzac Day weekender on the same day as you, so be it.

Cheers FG7

Garvinator
29-02-2004, 06:58 PM
well this post has just shown me who is the pig headed one here. To pitch fork players in to battles between administrators is just plain disgusting. If both sides think their conduct is forced by the opposition, then they should resign. At least you admitted firegoat that MCC will be running tournaments in opposition to CG events.

Well when i see this type of administration, i pray that both sides lose and go bankrupt and out of business. Firegoat, you talk about good business practice and saying that ppl should resign from CV, well how is this good business practice?

ursogr8
29-02-2004, 07:53 PM
Dear Starter,

Let us clarify a few points here. You wrote

Firstly,I never presumed non-affiliated organisations could not get events rated. I am well aware that they can. As is evidence by the Australian Masters last year. Furthermore I have spoken to Keith Jenkins twice in my life, hardly a mutual friend. My initial opinions of him are of a person who tells it like it is in a mild sort of way. I certainly found him reasonable to talk to.


Well, OK. He is no mate of yours. But you (MCC) should have a pipeline to him as he is the CV_Secretary.



But just getting back to your point. I will argue that since games can still be rated regardless of whether the club is an affiliated body or not, means that belonging to the organisation serves no financial or practical incentive. It would be financially inappropriate to not recommend disaffiliation if it means a saving for MCC and its members.



You need to do the calculation to see if the rating penalty offsets the saving on affiliation fees.
But I will do a deal with you on this one. I will propose a motion at the next CV_AGM to improve this erosion of (affiliated) Club benefits that I think has been snuck in by the back door. The deal is that you second my motion. Are we agreed?




You also wrote:
I don't really understand why you are tying up this statement with what I was talking about? Firstly, it seems to me that being affiliated would need to be a pre-request for bidding for CV events.
You obviously do not think this matters.


The right to tender is not constrained to affiliated Clubs. If you want that to be a by-law then you would need to get them changed at CV level. There would be some at BH and some at WHJ who would support you.
It is open slather at the moment with all entities being able to bid. All you have to do to bid is a) get the paperwork, b) do it according to the event and decision-making schedule. If you are determined you will not fail at making a bid.



I ask you then to tell me what is CV? Surely CV is a collection of Victorian chess clubs? I mean if this is no longer the case then I will at least know to recommend to MCC members ,seriously, that we should disaffiliate since their is no advantage for a club to belong to CV anymore.


I don’t think you want me to comment. Just a rhetorical question right?





A case in point you might like to consider. Box Hill is running the Victorian Open this year. An event that was historically founded by MCC. An event that MCC handed over to CV to run, obviously, so all affiliated clubs can benefit.


I didn’t know that until now.



Now if being affiliated means nothing then would MCC be wise to hand over an event like the Victorian Open ever again?

The VIC OPEN is still in the hands of an affiliated club. Not sure of your point on this one.





I would also like to point out that I have not seen a CV tendering form for at least two years. We had absolute hell CV the last time we bid for the Victorian Open(Dandenong withdrew their bid for us to win the event). We also had to jump through incredible hoops to get the Xmas swiss one particular year. We have always been interested in running interclub and have not had a look in for a number of years. Furthermore the merry go round that is the Victorian championship always has a few rounds at MCC every year. But the whole process for this seems to driven by GW and word of mouth.


fg7, without being critical of MCC nor GW ….You should not be accepting this run-around if it is occurring.
As well as painting your innards I suggest you set a second priority this year…….learn to exercise your rights to win the holding of tournaments. If you need help I will meet personally with GW and your rep. to clarify procedure. Meal in Brunswick St at my cost. It is important that you not be disadvantaged in bidding for tournaments.





I mean honestly Starter I don't not know how Box Hill deal with CV but I can tell you honestly that MCCs relationship with CV has no logical basis or structure, there is basically no communication between the two organisations except word of mouth.


See my previous comment.





Chessguru wrote:

Thanks for your concern Chessguru. I will be honest and upfront with you. We will be running competitions against your interests. We will not be doing any deals to ensure that events do not clash. We are in the business of running chess tournaments for competition players, we will be attempting to ensure that as much competitive chess gets played at MCC that is physically and financially viable. I think Starter is right here, this is lassez faire economics where markets decide. If MCC has no faith in the tendering process or the accountability of CV to civilly administer Victorian chess, then we will simply compete against everybody else for a financially viable share of the market. If that means running an Anzac Day weekender on the same day as you, so be it.

