PDA

View Full Version : ACF Administration



Garvinator
27-01-2004, 10:51 PM
I am actually interested in what the proposal was for the acf commission and its ramifications, so as per firegoat7 request :eek: I have moved jammos post to here regarding acf commission debate :D


Hi Bill,

I would not agree with your "best for australian chess" comment, but if you change it to "best for australian chess administration" then I'm forced to plead guilty.

Perhaps you would agree that I am best qualified to know what is best for Australian chess administration as I have been ACF President, Deputy President, Secretary and Treasurer (plus other office-bearer roles) over the last 30 years so I think that gives me an all round background to claim that I could understand the problems of ACF administration better than most others.

If you put yourself in my shoes for a moment, perhaps you can appreciate my frustration when the ACF Commission proposal is defeated by NSW voting against it when most of them have little knowledge of ACF administration and their objections to the proposal (in my view) are not a sufficient reason to vote against the proposal if one is taking a national point of view.

Now you can say that I don't listen to the views of others if you wish. I can say that I have listened to them and they have not convinced me that the commission is not the best model for the ACF.

It will be interesting to see what happens to the ACF when the current administration retires in Jan 2005. Is their anyone waiting in the wings who is going to run the ACF? Perhaps our new (generational change!) Deputy President will rise to even greater glory? Perhaps no one will put their hand up and the ACF will collapse? If so I'm quite content that I did my best to reform the ACF administration so that it would have continuity and experienced people to run it. If others fail to support my proposal then I can't do much about it and the onus will be on them to find a structure that will attract people to run the ACF. I suggest that the current problems at the prize-giving in Perth are indicitative of the ACF's problems with having the President as the sole decision making authority between 3 monthly meetings. He does what he is interested in and some things may get missed.

As to my stir about you counting for 5 people in debates; I was echoing Jason Lyon's comments in a previous post. I note from your latest comment that you believe that you do not dominate NSW Council meetings. If so, I'm pleased. Jason and I will have to revise our view of your debating style.

Maybe you can share your views on how the ACF should be run with others on the BB and we can have a fruitful discussion. Will having 2 VPs make much difference? Does the ACF need more meetings and maybe a return to a face-to-face Council or Executive?

Cheers
-Jammo

skip to my lou
27-01-2004, 11:01 PM
Please quote the part of the message that you did not write.

Garvinator
27-01-2004, 11:06 PM
Please quote the part of the message that you did not write.
better now ;)

Bill Gletsos
28-01-2004, 08:40 AM
I am actually interested in what the proposal was for the acf commission and its ramifications, so as per firegoat7 request :eek: I have moved jammos post to here regarding acf commission debate :D
I don't see jammo's post as relating to the ACF Commission debate.

If you want to know about the ACF Commision I suggest you read the thread on the old ACF BB.

It will be more fruitful than starting another slangling match here.

arosar
28-01-2004, 08:54 AM
See here:

http://www.chesskit.com/auschess/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.pl?board=auschess;action=display;num=10487417 90;start=0

AR

Bill Gletsos
28-01-2004, 10:32 AM
ggrayggray I think if you copied jammo's post here you should have also copied my response which was as follows:






Hi Bill,

I would not agree with your "best for australian chess" comment, but if you change it to "best for australian chess administration" then I'm forced to plead guilty.

Perhaps you would agree that I am best qualified to know what is best for Australian chess administration as I have been ACF President, Deputy President, Secretary and Treasurer (plus other office-bearer roles) over the last 30 years so I think that gives me an all round background to claim that I could understand the problems of ACF administration better than most others.

If you put yourself in my shoes for a moment, perhaps you can appreciate my frustration when the ACF Commission proposal is defeated by NSW voting against it when most of them have little knowledge of ACF administration and their objections to the proposal (in my view) are not a sufficient reason to vote against the proposal if one is taking a national point of view.
Hi Robert,

I really dont want to get into another slanging match with you over the ACF Commission, because I dont believe it is going to get us anywhere.


Now you can say that I don't listen to the views of others if you wish. I can say that I have listened to them and they have not convinced me that the commission is not the best model for the ACF.

I think the NSW delegates would same the same thing. They listened to you but were not convinced that the ACF Commission was the best model.



It will be interesting to see what happens to the ACF when the current administration retires in Jan 2005. Is their anyone waiting in the wings who is going to run the ACF? Perhaps our new (generational change!) Deputy President will rise to even greater glory? Perhaps no one will put their hand up and the ACF will collapse? If so I'm quite content that I did my best to reform the ACF administration so that it would have continuity and experienced people to run it. If others fail to support my proposal then I can't do much about it and the onus will be on them to find a structure that will attract people to run the ACF. I suggest that the current problems at the prize-giving in Perth are indicitative of the ACF's problems with having the President as the sole decision making authority between 3 monthly meetings. He does what he is interested in and some things may get missed.
I think thats a little unfair.
It sounded like Norbert had been informed by a number of people what was expected with regards play-offs and prize giving but just refused to listen.


As to my stir about you counting for 5 people in debates; I was echoing Jason Lyon's comments in a previous post. I note from your latest comment that you believe that you do not dominate NSW Council meetings. If so, I'm pleased. Jason and I will have to revise our view of your debating style.
I wont deny that I can be persistent in trying to get a point across, but when I am chairing the NSW Council meetings I always try and let everyone have their say.


Maybe you can share your views on how the ACF should be run with others on the BB and we can have a fruitful discussion. Will having 2 VPs make much difference? Does the ACF need more meetings and maybe a return to a face-to-face Council or Executive?
I think adding the two VP's can help in sharing the load.
I do believe that recognising email voting in the constitution is important. I believe it means the Council can have more of a hands on approach to ACF issues in between council meetings.

Prior to Graeme Gardiner becoming ACF president, the ACF Executive resided in the one state. This made it easy for the Executive to meet face to face, however the downside was that the state delegates who make up the majority of the ACF Council were virtually never true representatives of their states.

E.g. when the ACF was in Melbourne the state delegates for all the states were Victorians, nominated by the respective states to represent them at ACF Council meetings. Those delegates however could not really know what their states views were on issues that came up for discussion at ACF meetings that were not on the agenda but were raised as part of agenda items or general business. This meant they either voted without truly representing their states view or decisions were delayed due to them having to go back to their state associations for instructions.

When Graeme took over he changed things to replace these council meetings by telephone hookups where the state delegates really were from the states they represented. The WA delegate was an actual WA person. The same was true for the other states.

I think all the states would say this was a better format.

Now similar to the ACF, the NSWCA constitution places the power between Council meetings in the hands of the NSWCA executive(Pres, Vice Pres, Sec and Treas). However over the last few years when the advent of email became prevalent decisions by the Eecutive as opposed to the full Council have been few and far between. In fact I'm hard pressed to remember the last time it happened.

The NSWCA has monthly meetings but we discuss issues in between those meetings. If a decisions needs to be made prior to the next meeting then it happens. If it can wait then although we may discuss it via email we will decide face to face at the next meeting.

I see no reason why the ACF cannot function in this manner.

jammo
28-01-2004, 08:23 PM
Hi Bill,

I too don't like the heading of this thread. I don't want to talk about an ACF Commission. I do want to talk about the ACF administrative structure.
So here goes:


ACF Administrative Structure Discussion

I think most people would agree with the following principles in establishing an administrative structure for a body such as the ACF:

1. A group should be established to manage the organization.
2. This group should meet on a regular basis.
3. This group should have the authority, expertise and resources to effectively manage the organization.
4. This group should be held accountable by the stakeholders for the success or failure of the organization.

In my view the ACF is not currently managed by a group but is run by the President and individual office-bearers doing their own roles in isolation. If the President is able to be aware of all current and potential issues and to act to resolve them then the ACF can probably get by. I think Graeme Gardiner was such a President. If on the other hand the President is heavily involved in some project, such as the Chess Olympiad or the Australian Championships, then other less important matters may not get done.

As an example I suggest that the confusion in Perth about play-offs could have been avoided had the ACF ensured that the organiser understood the requirements of the ACF by-laws before the tournament. It would help also if the current by-laws were on the web site.

In my view a three monthly Council meetings are not frequent enough to manage the ACF. In previous years when the ACF had face-to-face Council meetings they were generally monthly. Phone Council meetings (often including State Presidents as delegates) also tend to be largely office-bearers reporting to the stakeholders (the states) rather than a day-to-day management group running the organization.

CONCLUSION

In my view they ACF desperately needs a group that can meet on a regular basis and run the organization. Whether that group is called the Executive, the Council or the Commission I don’t think matters much. Whether they meet in person, by phone or by email I don’t think matters much. But we do need a group that can sit down and say to itself “what do we need to do to run the ACF (this month)?” Do we need to update stuff on the website; do we need to get bids for our events; do we need to ensure that the next ACF event will be run correctly; do we need to get the minutes out to everyone so that they will know what they have to do; do we need to revise our by-laws in the light of recent experiences; etc. etc.?


So, dear BB readers.

Do you agree with my analysis of the ACF’s administrative problems?
If so, what are your solutions?

BG has suggested that in the past I have not listened to the views of others as well as I might have.

So, I’m listening now.

I await your ideas with interest.

-Jammo

Rincewind
28-01-2004, 08:38 PM
Do most delegates think 3 monthly is too infrequent?

If so why can't the ACF council simply meet every two months instead of every 3? If after 6 months this is still insufficient then look to moving it to monthly.

I assume it is not that easy or else it would have been decided at a council meeting and not started as a thread on the BB.

chesslover
28-01-2004, 08:38 PM
Hi Bill,
ACF Administrative Structure Discussion

I think most people would agree with the following principles in establishing an administrative structure for a body such as the ACF:

1. A group should be established to manage the organization.
2. This group should meet on a regular basis.
3. This group should have the authority, expertise and resources to effectively manage the organization.
4. This group should be held accountable by the stakeholders for the success or failure of the organization.

So, dear BB readers.

Do you agree with my analysis of the ACF’s administrative problems?
If so, what are your solutions?

BG has suggested that in the past I have not listened to the views of others as well as I might have.

So, I’m listening now.

I await your ideas with interest.

-Jammo

Thanks for the ideas Jammo. Your experience and expertise in chess admin is appreciated, as does your ideas.

In the previous threads you have had clashes regarding the ACF commision with some posters, inlcuding me, who think that the state chess associations will be adversely affected by the ACF commission proposal.

What is the limitations and scope of this ACF group? will it have the power to overide the wishes of any of the state chess associations that disagree with it's day to day decisions? what will it's relationship be to the state chess associations like the NSWCA? How will the efforts of organisations like the NSWCA, that manage the day to day affairs of NSW chess be integrated into your proposed new ACF admin?

Garvinator
28-01-2004, 08:45 PM
Thanks for the ideas Jammo. Your experience and expertise in chess admin is appreciated, as does your ideas.

In the previous threads you have had clashes regarding the ACF commision with some posters, inlcuding me, who think that the state chess associations will be adversely affected by the ACF commission proposal.

What is the limitations and scope of this ACF group? will it have the power to overide the wishes of any of the state chess associations that disagree with it's day to day decisions? what will it's relationship be to the state chess associations like the NSWCA? How will the efforts of organisations like the NSWCA, that manage the day to day affairs of NSW chess be integrated into your proposed new ACF admin?
It is my understanding that under the present constitution that nswca has enough delegates to stop any changes to the constitution. Even if every delegate of every other state or territory votes for the changes. So with this situation, the mission would be to convince nswca of the advantages of your idea.

But i ask why would nswca want to change anything when they are the strongest and largest state as it stands at the moment.

I think it is reprehensible that any one state can have enough delegates to sink a constitution change. That was the first thing I remember about the acf commission when i went back and re read almost all of the posts ;) .

I think that would be the first area of the constitution that should be changed. But to change that you have to convince the current nswca state delegates to vote to reduce their ability to vote as a block to sink a constitution change :eek:

chesslover
28-01-2004, 09:15 PM
It is my understanding that under the present constitution that nswca has enough delegates to stop any changes to the constitution. Even if every delegate of every other state or territory votes for the changes. So with this situation, the mission would be to convince nswca of the advantages of your idea.

I think it is reprehensible that any one state can have enough delegates to sink a constitution change. That was the first thing I remember about the acf commission when i went back and re read almost all of the posts ;) .

I think that would be the first area of the constitution that should be changed. But to change that you have to convince the current nswca state delegates to vote to reduce their ability to vote as a block to sink a constitution change :eek:

I beg to differ with you here

There is NOTHING wrong with NSWCA having the most votes, as we are the biggest state in population by far in Australia. Indeed Sydney alone has more people than all states except Victoria

As teh most populas state, it is only just and right that we have more votes in the ACF. In the House of Reps, one third of all memebers come from NSW - you do not hear bleatings that this is unfair do you?

If you reduce the number of NSW members in the ACF, then what you are essentially doing is to make the vote of a person in NSW, worth less than the vote of a person in other states. This is undemocratic, and fundamentally unfair and unjust.

Coming from Queensland, which was famous for the gerrymandering under your Sir Joh, where one vote in the countryside was worth far more than a vote in the city, such an idea coming from you does not surprise me. However down here, the "one person, one vote" democratic principle is held in high regard, and any moves to dilute NSW representaion on the ACF will run counter to this most cherished and sacred democratic principle.

jammo
28-01-2004, 09:24 PM
Do most delegates think 3 monthly is too infrequent?

If so why can't the ACF council simply meet every two months instead of every 3? If after 6 months this is still insufficient then look to moving it to monthly.

I assume it is not that easy or else it would have been decided at a council meeting and not started as a thread on the BB.

Hi Barry,

Most current Council meetings are by phone and hence very expensive. Maybe $500 - $750 per meeting?

-Jammo

Garvinator
28-01-2004, 09:35 PM
there is nothing wrong with nswca having the most votes, as we are the biggest state in population by far in australia. Indeed sydney alone has more ppl than all states except victoria

this point is irrelevant as i was never talking about populations or even chess populations. I was saying that one state having enough delegates to block a change of constitution motion is reprehensible in my opinion.


If you reduce the number of NSW members in the ACF, then what you are essentially doing is to make the vote of a person in NSW, worth less than the vote of a person in other states. This is undemocratic, and fundamentally unfair and unjust.

Id love to see the stats that prove that currently the delegates to members ratio is equal in all states.