Cheers FG7


I don’t know either MCC nor CG plans for that w/e. But it has all the signs of a less than best solution for chess-players.

Thanks for your post.

starter

ChessGuru
29-02-2004, 08:25 PM
Thanks for your concern Chessguru. I will be honest and upfront with you. We will be running competitions against your interests. We will not be doing any deals to ensure that events do not clash. We are in the business of running chess tournaments for competition players, we will be attempting to ensure that as much competitive chess gets played at MCC that is physically and financially viable. If that means running an Anzac Day weekender on the same day as you, so be it.
Cheers FG7

I'm sorry...did you say honest and upfront or abrasive and confrontationalist?

Wow! Amazing...I offer to ASSIST the MCC and work together for the benefit of chess in Australia. And yet I get a reply with quite a nasty tone. So, let me try again. Last try...

Dear MCC and Goat,

I have had a weekender scheduled on the ANZAC day weekend for the past 12 months. Are you planning to run an ANZAC Day weekender? If so please let me know and I will cancel my event (if you wish) and assist you with the promotion of your weekender. Last year my ANZAC Day weekender attracted about 40 players (I have only 2 so far this year) and I am sure I can persuade a number of them to play in the MCC event instead (should it take place).

This is in the hope that in future days, months or years you will be so kind as to assist me in promotion or running a chess event should it not clash with your calendar. Of course you will be under no obligation to do so...

Yours in the hope of a better chess future,

David Cordover
Chess Guru

skip to my lou
29-02-2004, 08:49 PM
Wow! Amazing...I offer to ASSIST the MCC and work together for the benefit of chess in Australia. And yet I get a reply with quite a nasty tone.

Yes, Im glad I pulled back early in my life. Im glad I didn't waste half my life and then realise that any effort in the direction of chess in australia is quite useless.

There is little or no interest in my "web works". They know the internet is the most powerful communication medium these days. So the Internet can help promote chess like anything! They know all this but they still dont do anything about it. Weird. ;)

Believe it or not, the ammount of people from europe showing interest in my "web works" was just phenomenal. Too bad (for australian chess) that they are ready to pay heftily for it. Then we sit down and wonder how to promote chess! :hmm:

eclectic
29-02-2004, 09:35 PM
Dear MCC and Goat,

I have had a weekender scheduled on the ANZAC day weekend for the past 12 months. Are you planning to run an ANZAC Day weekender? If so please let me know and I will cancel my event (if you wish) and assist you with the promotion of your weekender. Last year my ANZAC Day weekender attracted about 40 players (I have only 2 so far this year) and I am sure I can persuade a number of them to play in the MCC event instead (should it take place).

[my editing - eclectic]


David Cordover
Chess Guru
chessgoat and fireguru

how many actually want to play an anzac day weekender ?
can it be done in 3 divisions a la grand prix ?
is it too late for it to be grand prix accredited ( if it isn't already)?
can it be shared like japan and korea did with the world cup 2002 ?
can chessworld do over 2000 while mcc does under 2000 and under 1600?
(or vice versa?)
can there be a live internet link so that each venue can get a "glimpse" of what is happening at the other ?
just trying to think outside the square

eclectic

Garvinator
29-02-2004, 09:51 PM
unless i have missed the boat eclectic, mcc are not interested in any type of helpful actions with cv. So that means any of your proposals, while good, will not happen.

As i said it shows who really is destroying victorian chess :eek:

firegoat7
29-02-2004, 10:28 PM
Dear Starter,

Thanks for the advice. I appreciate it. I would be more then interested in setting up some sort of meeting with you anytime,anywhere. Members of our committee will travel to Box hill to meet you if you wish.

Regards FG7


Dear Chessguru,

Thanks for the invite but unfortunately I cannot comply. As you are undoubtfully aware we have had our own Anzac Day weekender advertised since December. Unfortunately we were unaware that you had an event at the same time. Furthermore we see no reason why both clubs cannot run an event at the same time. Melbourne is a big city it does have over 3 million people.

I also realise that you are aware that we have a contract with Chess Ed a company run by Nick Speck. Since we do not want to jepordise that contract in any capacity, we unfortunately cannot do business with you, even if we wanted to.