Coming from Queensland, which was famous for the gerrymandering under your Sir Joh, where one vote in the countryside was worth far more than a vote in the city, such an idea coming from you does not surprise me. However down here, the "one person, one vote" democratic principle is held in high regard, and any moves to dilute NSW representaion on the ACF will run counter to this most cherished and sacred democratic principle.

thats a bit rich and completely missed the point, you keep bleating on about the australian government constitution, when it is rather irrelevant here.

But just to smash you again, the sir joh years were gerrymandered and were eliminated by the fitzgerald inquiry(are you aware of that). Now we have a fair system as far as politics go(well as fair as any other state).

Back to the point at hand cl, i never said that nsw should not have the most amount of delegates. I was saying that no state should have enough delegates to be able to veto a constitution on its own.

chesslover
28-01-2004, 10:02 PM
this point is irrelevant as i was never talking about populations or even chess populations. I was saying that one state having enough delegates to block a change of constitution motion is reprehensible in my opinion.

Back to the point at hand cl, i never said that nsw should not have the most amount of delegates. I was saying that no state should have enough delegates to be able to veto a constitution on its own.
but that is the point

because we have the most population (about a third of australians live in NSW), we have the most delegates. This is similar to California in the US electoral votes having more votes than a small state than Delaware, becuase California has a far biggrer population, and is thus entitled to more delegates. Pretty fair huh?

Also because the ACF constitution requires a 75% change, so if the NSWCA votes as a block that is enough to block any unsound and wrong changes. I

t is a huge responsibility, but one which under the enligtened under inspired leadership of Bill, the NSWCA is particularly well equipped to handle - nto wanting to be provacative, but if any state had to have this awesome responsibility it is better that be NSWCA (due to our population) than some other state :p

Also why focus on the negative - NSW can also vote for the changes if deemed to be in the interest of NSWCA members and australian chess. It must also be remembered that that the last time the ACF constitution was defeated Victoria was split as well - so it was not just NSW that was against the ACF commision proposal

Bill Gletsos
28-01-2004, 10:10 PM
Hi Bill,

I too don't like the heading of this thread. I don't want to talk about an ACF Commission. I do want to talk about the ACF administrative structure.
So here goes:

ACF Administrative Structure Discussion

I think most people would agree with the following principles in establishing an administrative structure for a body such as the ACF:

1. A group should be established to manage the organization.
2. This group should meet on a regular basis.
3. This group should have the authority, expertise and resources to effectively manage the organization.
4. This group should be held accountable by the stakeholders for the success or failure of the organization.

In my view the ACF is not currently managed by a group but is run by the President and individual office-bearers doing their own roles in isolation. If the President is able to be aware of all current and potential issues and to act to resolve them then the ACF can probably get by. I think Graeme Gardiner was such a President. If on the other hand the President is heavily involved in some project, such as the Chess Olympiad or the Australian Championships, then other less important matters may not get done.

As an example I suggest that the confusion in Perth about play-offs could have been avoided had the ACF ensured that the organiser understood the requirements of the ACF by-laws before the tournament. It would help also if the current by-laws were on the web site.

In my view a three monthly Council meetings are not frequent enough to manage the ACF. In previous years when the ACF had face-to-face Council meetings they were generally monthly. Phone Council meetings (often including State Presidents as delegates) also tend to be largely office-bearers reporting to the stakeholders (the states) rather than a day-to-day management group running the organization.

CONCLUSION

In my view they ACF desperately needs a group that can meet on a regular basis and run the organization. Whether that group is called the Executive, the Council or the Commission I don’t think matters much. Whether they meet in person, by phone or by email I don’t think matters much. But we do need a group that can sit down and say to itself “what do we need to do to run the ACF (this month)?” Do we need to update stuff on the website; do we need to get bids for our events; do we need to ensure that the next ACF event will be run correctly; do we need to get the minutes out to everyone so that they will know what they have to do; do we need to revise our by-laws in the light of recent experiences; etc. etc.?

I'm not convinced that more face to face is required.

After all even the ACF Commission was not suggesting the Commissioners all be from the same state or that there be more face to face meetings.

If I recal one of the arguments for a ACF Commission was that there could be more email discussion and decisions.

I agree that what is required is more discussion between meetings and more email decisions made(Just not by Commissoners).

The ACF Council can do this. I see no reason why any ACF Council member whether they be an Executive member or a State delegate cannot start a discussion about any subject between the Council members and if need be request that a vote be taken and decision made.

We just passed the email voting amendement to the ACF Constitution at the National Conference.

I therefore believe we should see how email discussion and voting works out over the next 12 mths.

It has worked well for the NSWCA I see no reason why it shouldnt work equally well for the ACF.

Garvinator
28-01-2004, 10:11 PM
because we have the most population (about a third of australians live in NSW), we have the most delegates. This is similar to California in the US electoral votes having more votes than a small state than Delaware, becuase California has a far biggrer population, and is thus entitled to more delegates. Pretty fair huh?
Do you actually bother to read other posts in their entirety, i never said that you shouldnt have the MOST AMOUNT OF DELEGATES, i said that your number should not be enough to be able to veto a constituition IF EVERY OTHER STATE DELEGATE VOTES FOR IT.

Bill Gletsos
28-01-2004, 10:13 PM
Do most delegates think 3 monthly is too infrequent?

If so why can't the ACF council simply meet every two months instead of every 3? If after 6 months this is still insufficient then look to moving it to monthly.

I assume it is not that easy or else it would have been decided at a council meeting and not started as a thread on the BB.

See my response to jammo, but I see no reason why more email discussion cannot happen and decisions made. Especially now that email voting is enshrined in the ACF Constitution.

chesslover
28-01-2004, 10:16 PM
See my response to jammo, but I see no reason why more email discussion cannot happen and decisions made. Especially now that email voting is enshrined in the ACF Constitution.
well made post on this and the response to jammo :)

as you pointed out there are existing mechanisms that will enable this, rather than "reform" the ACF to make this happen.

Your idea of trying it for 12 months and then reviewing it is common sensical and logical

Bill Gletsos
28-01-2004, 10:19 PM
What is the limitations and scope of this ACF group? will it have the power to overide the wishes of any of the state chess associations that disagree with it's day to day decisions? what will it's relationship be to the state chess associations like the NSWCA? How will the efforts of organisations like the NSWCA, that manage the day to day affairs of NSW chess be integrated into your proposed new ACF admin?
I do not believe jammo's post was implying that any of those things happen.

In fact as it is now if the ACF Council makes a decision to increase the admin fee, then the NSWCA is obliged as a member of the ACF to pay the new fee.

I would not expect day to day decisions of the ACF to have signicant impact on the state associations. If they did and the decision was unpopular then the State associations could request a full vote in which case each state gets to exercise its full voting right.

chesslover
28-01-2004, 10:22 PM
Do you actually bother to read other posts in their entirety, i never said that you shouldnt have the MOST AMOUNT OF DELEGATES, i said that your number should not be enough to be able to veto a constituition IF EVERY OTHER STATE DELEGATE VOTES FOR IT.

let me go over this S-L-O-W-L-Y so that even a Queenslander can understand.

The ACF constitution needs 75% for a change. NSW as the state where a third of the population lives in, has the most delegates. These delegates are more than 25% of the ACF delegates, so that if the NSW votes as a block it will be able to defeat any constitutional changes that will be detrimental to NSW and Australian chess.

The fact that NSW has the most number of delegates is fair, as we have the most number of people living in our state. The fact that this number of delegate is enough to stop a change to the constituion was known to all other states when the constitution was drawn up. Why is that then the fault of NSW?