Furthermore, on a personal level, in my opinion only, until you remove the inconsistency about being on the CV executive whilst running a non-affiliated chess club that you own, that tenders for CV business, it might just be wiser in the long-term to stay away from any business dealing with you.

eclectic
01-03-2004, 01:18 PM
unless i have missed the boat eclectic, mcc are not interested in any type of helpful actions with cv. So that means any of your proposals, while good, will not happen.

As i said it shows who really is destroying victorian chess :eek:
"No longer riding on the merry-go-round,
I just had to let it go,
I just had to let it go,
I just had to let it go."

[John Lennon - Watching the Wheels]

My new signature says it all !!!

:hmm:

eclectic

Bob1
01-03-2004, 01:36 PM
chessgoat and fireguru

how many actually want to play an anzac day weekender ?
can it be done in 3 divisions a la grand prix ?
is it too late for it to be grand prix accredited ( if it isn't already)?
eclectic

No reason it cannot be a GP event - as there appear to be no conflicting GP events on these dates. All you need do is apply. (PM on this BB is OK) and I simply ask the ACF executive.

ursogr8
01-03-2004, 02:47 PM
Dear Starter,

Thanks for the advice. I appreciate it. I would be more then interested in setting up some sort of meeting with you anytime,anywhere. Members of our committee will travel to Box hill to meet you if you wish.

Regards FG7


fg7

My offer was solely directed at ensuring that you (MCC) have full knowledge and opportunity at the tendering process for events. If you don't have this from CV then I see that as a big issue and I will meet with GW and your rep. to try to resolve.

I read into your message that you are enlarging the scope. It would be a mistake to think that I speak on behalf of Box Hill. I could not even get elected as a delegate to the recent CV_AGM to represent Box Hill; so, if you want to negotiate with Box Hill you need to get closer to the seat of power.

My limited offer still stands. And, meal at my cost.

starter

ursogr8
01-03-2004, 02:59 PM
unless i have missed the boat eclectic, mcc are not interested in any type of helpful actions with cv. So that means any of your proposals, while good, will not happen.

As i said it shows who really is destroying victorian chess :eek:

gggg'yy

You are better than me if you can see through this new spot-fire and smoke.

You mention a MCC conflict with CV, and I think I read that you regard fg7 (MCC) should yield.
Personally I am reserving judgement. The tournament proposed by ChessGuru is not a CV tournament; CG's entity is not affiliated. On fg7's side is the argument that his Club is affiliated (and no longer suspended).
On the other hand, CG is concilatory and FG7 is :hand: .

I am going to wait a few more post-episodes to count the score.

The pairing on board 1 looks more like CG v MCC than CV v MCC to me, from a distance.

starter

Garvinator
01-03-2004, 04:33 PM
gggg'yy

You are better than me
i am going to use a very good case of selective quoting here :p at least you finally realise im better than you ;) :p :p :lol: :lol:

firegoat7
01-03-2004, 04:42 PM
Dear Starter,


If you understand the correct procedure for tendering that exists between Box Hill and CV then that is fine by me. It would be nice to view the process from your perspective.

Cheers Fg7

ursogr8
01-03-2004, 06:41 PM
i am going to use a very good case of selective quoting here :p at least you finally realise im better than you ;) :p :p :lol: :lol:

I am presuming that you use this useless diversionary tactic to achieve two ends.
1 A subtle way of saying that you yield to the argument I put forward and now you seek to turn attention elsewhere.
2 Another post to add to your count.

starter

ChessGuru
01-03-2004, 08:22 PM
Thanks for the invite but unfortunately I cannot comply. As you are undoubtfully aware we have had our own Anzac Day weekender advertised since December. Unfortunately we were unaware that you had an event at the same time. Furthermore we see no reason why both clubs cannot run an event at the same time. Melbourne is a big city it does have over 3 million people.

I also realise that you are aware that we have a contract with Chess Ed a company run by Nick Speck. Since we do not want to jepordise that contract in any capacity, we unfortunately cannot do business with you, even if we wanted to.

Furthermore, on a personal level, in my opinion only, until you remove the inconsistency about being on the CV executive whilst running a non-affiliated chess club that you own, that tenders for CV business, it might just be wiser in the long-term to stay away from any business dealing with you.