Bill Gletsos
28-01-2004, 10:24 PM
It is my understanding that under the present constitution that nswca has enough delegates to stop any changes to the constitution. Even if every delegate of every other state or territory votes for the changes. So with this situation, the mission would be to convince nswca of the advantages of your idea.

But i ask why would nswca want to change anything when they are the strongest and largest state as it stands at the moment.

I think it is reprehensible that any one state can have enough delegates to sink a constitution change. That was the first thing I remember about the acf commission when i went back and re read almost all of the posts ;) .

I think that would be the first area of the constitution that should be changed. But to change that you have to convince the current nswca state delegates to vote to reduce their ability to vote as a block to sink a constitution change :eek:
I cannot see this happening.

However I will make this point.
From the time that this constitution was first proposed many years ago, NSW was always going to have enough votes to veto a constituitional change. Even knowing this the states voted to implement this constitution.

Rincewind
28-01-2004, 11:07 PM
Most current Council meetings are by phone and hence very expensive. Maybe $500 - $750 per meeting?

Then I agree with Bill that internet medium be investigated. Options include: Email; a private forum here or elsewhere; collaboration SW like NetMeeting; and, VoIP is another possibility.

jase
29-01-2004, 01:15 AM
Ggray - your point is well made.

One State should never be allowed to control the constitution.

Bill - you touched on this point. My reading of your post is that you agree that NSW ought to have the sole right to veto any change to the constitution. I am aware that some of this thread has been discusssed elsewhere, I just ask that you clarify if I have stated your position correctly.

Since CL has raised the issue of Queensland, and strength in numbers, perhaps the number of delegates should be made to reflect not State population, but chess players. I suspect Queensland would far better in this regard.

CL - what happens if/when the NSWCA is not in such good hands - we cannot always expect to have competent ["enlightened"!] administrators?

Little wonder that chess in Australia is so fragmented, and smaller States feel neglected, with views like yours. Goodness only knows how you come to terms with Senate representation.

Kevin Bonham
29-01-2004, 01:54 AM
From the time that this constitution was first proposed many years ago, NSW was always going to have enough votes to veto a constituitional change. Even knowing this the states voted to implement this constitution.

Anyone know the history of this - how old is the constitution, what is the background to three-quarters being agreed, etc? The number of delegates per state is one per million or part thereof (thus a state with 1.1 million people has 2 delegates) - incidentally this tends to favour the smaller states somewhat, so maybe CL should start complaining about it being undemocratic and saying that Tasmania should only have half a delegate or something. Did NSW in fact have over a quarter of the delegates when the three-quarters was agreed?

I note that within the next five years, NSW, Vic, Qld, and WA can all expect to pick up an extra delegate if the present system remains. Vic may get theirs first, but that would give them only 6/24 which is not enough to block constitutional change. At current rates of population change there is no prospect of NSW losing its veto right any time soon.

I don't think a single state being able to block constitutional change is desirable in the long term. This certainly isn't the case in Australia in referenda for instance. However it should be pointed out that the NSWCA delegates were not alone in voting against the Commission; a couple of Victorians voted against it too.

PS Not of any chess relevance, but just for general interest: the common application of the term "gerrymander" to the practice of having big electorates (population-wise) in cities and small ones in the bush is incorrect. The term for that is "malapportionment" (there are various friendly euphemisms for it as well). A "gerrymander" is simply rorting the boundaries to make your own side win more seats while the other side wins fewer seats by bigger margins. Supposedly after a chap called Gerry who produced election boundaries that looked like a salamander, hence "gerrymander".

Garvinator
29-01-2004, 09:32 AM
PS Not of any chess relevance, but just for general interest: the common application of the term "gerrymander" to the practice of having big electorates (population-wise) in cities and small ones in the bush is incorrect. The term for that is "malapportionment" (there are various friendly euphemisms for it as well). A "gerrymander" is simply rorting the boundaries to make your own side win more seats while the other side wins fewer seats by bigger margins. Supposedly after a chap called Gerry who produced election boundaries that looked like a salamander, hence "gerrymander".

yes off topic, ohhh the shame :wink: i had used the term gerrymander correctly for what happened up here in qld for 20 years under the sir joh years.

He had the boundaries for each seat set up basically according to square kms size, not population size. This meant that it only required 10000 ppl in a seat in the country, but 100000 in the city. Of course this favoured the national party in qld. Therefore Sir Joh was able to remain as premier even though he was getting 20% of the vote.

Garvinator
29-01-2004, 09:38 AM
Ggray - your point is well made.

One State should never be allowed to control the constitution.

Bill - you touched on this point. My reading of your post is that you agree that NSW ought to have the sole right to veto any change to the constitution. I am aware that some of this thread has been discusssed elsewhere, I just ask that you clarify if I have stated your position correctly.

Thanks Jase, at least one person has been able to understand the point that I have been trying to make :clap: :p .

But my first question is, the people who have responded have all mentioned population of states as the reason for the number of delegates.

I dont understand how a states population matters? Shouldnt it be the number of chess members each state has. Yes I understand that is an easy calculation for NSW as they have individual membership of the NSWCA, but might be a bit more difficult for CV as they have club based membership. But im sure in CV, each club could tell CV how many members each club has(that play in rated tournaments etc) and then that figure can be totalled.

I would be curious which state has the most amount of chess playing members, CV or NSWCA. That would make interesting reading :hmm:

Bill Gletsos
29-01-2004, 11:08 AM
Bill - you touched on this point. My reading of your post is that you agree that NSW ought to have the sole right to veto any change to the constitution. I am aware that some of this thread has been discusssed elsewhere, I just ask that you clarify if I have stated your position correctly.
Actually I was just stating the situation as I saw it.
Personally I'm undecided as to whether it is desireable or not.

However people should realise that NSW under the quota system used to pay around 33% of the ACF income. If you are paying so much then you should have the votes.
Under the ACF admin fee and schools levy scheme which replaced the quota system NSW is still paying more than 25% of the ACF income.



Since CL has raised the issue of Queensland, and strength in numbers, perhaps the number of delegates should be made to reflect not State population, but chess players. I suspect Queensland would far better in this regard.
I suspect you would need to count QLD juniors in which case you should therefore count NSW juniors.

Bill Gletsos
29-01-2004, 11:13 AM
Anyone know the history of this - how old is the constitution, what is the background to three-quarters being agreed, etc?.
I believe this version of the Constitution only came into effect in 1993. The 75% requirement is a statuatory requirement for incorporated bodies at least in the ACT(where the ACF is incorporarted).

Bill Gletsos
29-01-2004, 11:21 AM
However it should be pointed out that the NSWCA delegates were not alone in voting against the Commission; a couple of Victorians voted against it too.
Yes good point.
Even if NSW had voted 3 in favour, 4 against(which would have been totally out of line with the NSWCA Councils view) the motion would still have failed because the necessary 6 votes would still have been reached.

Also I was led to believe that the 2 WA delegates got their vote back to front.

Bill Gletsos
29-01-2004, 11:24 AM
I dont understand how a states population matters? Shouldnt it be the number of chess members each state has.
I thought our mate jammo had a hand in the drafting of the constitution.
Perhaps he can explain.

Bill Gletsos
29-01-2004, 12:12 PM
According to Shaun back on the old ACF BB, the current constitution came into effect when the ACF was incorporated.