This is amazing pig-headedness...no offence intended. Perhaps I should say Goat-headedness....really, i thought you were a vaguely sensible person...were you drunk when you wrote that last post?

1. You say you cannot comply. Does this mean that you are asking me NOT to promote your tournament (completely free of charge and with no obligation to you) as I suggested in my post?

Would you rather have a) Player x in your MCC event, but told to play there by me. or b) No player x in your event. Please answer this...

2. Agreed Melbourne is a big city, however chess population is unfortunately small, so would (in my opinion) be better to have just ONE weekender at a time. Of course we COULD have 2....and both would probably get OK numbers..
3. Your ANZAC day weekender which has been advertised since Dec....um, where? I don't see it on your website and haven't seen it here on the BB. Please point me in the right direction...or have you hidden all the info just in case I try to get people to play in the event?
4. You cannot "do business with me". You have a very interesting contract, but I am not one to question your business practices. I bet Telstra wished they could lock customers in so tightly as Chess Ed has MCC locked in! Even so, I was not suggesting a "business" arrangement. I simply offered to tell people who might be looking to play chess to go to the MCC...obviously something you don't want to happen!
5. My involvment in CV (in your opinion) is obviously a conflict of interest. So I must somehow GAIN, or my business GAIN something from this involvment. Yet you choose to have NOTHING to do with me until I remove myself from this situation...presumably lowering my potential influence, power, gains etc. So what you are saying is that i am successful, but too much so for the MCC to want to deal with... Ok. Fair call.

Kevin Bonham
01-03-2004, 08:38 PM
The normal practice in these things is that the individual who is conflicted removes themselves from voting on those motions that they have a vested interest in. If they are not conflicted on a particular motion then there is no reason for them to not vote on that motion, and unless they are conflicted on the majority of business a body transacts, why shouldn't they sit on that body?

jammo
01-03-2004, 10:08 PM
Originally Posted by firegoat7
"A case in point you might like to consider. Box Hill is running the Victorian Open this year. An event that was historically founded by MCC. An event that MCC handed over to CV to run, obviously, so all affiliated clubs can benefit."

"I didn’t know that until now." - Starter

Dear Starter,

Don't make the mistake of assuming that what FG7 says is true. MCC handed over the Vic Open to CV because they accepted the argument that "Victorian" titles should be controlled by CV, not by MCC. The change was instigated by me and I don't recall FG7 being around at the time.

Cheers,
-Jammo

ursogr8
02-03-2004, 07:09 AM
Originally Posted by firegoat7
"A case in point you might like to consider. Box Hill is running the Victorian Open this year. An event that was historically founded by MCC. An event that MCC handed over to CV to run, obviously, so all affiliated clubs can benefit."

"I didn’t know that until now." - Starter

Dear Starter,

Don't make the mistake of assuming that what FG7 says is true. MCC handed over the Vic Open to CV because they accepted the argument that "Victorian" titles should be controlled by CV, not by MCC. The change was instigated by me and I don't recall FG7 being around at the time.

Cheers,
-Jammo

Thanks Jammo. I was unaware of the history and rationale of the decision.

Looks like fg7 has a busy day responding to
a) your alternate view of why the VIC OPEN belongs to CV
b) advising CG where the MCC (ANZAC Day) week-ender has been advertised, publicly,
c) advising CG why MCC will not accept a free offer from CG.

I am glad he started the thread.

starter

firegoat7
02-03-2004, 06:38 PM
Thanks for the invitation Starter,



a) your alternate view of why the VIC OPEN belongs to CV

I agree with Jammo, that should sort of be obvious from my previous post about the Vic open. Jammos claim if anything, pretty much backs up what I think so I do not really understand why Jammo would get up on his high horse about the post.

Of course let us put things in perspective here. MCC handed over the Vic Open to CV. That is a fact. They developed the tournament in its early days not CV. CV are now responsible for maintaining how that tournament develops in the future, that is their right and responsibility.

But as you are aware Starter, the real question is not one specific tournament. The real question is who are CV responsible to? It would be interesting if Jammo could clarify what he thinks CV actually is as an organisation and to who that organisation is responsible?


b) advising CG where the MCC (ANZAC Day) week-ender has been advertised, publicly, This is easy its on our club calender available at the club. Furthermore it is on our website under 2004 tournaments.



c) advising CG why MCC will not accept a free offer from CG. Look CG may just be a marketing guru. But not everybody needs or wants his approach towards things. As anybody with any wisdom knows there is no such thing as a free offer. Let us just say we prefer to be responsible for our own decisions, independently. There is nothing wrong with that. Its not hostile, its not bad for chess. It just encourages us to stand on our own feet.

By the way it is a business decision, pure and simple. A decision which is responsible to Melbourne Chess Club members. Our members would not think much of us if we didn't make appropriate ethical decisions.

jammo
02-03-2004, 07:27 PM
But as you are aware Starter, the real question is not one specific tournament. The real question is who are CV responsible to? It would be interesting if Jammo could clarify what he thinks CV actually is as an organisation and to who that organisation is responsible?

Dear FG7,

To WHOM is CV responsible? What is CV as an organisation?

Very simple questions but I'm happy to help you out. CV is an Incorporated Association (as is MCC). CV is accountable to its members. Usually that happens at an Annual General Meeting. Perhaps you should attend one sometime and so further your education in organisational theory.

-Jammo

ursogr8
02-03-2004, 09:26 PM
But as you are aware Starter, the real question is not one specific tournament. The real question is who are CV responsible to? It would be interesting if Jammo could clarify what he thinks CV actually is as an organisation and to who that organisation is responsible?

.

fg7
Jammo has given you the correct answer about who CV is accountable to.

In addition I think we can improve CV transparency for bidding for events.
I am going to see if I can get them listed in Garry Lycett's weekly newsletter from CV. So watch that space.

regards
starter

firegoat7
02-03-2004, 09:48 PM
Nice idea Starter.

I also asked:
It would be interesting if Jammo could clarify what he thinks CV actually is as an organisation and to who that organisation is responsible?

To which Jammo replied:
CV is an Incorporated Association (as is MCC). CV is accountable to its members. Well thanks for the quick reply Jammo, but, your answer hardly informs anybody about anything.

Whilst it might be true that CV is an incorporated association it might help if you clarifed exactly what CV is. If you need advice may I help you with an analogy. MCC is a chessclub that attempts to provide a space for people to play chess.

Is it possible then that CV is actually only a collection of affiliated chess clubs since it has no individual members? I know CV has life members but are they anymore then an honorary title?

If CV is accountable to its members could you actually clarify on this bulletin board who those members are? And how is it that those members are both represented and nominated to the board of CV?

By the way is Chessguru a member of a chess club in Victoria?

Cheers FG7

jammo
03-03-2004, 10:38 PM
Nice idea Starter.

I also asked:

To which Jammo replied: Well thanks for the quick reply Jammo, but, your answer hardly informs anybody about anything.

Whilst it might be true that CV is an incorporated association it might help if you clarifed exactly what CV is. If you need advice may I help you with an analogy. MCC is a chessclub that attempts to provide a space for people to play chess.

Is it possible then that CV is actually only a collection of affiliated chess clubs since it has no individual members? I know CV has life members but are they anymore then an honorary title?

If CV is accountable to its members could you actually clarify on this bulletin board who those members are? And how is it that those members are both represented and nominated to the board of CV?

By the way is Chessguru a member of a chess club in Victoria?

Cheers FG7

Dear FG7,

Don't you have anything better to do with your time than to ask poorly phrased questions to no apparent end? If you don't like my reply perhaps it is because you did not adequately express yourself in the question. I am not a mind reader.

I didn't know that the MCC's aim was to provide a space!

I'm not going to waste my time playing games and answering your pointless questions, but I will point you in the right direction to again help you with your education.

If you want to know what the aims of an incorporated association are then obtain a copy of their "Statement of Purposes". Even MCC will have one and I don't think it will mention "space".

If you want to know who the members of CV are then ask the Secretary. He is meant to maintain a register.

If you want to understand the workings of CV better then get a copy of the constitution off the CV Secretary.

If you read all of the above documents perhaps it will remove the need for you to continue to demonstrate your lack of understanding on these BB posts.

You ask "By the way is Chessguru a member of a chess club in Victoria?"
I don't know and I don't care. Is there some problem you wish to tell us about or are you just asking questions for the sake of it?