Prior to incorporation the requirement in the ACF Constitution was 2/3 not 3/4 as it was not subject to the Incorportations Act.

So in 1993 when this change occurred the total votes at a National Conference were 21. At that time NSW had 6 votes. That meant that prior to incorporation NSW could not block a constitutional change because they only had 28.6% of the vote. Shaun notes it was made very clear to the delegates that the new requirement would be 75%. Once the constitution was changed and it became 75% then NSW had sufficent votes to block.

Kevin Bonham
29-01-2004, 05:32 PM
Thanks Bill (and Shaun).

So if the 75% is forced by the Incorporations Act then is what chesslover is saying about the states agreeing to it basically incorrect, as they had their hands tied if they wanted incorporation to occur?

And does this mean the 75% cannot be changed?

Would changing the number of delegates per state but keeping the 75% be possible?

jammo
29-01-2004, 06:36 PM
Let me continue to discuss the ACF administration.

For the sake of argument let us suppose that the ACF has not updated its by-laws on the web site and has not supplied the organiser of the Australian Junior with a current copy and made sure he understands his reponsibilities. Why is it so?

There are several possibilities:
1. The ACF does not have an office-bearer whose job it is to do these functions or it is unclear which particular office-bearer is reponsible.
2. The ACF does have an office-bearer whose job it is to do these functions but he has neglected to do his job.
3. The ACF does have an office-bearer whose job it is to do these functions but he has neglected to do his job and no-one (presumably the President or an ACF meeting) his drawn his attention to his neglect.
4. The ACF does have an office-bearer whose job it is to do these functions but he is not fully aware of his responsibilities and duties.

So what is the solution?
Do we need more officer-bearers to do the work (two extra Vice-Presidents for example)?
Do we need more competent office-bearers who do their job satisfactorily?
Do we need job descriptions so that everyone knows what their job is?
Do we need more experienced or better trained office-bearers who understand what is involved in administering their office?
Do we need a management that understands what has to be done and ensures that it is ... for example through monthly management meetings?

I'd be most interested to hear Bill's views on the above.

A lot of the discussion in this thread is along the lines of "how will NSW protect its States' rights" but the ACF is not going to move a motion for the States to vote on "that it is agreed that the Secretary update the by-laws on the web site". In my view the management of the ACF is not working well at the moment largely because of the flawed system we have. You can add 20 more Vice Presidents if you want but if no-one says to one of them "would you like to ensure that the by-laws on the web are updated" then it still won't happen.

-Jammo

Bill Gletsos
29-01-2004, 11:31 PM
Let me continue to discuss the ACF administration.

For the sake of argument let us suppose that the ACF has not updated its by-laws on the web site and has not supplied the organiser of the Australian Junior with a current copy and made sure he understands his reponsibilities. Why is it so?
Nice try at a question.
Unfortunately for all your questions below it has a simple answer.
The said organiser above was informed by a number of people what the correct by-law was well prior to the final round but chose to ignore them.
He also chose to ignore an ACF Vice-President and the ACF President when informed of the by-law.
Therefore the problem was with the organiser for being a pig headed s.o.b.

As for wether the by-law was never updated correctly on the acf web site or not this is hard to determine, due to the hacking of the web site by the Brazillians in November last year.



There are several possibilities:
1. The ACF does not have an office-bearer whose job it is to do these functions or it is unclear which particular office-bearer is reponsible.
2. The ACF does have an office-bearer whose job it is to do these functions but he has neglected to do his job.
3. The ACF does have an office-bearer whose job it is to do these functions but he has neglected to do his job and no-one (presumably the President or an ACF meeting) his drawn his attention to his neglect.
4. The ACF does have an office-bearer whose job it is to do these functions but he is not fully aware of his responsibilities and duties.
Clearly it is the webmasters responsability to update the constitution/by-laws on the web page.
He could be informed via the Secretrary,the Constitutional sub committee or even by readin the minutes of Council meetings.



So what is the solution?
Do we need more officer-bearers to do the work (two extra Vice-Presidents for example)?
Do we need more competent office-bearers who do their job satisfactorily?
Do we need job descriptions so that everyone knows what their job is?
Do we need more experienced or better trained office-bearers who understand what is involved in administering their office?
Do we need a management that understands what has to be done and ensures that it is ... for example through monthly management meetings?
All this is just a waste of time.

The ACF web page has virtually been kept up to date with regards to the by-laws and Constitution.
Ot appears only the by-law regarding junior play-offs is currently incorrect on the web page.
The constitution and other by-laws appear to be the latest ones.


A lot of the discussion in this thread is along the lines of "how will NSW protect its States' rights" but the ACF is not going to move a motion for the States to vote on "that it is agreed that the Secretary update the by-laws on the web site".[/qupte]
Obviously the ACF Secretary does not update the ACF web sote. That function is done by the ACF webmaster


In my view the management of the ACF is not working well at the moment largely because of the flawed system we have. You can add 20 more Vice Presidents if you want but if no-one says to one of them "would you like to ensure that the by-laws on the web are updated" then it still won't happen.
Perhaps instead of making useless posts like this one in an attempt to score some sort imaginary points in some hypothetical game it would be wise to see how the ACF Council functions in the coming 12 mths with the recent changes to the Constitution.

Unlike the ACF Commission I believe they were all passed unanimously.

arosar
30-01-2004, 12:14 PM
I want to understand better this Commission proposal. Any1 know where I can access the full text of the proposal?

AR

george
30-01-2004, 12:36 PM
Hi All,

When I got to the Aus Juniors first thing on the last day many people immediately wanted to talk about Playoffs.

I talked to the Organisers and at the end of the day the correct ACF playoff proceedures were followed. I apologised to the Organisers that the old play-off proceedures were on the ACF site. Abusing the Aus Junior Organisers would have been an infantile exercise especially as they had tried to do the best job they could in organising the Aus Junior.

I along with the Organisers of the Juniors are of the same mind that the current play-off proceedures are a compromise but I made sure that ACF By-laws were followed. The ACF Council adopted the current Junior play-off proceedures a few years ago - I happen not to agree with them but Democracy rules.

At SACA we share Junior Titles.

I realise at national level where International Representation may be at stake the need for one winner is more acute.

I hope that clears up some misunderstandings.

Jammo left the ACF of his own freewill and I wished him good luck then as I do now - his opinions hold as much value in ACF circles as do many other people's.


Regards
George Howard

Bill Gletsos
30-01-2004, 03:35 PM
I want to understand better this Commission proposal. Any1 know where I can access the full text of the proposal?
You disappoint me AR. Your normally more on the ball. :sad:
All I can do is wonder what part of your anatomy your head has been stuck in for the past 12-124 mths for you not to know about this. :rolleyes:

I believe it was mentioned in ACF bulletins at the end of 2002 and had previously been mentioned in ACF bulletins at the end of 2001.

arosar
30-01-2004, 03:41 PM
All I can do is wonder what part of your anatomy your head has been stuck in for the past 12-124 mths for you not to know about this.

Well I did find them once, but now I'm too bloody lazy to go looking for them again.

AR

Bill Gletsos
30-01-2004, 03:47 PM
Ah, so its not that you really want to know more about it, it is just that you cannot remember what you previously knew. :doh: :whistle: :hmm:

arosar
30-01-2004, 03:56 PM
No! I didn't give a stuff about it then but now I do - a bit.