-Jammo

firegoat7
04-03-2004, 10:03 PM
Dear Jammo,

Thank you for your reply. I wish I could say thank you for the information, but alas, you obviously find my questions annoying and a waste of time. A pity, I thought the chess community at large would benefit from your subjective interpretations of the Victorian chess scene. Obviously, you have better things to do like reading this bulletin board and posting silly responses about not understanding questions.

It must be disturbing for you to answer questions in a democratic way. Obviously this sort of public bulletin board is against your normal authoritarian tendencies. It can be easy for you, but then again maybe your just not up to it. WBA wiped the floor with you and your logic was easily refuted. It must be very difficult, the views you have been spouting for years have not come to any real fruition,despite being in a position of power to lead, face it Jammo you might be past the use by date. prehaps you should spend the rest of your days playing seniors tennis.

When you said
If you want to know what the aims of an incorporated association are then obtain a copy of their "Statement of Purposes". Even MCC will have one and I don't think it will mention "space". and
If you want to understand the workings of CV better then get a copy of the constitution off the CV Secretary. and
If you want to understand the workings of CV better then get a copy of the constitution off the CV Secretary. and
If you read all of the above documents perhaps it will remove the need for you to continue to demonstrate your lack of understanding on these BB posts. You really show a lack of comprehension. I will begin by suggesting you presume to much, your efforts to paint me as naive may feed your ego, but really it is obvious through the questions I ask that I know more about your workings then you realise.

There are basically two reasons I ask such so called "obvious" questions. The first is to enlighten everybody else on this bulletin board about the workings of CV. So that people can judge for themselves whether your organisation is competant or not. The second is to find out about your subjective interpretations. I have pretty much concluded my analysis of the second reason. Here it is....

You Jammo hide behind order portraying a rational and competant administrator. For instance the spin you place on any subject is one of dot the I's and cross the T's. You claim you are impartial but hidden behind your efficent demenour is somebody who is completely power driven. Jammo plays favorites and carries on as if chess administration was just a game for personal amusement,...... it isn't, your decisions affect real people. Your like a child who changes the rules of the game at every turn to suit yourself. Your also unable to think outside the square. In my opinion you make an excellent Vca treasurer, but a very poor leader.

One only know wonders what secretary Jenkins has done to feel your wraith.
It is pretty obvious from all these posts that you do not hold MCC in much regard. You seem therefore unable in my opinion to unite clubs. I think you would actually enjoy seeing a club like MCC fold, especially if you could engineer its collapse.

Nevertheless, I asked you some questions. Why don't you just answer them and focus on improving the communication of CV instead of attempting to carry on as if this was another bout of parliament. Are you not happy that people show concern aboout the workings of your organisation, or is the heat getting to much for you?

yours to eternity
FG7
P.S Is chessguru a member of any Victorian chessclub?

ursogr8
05-03-2004, 07:32 AM
Dear Jammo,

Thank you for your reply. I wish I could say thank you for the information, but alas, you obviously find my questions annoying and a waste of time. A pity, I thought the chess community at large would benefit from your subjective interpretations of the Victorian chess scene. Obviously, you have better things to do like reading this bulletin board and posting silly responses about not understanding questions.

It must be disturbing for you to answer questions in a democratic way. Obviously this sort of public bulletin board is against your normal authoritarian tendencies. It can be easy for you, but then again maybe your just not up to it. WBA wiped the floor with you and your logic was easily refuted. It must be very difficult, the views you have been spouting for years have not come to any real fruition,despite being in a position of power to lead, face it Jammo you might be past the use by date. prehaps you should spend the rest of your days playing seniors tennis.


firegoat
starter here

I don’t know where you are going with this latest attack mate.
I too read your posts
> #235 of 7.38pm 2/3
>>#238 of 10.48pm 2/3
and frankly I thought they were covering old ground and hard to understand what you wanted answered, so I didn’t have the energy to post.

On the other hand, jammo found the energy and tried to help, but gave you a minor serve on the way on account of your ambiguous line of questioning.
Now you give him a huge serve for saying the questions were ambiguous even though he at least gave you an answer.
I don’t know who will post in response to you on this tack you have taken.




I think you would actually enjoy seeing a club like MCC fold, especially if you could engineer its collapse.



firegoat, this is an accusation that contrary to all I have heard from jammo about his care in preserving artefacts and history. I don’t think you are correct at all on this one. :hand:




FG7
P.S Is chessguru a member of any Victorian chessclub?



This is the second time you have asked the question. I ignored the first time because the answer was obvious. Yes, not only is CG a member of a Club that plays chess, he owns the Club. But you knew that 100% for sure.
And, you know the Club is not affiliated.
So why ask the question twice?

starter

Garvinator
05-03-2004, 08:48 AM
firegoat
starter here

This is the second time you have asked the question. I ignored the first time because the answer was obvious. Yes, not only is CG a member of a Club that plays chess, he owns the Club. But you knew that 100% for sure.
And, you know the Club is not affiliated.
So why ask the question twice?

starter
Oh dear, time to stick my nose into Vic chess business :eek: . I think where firegoat might be headed is, if CG is not a member of an affiliated club, then he is not a member of CV, so then CG(from my understanding) should not be on the CV committeee. Have i got this right from what you are saying fg?

ursogr8
05-03-2004, 09:05 AM
Oh dear, time to stick my nose into Vic chess business :eek: . I think where firegoat might be headed is, if CG is not a member of an affiliated club, then he is not a member of CV, so then CG(from my understanding) should not be on the CV committeee. Have i got this right from what you are saying fg?

gg'

Maybe you are correct gg', but everyone (including Queenslanders obviously) already knew this. If what you surmise was correct, one would have thought he would have moved on to ask if the CV constitution allowed Committee members who are not members of affiliated Clubs. But he hasn't taken that tack, so why is fg7 asking the question?

Incidentally, I don't know what the CV Constitution requires as a qualifying to be an executive member. But it would not surprise me if at least 4 who sit at the top table at an AGM are not members of affiliated Clubs (unless Life membership counts as 'financial members'). Do you think this looks irregular?

Before you jump into print gg, (and score yet another post on the Mexican thread ;) ), just ask yourself what would have been a qualifier requirement for the Australian Chess Commission. Would one have had to be a member of 'what'?

starter

Garvinator
05-03-2004, 09:24 AM
Maybe you are correct gg', but everyone (including Queenslanders obviously) already knew this. If what you surmise was correct, one would have thought he would have moved on to ask if the CV constitution allowed Committee members who are not members of affiliated Clubs. But he hasn't taken that tack, so why is fg7 asking the question?

starter, we both know, well i do, that firegoat is not the best at hammering a point home, i have noticed that he may score a point on something, then moves on. So that might explain it.


Incidentally, I don't know what the CV Constitution requires as a qualifying to be an executive member. But it would not surprise me if at least 4 who sit at the top table at an AGM are not members of affiliated Clubs (unless Life membership counts as 'financial members'). Do you think this looks irregular?

Ok two parts here, a person who is a life member of club is effectively being given free membership, so if they are say, a life member of box hill and box hill is affiliated with CV, then they can stand and hold a CV committee position.

Secondly, if this situation of people on the committee are not members of affiliated CV clubs, then they should not be on the committee(from my understanding of what has been said here about the CV constitution). They would be a sitting member and acting outside the boundaries of the constitution, so they should be given two options, either become a member of somewhere or resign.


just ask yourself what would have been a qualifier requirement for the Australian Chess Commission. Would one have had to be a member of 'what'?

I would have thought that under the commission proposal, people could join the acf directly, instead of joining a state based body.

arosar
05-03-2004, 09:38 AM
Before you jump into print gg, (and score yet another post on the Mexican thread ;)

He's a typical northerner - always meddling in southern business.

AR

ursogr8
05-03-2004, 10:18 AM
Secondly, if this situation of people on the committee are not members of affiliated CV clubs, then they should not be on the committee(from my understanding of what has been said here about the CV constitution). They would be a sitting member and acting outside the boundaries of the constitution, so they should be given two options, either become a member of somewhere or resign.


'yg'


You have not had to recruit volunteers have you gg'. If you can't get a queue of them you have to take what you get. And if those who are willing to step forward are not members of Clubs then sobeit. Incidentally, I don't think it is established that the Constitution prohibits non-members from sitting on the Executive.




I would have thought that under the commission proposal, people could join the acf directly, instead of joining a state based body.