AR

chesslover
30-01-2004, 04:01 PM
Since CL has raised the issue of Queensland, and strength in numbers, perhaps the number of delegates should be made to reflect not State population, but chess players. I suspect Queensland would far better in this regard.

CL - what happens if/when the NSWCA is not in such good hands - we cannot always expect to have competent ["enlightened"!] administrators?

Little wonder that chess in Australia is so fragmented, and smaller States feel neglected, with views like yours. Goodness only knows how you come to terms with Senate representation.

1. If you are going to base it on chess numbers than population, then you have to account for the unique club based membership of Victoria, and also have an independent audit to ensure than state chess numbers are being reported correctly, as that will impact on the number of delegates. If you are looking at population basis, then the Australian Bureau of Statistics, and independent and highly respected government agency provides objective and independent population numbers. Also how do you account for people who are chess players but are not members of the state chess association?

In addition there may be high volatility in the number of chess players in a state. Due to some great initiative numbers may increase, or due to severe disagreements numbers may decrease. Where memberships are in the hundreds, movements of 30 odd people become significant. However population shifts in states are gradual, and will not change dramatically ie NSW with 6 million people need about 600,000 gain/ loss to have a 10% change. Also junior numbers are volatile as well if you include junior numbers

2. NSWCA council is elected democratically in an AGM, and you need to have faith that the democratic impulses of NSWCA members will elect the best people for the job that will look after NSW and Australian chess. After all democracy is always better than dictatorship, and will produce the best outcomes that ensures representiveness and accountability. Case in point is the election of a wise and deeply knowledgable and extremely skilled leader as our current president

3. The Senate (unrepresentative swill they may be in a party system) was the "price" of entry amongst other for teh federation of our states. This was done to ensure that the small states agreed to federation. However you should note that the House of Reps, is based on population, and 33% of all seats are in NSW.

The ACF consititution provides for delegates by population basis and was agreed to by ALL states at incorporation. The ACF constitution only allows change by 75% agreement anbd was understood and agreed to by all states. Since NSW had more than 25% of the delegate total, NSW voting asa block would have stopped any constitutional changes - again understood and agreed to.

Once you get a honme loan, sign and agree on the interest rates and terms it is a bit rich to then disagree and want to change the contract is it not?

arosar
30-01-2004, 04:03 PM
Hey CL, I sent you a PM this morning. Did you see it?

AR

chesslover
30-01-2004, 04:05 PM
According to Shaun back on the old ACF BB, the current constitution came into effect when the ACF was incorporated.

Prior to incorporation the requirement in the ACF Constitution was 2/3 not 3/4 as it was not subject to the Incorportations Act.

So in 1993 when this change occurred the total votes at a National Conference were 21. At that time NSW had 6 votes. That meant that prior to incorporation NSW could not block a constitutional change because they only had 28.6% of the vote. Shaun notes it was made very clear to the delegates that the new requirement would be 75%. Once the constitution was changed and it became 75% then NSW had sufficent votes to block.

once again, if all parties undertsand the change and agree to it at inccorporation, then they should not complain about it after the fact

chesslover
30-01-2004, 04:13 PM
Yes good point.
Even if NSW had voted 3 in favour, 4 against(which would have been totally out of line with the NSWCA Councils view) the motion would still have failed because the necessary 6 votes would still have been reached.

Also I was led to believe that the 2 WA delegates got their vote back to front.

I made this point too Bill....

Another thing to note is that if NSWCA was the only state voting against constitutional changes, AND this was done consistently then some of these complaints against NSW may have some point

But that is like people in Deleware complaining about people in California having more influence in presidential elections and politics - but that is just a fact of population and hence influence

chesslover
30-01-2004, 04:15 PM
Hey CL, I sent you a PM this morning. Did you see it?

AR

No, just checked - have nothing :confused:

chesslover
30-01-2004, 04:18 PM
Ah, so its not that you really want to know more about it, it is just that you cannot remember what you previously knew. :doh: :whistle: :hmm:

Memories, light the corners of my mind
Misty watercolor memories of the way we were.
Scattered pictures of the smiles we left behind
smiles we give to one another
for the way we were.

Can it be that it was all so simple then
or has time rewritten every line?
If we had the chance to do it all again
tell me would we? Could we?

Memories, may be beautiful and yet
what's too painful to remember
we simply choose to forget

So it's the laughter we will remember
whenever we remember
the way we were.

jammo
30-01-2004, 06:34 PM
Nice try at a question.
Unfortunately for all your questions below it has a simple answer.
The said organiser above was informed by a number of people what the correct by-law was well prior to the final round but chose to ignore them.
He also chose to ignore an ACF Vice-President and the ACF President when informed of the by-law.
Therefore the problem was with the organiser for being a pig headed s.o.b.

I know that Bill. Surely he should have been made aware of the relevant by-laws (and that he understood them) shortly after the CAWA bid was accepted? To find out he is doing the wrong thing in the middle of the event is too late.


Clearly it is the webmasters responsability to update the constitution/by-laws on the web page.
He could be informed via the Secretary,the Constitutional sub committee or even by readin the minutes of Council meetings.

It is not in question that the webmaster does the updating, the question is how does he get the updates? Your own uncertainty above merely highlights the problem. Was he waiting to get it from the secretary whilst the secretary assumed he would just take it from the minutes (assuming they came out)? Did anyone (like the Prez or the Council) notice and ensure the problem was fixed?

I recently had discussions with Chess Guru about what his responibilities were in running events in Mt.Buller and mentioned about an ACF rep on the organising committee and an ACF signatory on the cheque a/c (being fairly recent ACF by-law changes). His reply was "It doesn't mention that on the web site!" Conclusion ... the by-laws on the web site are out of date.



All this is just a waste of time.

Perhaps instead of making useless posts like this one in an attempt to score some sort imaginary points in some hypothetical game it would be wise to see how the ACF Council functions in the coming 12 mths with the recent changes to the Constitution.


Well Bill, the first stage of introducing change is to recognise that there is a problem. That is what I was trying to demonstrate in my post.

It seems we will have to wait a while before you get to stage one. Pity.

Cheers,
-Jammo

shaun
31-01-2004, 07:45 PM
Without taking sides in the debate over by-laws I would like to relate a tale from running the 1995 Australian Junior Championships.
When the ACT's bid was accepted we contacted the ACF Secretary (Robert Shankly) at least 3 times in the months leading up to the event, asking for a copy of the ACF by-laws, so we could handle play-off and tie break situations correctly. Despite our requests a copy of the handbook was never sent, and as this was in pre-internet days, we had no other way of getting a copy.
As bad luck would have it, one of the minor placings in the championship ended in a tie between David Cordover, and someone else who posts on this bulletin board. Left to our own devices we applied to obvious tie-breaks but such was the closeness of the players results it wasn't until tie-break 3 that we split the players. Cordover missed out on the trophy.
He returned to Melbourne and complained to the ACF, which IIRC overturned our decision, and IIRC criticised the organisers for using the wrong tie-breaks.