You comment raises more points than it answers. 1 There would be no ACF if there was a Commission, as I understand it. 2 I would be surprised if any members of the AFL Commission (which was always jammo's reference point in this proposed entity) are members of the football Clubs; remember the Commission is supposed to be independent.

starter

jammo
06-03-2004, 09:27 PM
face it Jammo you might be past the use by date. prehaps you should spend the rest of your days playing seniors tennis.


Yes, a good option FG7. Trouble with chess is that it has a goodly percentage of dedicated morons and weirdos of whom you are a prime example. It is no wonder that chess goes through so many officials as they must quickly get sick of dealing with people like you.



You Jammo hide behind order portraying a rational and competant administrator. For instance the spin you place on any subject is one of dot the I's and cross the T's. You claim you are impartial but hidden behind your efficent demenour is somebody who is completely power driven. Jammo plays favorites and carries on as if chess administration was just a game for personal amusement,...... it isn't, your decisions affect real people. Your like a child who changes the rules of the game at every turn to suit yourself. Your also unable to think outside the square. In my opinion you make an excellent Vca treasurer, but a very poor leader.

Well FG7, you are welcome to your opinion. As usual it is the opinion of an ill-informed and abusive moron and so counts for little. I have held voluntary positions in 8 organisations over 35 years and am a life member of 5 organisations so one wonders why people keep electing me if I am such a poor leader. When I retired as ACF Secreary in 1983 Kosh wrote in his column "Innovative Secretary to Retire" so perhaps he considered I thought outside the square.



One only know wonders what secretary Jenkins has done to feel your wraith.

A very simple answer. Keith has done nothing. And when he finishes doing that he does nothing again. He is a well meaning chap but is the worst Secretary I have ever seen. If you wish to criticise me FG7 then criticise me for being intolerant and I will agree with you.



It is pretty obvious from all these posts that you do not hold MCC in much regard.

No, the MCC is fine. It's just members of the MCC who are drongos (like your good self) that I do not hold I high regard. Rather than continuing your vendetta against CV on this BB why don't you take lessons in spelling or how to deliver a speech. Something useful at least.



You seem therefore unable in my opinion to unite clubs. I think you would actually enjoy seeing a club like MCC fold, especially if you could engineer its collapse.

Now this is a challenge for me. Can I spell paranoia? Not sure. Hope I got it right. Like you I'm not a great speller but I think I really need to use it to explain your comment. Maybe you need to seek professional help if you think people are running around trying to engineer the collapse of MCC.



Nevertheless, I asked you some questions. Why don't you just answer them and focus on improving the communication of CV instead of attempting to carry on as if this was another bout of parliament. Are you not happy that people show concern aboout the workings of your organisation, or is the heat getting to much for you?

If you ask a simple, clear question I am happy to answer it. Trouble is you know what you want to say but you really struggle to express yourself clearly to others.

The other problem is why are you asking all these silly questions (and ignoring the answers when you get them). I thought as MCC rep on the BB your position was that you just wanted to be left alone and have minimal dealings with CV. Yet you keep asking questions about CV! I hope it is clear to everyone that it is you who is fostering disputes and ignoring approaches at reconciliation.

Maybe in the interests of MCC - CV relations you should resign and allow someone without a poisioned mind take your place. Perhaps you could take up tennis ..... just don't join my club.

-Jammo

Bill Gletsos
06-03-2004, 11:12 PM
I would have thought that under the commission proposal, people could join the acf directly, instead of joining a state based body.
Then your thought would have been wrong.
It had nothing to do with changing the membership structure.
All the Commission propsal was doing was replacing the ACF Council by an ACF Commission.
The ACF Council currently consists of an Executive and a State Delegate for each State and Territory. The Executive is elected at the National Conference. Each state delegate is nominated by their respective state body.

Under the Commission proposal the National Conference would elect the ACF Commisioners.

Bill Gletsos
06-03-2004, 11:16 PM
You comment raises more points than it answers. 1 There would be no ACF if there was a Commission, as I understand it.
Then you did not understand it.
See my response to gg.


2 I would be surprised if any members of the AFL Commission (which was always jammo's reference point in this proposed entity) are members of the football Clubs; remember the Commission is supposed to be independent.
In AFL who elects the AFL Commissoners.

PHAT
07-03-2004, 12:06 AM
Question: Are th e Mexcans as nasty to each other face to face as thay ar on the BB or is it mostly netdom posturing.