Bill Gletsos
31-01-2004, 08:22 PM
Without taking sides in the debate over by-laws I would like to relate a tale from running the 1995 Australian Junior Championships.
When the ACT's bid was accepted we contacted the ACF Secretary (Robert Shankly) at least 3 times in the months leading up to the event, asking for a copy of the ACF by-laws, so we could handle play-off and tie break situations correctly. Despite our requests a copy of the handbook was never sent, and as this was in pre-internet days, we had no other way of getting a copy.
As bad luck would have it, one of the minor placings in the championship ended in a tie between David Cordover, and someone else who posts on this bulletin board. Left to our own devices we applied to obvious tie-breaks but such was the closeness of the players results it wasn't until tie-break 3 that we split the players. Cordover missed out on the trophy.
He returned to Melbourne and complained to the ACF, which IIRC overturned our decision, and IIRC criticised the organisers for using the wrong tie-breaks.
I notice that in early 1994 Guy West became ACF President and Robert Jamieson was ACF Treasurer.
On Jan 7th 1995 just 8 days prior to the start of the Australian Junior in the ACT, Ross Thomas became the new ACF President and Robert Jamieson became the new ACF Secretary.
It seems it was just an unfortunate circumstance that you never bothered to ask the ACF Secretary for a copy of the by-laws during those 8 days. :whistle:

ChessGuru
01-02-2004, 12:30 AM
Shaun, why can't you mention Brett Tindall's name on the BB? I am sure he doesn't mind!

Bill...as you are the stats man, just for interest sake can your magical ratings info tell us the number of rated players in each state? Or perhaps active players? Or maybe games rated in each state? That way you can compare and contrast numbers of chess players to population state by state. But it would seem fairer to have a voting system controlled by the people who it affects. Governmental policies affect everyone, so everyone should get to vote. ACF decisions are relevant only to chess players, so they should get to vote proportionally...

Bill Gletsos
01-02-2004, 01:14 AM
On the december 2003 active list the number of players are as follows:

NSW - 1122
VIC - 711
QLD - 565
SA - 244
ACT - 231
WA - 205
TAS - 78
NT - 0

As ratios they are and if votes were proportiional then:
NSW - 14.38 - votes 15
VIC - 9.12 - votes 10
QLD - 7.24 - votes 8
SA - 3.13 - votes 4
ACT - 2.96 - votes 3
WA - 2.63 - votes 3
TAS - 1 - votes 1
NT - vote 1
Total votes 45. NSW percentage = 33.33%

If there was 1 vote per hundred or part there of then :
NSW - 12
VIC - 8
QLD - 6
SA - 3
ACT - 3
WA - 3
TAS - 1
Total votes 37. NSW percentage = 32.4%

Note NSW currently has 7 of 23 votes = 30.4%

I'm not sure using rated games per state is a good idea as a means of determining voting rights as this would only lead State Associations to increasing the number of rounds in the tournaments they run.

Garvinator
01-02-2004, 01:26 AM
I'm not sure using rated games per state is a good idea as a means of determining voting rights as this would only lead State Associations to increasing the number of rounds in the tournaments they run.

im curious, who suggested this idea :hmm:

Bill Gletsos
01-02-2004, 01:34 AM
im curious, who suggested this idea :hmm:
Pay more attention and re-read chessguru's post. :doh:

Garvinator
01-02-2004, 02:41 AM
Pay more attention and re-read chessguru's post. :doh:
sorry :eek: :wink: :sad:

Kevin Bonham
01-02-2004, 01:53 PM
NT - 0

What's going on there, at one stage there were a number of NT players listed and attempts being made to establish them on the rating list, are there now no NT tournaments being processed for ratings?

Bill Gletsos
01-02-2004, 02:31 PM
What's going on there, at one stage there were a number of NT players listed and attempts being made to establish them on the rating list, are there now no NT tournaments being processed for ratings?
That is correct. There hasn't been any NT tournaments submitted for ages.

peanbrain
01-02-2004, 02:37 PM
Hi All,

When I got to the Aus Juniors first thing on the last day many people immediately wanted to talk about Playoffs.

I talked to the Organisers and at the end of the day the correct ACF playoff proceedures were followed.

I along with the Organisers of the Juniors are of the same mind that the current play-off proceedures are a compromise but I made sure that ACF By-laws were followed.
George Howard

Are you sure about that George?!
The by-law states:

Other Australian Titles: Long time-controls

Where two or more people have tied for any other title decided by games at 60 minutes or more on each clock, the ACF shall determine whether the title is to be shared, to be resolved by a count-back system, or to be decided by a play-off. Any play-off shall be at the same rate of play as the tournament and shall consist of a two-game match (or if three or more players are tied, a single round-robin). The determination of whether a tie is to be resolved by sharing the title, by a count-back system or by holding a play-off shall be advertised prior to the closing date for entries, together with the arrangements for any play-off. Such arrangements, if made, shall be published as part of the playing schedule for the tournament and shall specify a time and date beyond which a player involved in a play-off cannot be required to contest or continue to contest such a play-off. If a tie persists after the play-off match (or round-robin) then the ACF shall decide whether a further play-off shall be held, or whether the tie shall be resolved by a count-back system, or the title shared. Any count-back system used to resolve ties shall be approved by the ACF.

Now You've decided to override Norbert on the last day to force a play off - in what way are you justifying that the correct ACF by-laws were followed? :hmm:

jenni
01-02-2004, 03:38 PM
Are you sure about that George?!
The by-law states:

Other Australian Titles: Long time-controls

Where two or more people have tied for any other title decided by games at 60 minutes or more on each clock, the ACF shall determine whether the title is to be shared, to be resolved by a count-back system, or to be decided by a play-off. Any play-off shall be at the same rate of play as the tournament and shall consist of a two-game match (or if three or more players are tied, a single round-robin). The determination of whether a tie is to be resolved by sharing the title, by a count-back system or by holding a play-off shall be advertised prior to the closing date for entries, together with the arrangements for any play-off. Such arrangements, if made, shall be published as part of the playing schedule for the tournament and shall specify a time and date beyond which a player involved in a play-off cannot be required to contest or continue to contest such a play-off. If a tie persists after the play-off match (or round-robin) then the ACF shall decide whether a further play-off shall be held, or whether the tie shall be resolved by a count-back system, or the title shared. Any count-back system used to resolve ties shall be approved by the ACF.

Now You've decided to override Norbert on the last day to force a play off - in what way are you justifying that the correct ACF by-laws were followed? :hmm:

Well this is quite funny, as you have just fallen into the same trap that the dreaded Norbert did - there are specific ACF rules governing Aus juniors, they do not fall into "other Australian titles - long time controls. "

here they are

"By-law No. 3 - ACF Junior Chess Championship - is amended by adding the
following:

"Resolution of Ties

5. The Play-off Procedures prescribed in By-law 7 of the By-laws for ACF Tournaments do not apply to the ACF Junior Chess Championships, the overriding principle in Junior Championships being to resolve any ties quickly so that prize presentations may be made at a pre-arranged time.

5.1 Ties shall be resolved in the first instance by applying the Sum of Progressive Scores System (SPS) including the Sum of Progressive Score Cuts (SPSC), if necessary. A player¹s SPS involves use of the score that a player has after the end of each round. These scores are added to form the SPS. SPSC is the player¹s final SPS reduced by the tournament score of one or more rounds starting with the first round.

5.2.1 If more than two players are tied for first place, paragraph 5.1 shall be applied to reduce the number of tied players to two. 5.2.2 Those players shall participate in a play-off to resolve the tie consistent with the principles in paragraph 5.3. 5.2.3 If, upon the application of paragraph 5.1 it is not possible to reduce the number of players to two, the arbiter shall arrange a play-off among the smallest number of players possible exceeding two, the play-off to be consistent, as far as possible with the principles in paragraph 5.3.

5.3 Play-off Principles

5.3.1 The tied players shall play two games in which each player has 15 minutes for the whole game in each game. Colours for the first game shall be drawn by lot and shall be the opposite for the second game.

5.3.2 If the players are still tied, two games shall be played in which each player has 5 minutes for the whole game in each game. Colours for each game shall be consistent with those in paragraph 5.3.1.

5.3.3 If the tie is still not resolved a single game shall be played in which White has 5 minutes and Black 4 minutes for the whole game, a draw for Black being regarded as a win. Colours for this game shall be drawn by lot.

5.3.4 In all Rapid Play and Lightning Championships, paragraph 5.3.1 applies except that the time allowed each player is 5 minutes. If the tie is not resolved, paragraph 5.3.3 applies."

Norbert was told about these a number of days before the final round and then a copy was sourced from the author, Denis Jessop and given to Norbert by Kerry Stead. But because they were not on the web, things remained delicate until George stepped in.

I think a lot of these problems can be solved by having an electronic handbook for the various comps, such as Alex Saint is developing and then when a tournament is being bid for, the handbook is sent on. However at the end of the day, nothing works if material is not updated and if it is not given to the organisers in a timely fashion.

peanbrain
01-02-2004, 04:18 PM
Well this is quite funny, as you have just fallen into the same trap that the dreaded Norbert did - there are specific ACF rules governing Aus juniors, they do not fall into "other Australian titles - long time controls. "


Norbert was told about these a number of days before the final round and then a copy was sourced from the author, Denis Jessop and given to Norbert by Kerry Stead. But because they were not on the web, things remained delicate until George stepped in.

I think a lot of these problems can be solved by having an electronic handbook for the various comps, such as Alex Saint is developing and then when a tournament is being bid for, the handbook is sent on. However at the end of the day, nothing works if material is not updated and if it is not given to the organisers in a timely fashion.

The question remains - is it not part of the ACF by law that any play off "shall be advertised prior to the closing date for entries, together with the arrangements for any play-off. Such arrangements, if made, shall be published as part of the playing schedule for the tournament"??

In the case of Aus Juniors I understand it wasn't a case of someone didn't give the organisers the by-laws, it was a case of Norbert refusing to accept the rules until the very last day. You really have to ask the question why someone didn't tell George to pull Norbert's head in a lot earlier?! :doh:

chesslover
01-02-2004, 04:54 PM
On the december 2003 active list the number of players are as follows:

NSW - 1122
VIC - 711
QLD - 565
SA - 244
ACT - 231
WA - 205
TAS - 78
NT - 0

As ratios they are and if votes were proportiional then:
NSW - 14.38 - votes 15
VIC - 9.12 - votes 10
QLD - 7.24 - votes 8
SA - 3.13 - votes 4
ACT - 2.96 - votes 3
WA - 2.63 - votes 3
TAS - 1 - votes 1
NT - vote 1
Total votes 45. NSW percentage = 33.33%

If there was 1 vote per hundred or part there of then :
NSW - 12
VIC - 8
QLD - 6
SA - 3
ACT - 3
WA - 3
TAS - 1
Total votes 37. NSW percentage = 32.4%

Note NSW currently has 7 of 23 votes = 30.4%

I'm not sure using rated games per state is a good idea as a means of determining voting rights as this would only lead State Associations to increasing the number of rounds in the tournaments they run.

good factual post

put paid to the theory that if delegates were based on the number of players, that NSW will not be able to block off any constitutional changes

jenni
01-02-2004, 05:47 PM
The question remains - is it not part of the ACF by law that any play off "shall be advertised prior to the closing date for entries, together with the arrangements for any play-off. Such arrangements, if made, shall be published as part of the playing schedule for the tournament"??

In the case of Aus Juniors I understand it wasn't a case of someone didn't give the organisers the by-laws, it was a case of Norbert refusing to accept the rules until the very last day. You really have to ask the question why someone didn't tell George to pull Norbert's head in a lot earlier?! :doh:

Well I think this is where we need a lawyer! If you assume that bylaw 3 replaces the other bylaw on tournaments, then bylaw 3 doesn't actually state that playoff conditions have to be specified in advance (I think countbacks and playoff conditions should always be specified in advance, so that no accusations of bias can be made). However as bylaw 3 is very specific as what has to be done, you could also argue there is no need to specify anything in advance as there is only one option. i.e. playoffs have to be done in a specific fashion prior to prizegiving.

Norbert was given a copy of the addition to bylaw 3, by Kerry Stead, but refused to accept them as "ofiicial". George Howard only arrived in Perth on the last day, and as soon as he arrived I informed him of the position (as did a number of other people I am sure) and he immediately went to sort it out.

I think at this point Norbert questioned the validity of the document Kerry had given him and George then sourced an "official" copy.

Kevin Bonham
26-02-2004, 01:06 AM
Consolidation of the various by-laws is being addressed by the Constitutional Committee at the moment.

samspade
26-02-2004, 01:10 AM
the hacking of the web site by the Brazillians in November last year.

I'd forgotten about that. They were political activists, weren't they? Not exactly the best way to get attention - hacking an Australian chess website for goodness sake, an audience of two men and a dog-pretty small fry compared with other sites they could have hit

skip to my lou
26-02-2004, 05:26 AM
Bill how do you know it was "hacked"?

Bill Gletsos
26-02-2004, 10:17 AM
Bill how do you know it was "hacked"?
You need to address that question to paulb.
He was the one that used that "term" on the old BB at the time.
I seem to recall it was the ISP that told him.

Ian Rout
26-02-2004, 10:38 AM
Do we know that it was in fact hacked by the Brazilian People's Front or whatever name was put on it? In those circumstances anybody can say that they are from Greenpeace, al-Qaeda, the Liberal Party or whatever, whether it's to discredit a particular organisation, or to distract attention from who they really are or just because they can say what they like and it doesn't matter.

paulb
26-02-2004, 06:04 PM
Do we know that it was in fact hacked by the Brazilian People's Front or whatever name was put on it? In those circumstances anybody can say that they are from Greenpeace, al-Qaeda, the Liberal Party or whatever, whether it's to discredit a particular organisation, or to distract attention from who they really are or just because they can say what they like and it doesn't matter.

I didn't see the hacked page. I was informed by ISP that the site had been hacked and a message about Brazilian human rights posted. That's all I know.

chesslover
28-02-2004, 09:04 PM
I didn't see the hacked page. I was informed by ISP that the site had been hacked and a message about Brazilian human rights posted. That's all I know.
I was at the site when it was hacked by these Brazilian vandals

There was a message in portugese, and a message about Brazilian human rights

However, I just do not know what they planned on proving with this stunt. All it did was to alienate their message, and lead to LESS support for their cause - not more

skip to my lou
28-02-2004, 10:04 PM
I was at the site when it was hacked by these Brazilian vandals

There was a message in portugese, and a message about Brazilian human rights

However, I just do not know what they planned on proving with this stunt. All it did was to alienate their message, and lead to LESS support for their cause - not more

chesslover, unless you have logs etc to prove who it was... just shut up!

It could have been anyone. See, if I hack the page and put... "I love chess - page hacked by chesslover", doesn't mean you hacked it. :hmm: