PDA

View Full Version : Voting for best post



paulb
16-02-2004, 03:56 PM
Hi,

It's time to vote for the best post of 2003.

I've numbered the nominations in the best posts thread.

I assume that most people would prefer a private vote.

To vote, please email broekhuysep@bigpond.com and write your vote in the header of the email eg "Nomination 27"

In the body of the email please write YOUR OWN handle.

arosar
16-02-2004, 04:09 PM
Oh my God! We're actually taking this seriously?

Alrighty then, chesslover - which one of yours did you want me to vote for?

AR

chesslover
16-02-2004, 06:10 PM
Oh my God! We're actually taking this seriously?

Alrighty then, chesslover - which one of yours did you want me to vote for?

AR

Of course it is up to you, as you have individual freedom and right to do whatever you want

However if you want to< I would be most glad and pleased if you would vote for Nomination 22. This was nominated by a very wise and knowlegable man - a true medical doctor no less, and a gentle and kind man.

Dr David Richards, said this when he nominated it, and it moved me to tears and empathy and love of my fellow man when he did that.

"It's a simple message, but a message of hope. Its a belief that as chess players with a mutual interest we can come together in a spirit of respect to work together to solve our problems. It supports a principle that anyone who has an opinion that they seek to further in the interests of chess has a right to be heard, indeed that we should be embracing anyone who wants to contribute to the cause.

Perhaps the fact it was overlooked is because the message is so alien to the present ACF practice. I know it has been the ACF's unofficial policy that all dissention should be treated with ridicule, profanities and derision, but one wonders whether an experiment in collective consideration and tolerance (and I can use this word any way I like) may be worth the risk.

This message is so out of left field for the ACF it deserves nomination for it's originality and boldness. If decency doesn't work then the ACF can always return to brutality. CL may not be the smartest guy around, but he is able to see over the bridge of his nose."

This was the post in case you want to know. It is not overtly long, and it is a simple post, which essentially tells us how the BB could be used for good. In addition if the post wins, the money will go to the ACF website/BB to ensure that people like you continue to enjoy this fine e-world

Thread Topic: electronic democracy by using the BB --------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the BB, there are some good ideas and suggestions that have been posted by people. However one main problem that I have is that these idesas are not considered by the "powers that be" in the ACF and the state chess bodies.

A couple of the good ideas (I think) were the composistion of the selectors, the Doberal Grand Slam concept,increasing the number of juniors and female representation etc. Yet whilst a lot of people agree that these are good ideas, and should be further explored nothing happens.

I think that what should happen is that the ACF and state chess federations, should every 3 month or so have a standing agenda item where they consider the ideas that have been put on the BB.

It may be that every single idea that is thought of is considered stupiud or worthless, but at least they have been considered by the peak bodies of the ACF and the state chess federations. This will be true electronic democracy, and encourage the participation and involvement of ordinary chess players into the chess decision making process.

If need be, and assuming of course that Paul is agreeable, maybe a board called ideas for consideration could be started in this BB, with seperate threads for the ACF, NSWCA, VCA etc. As long as threads do not drift off topic, a very common problem ,it should be relevant and give some indication to Council members of what their memberships think.

Even if a couple of ideas are adopted, it will be very worthwhile, and mean that the BB has been used to enable very positive outcomes for chess in Australia
__________________


Anyway please consider, voting for this, and if you do not, then that is fine

skip to my lou
16-02-2004, 06:20 PM
This was nominated by a very wise and knowlegable man - a true medical doctor no less, and a gentle and kind man.

Dr David Richards, said this when he nominated it, and it moved me to tears and empathy and love of my fellow man when he did that.

I nominate this for the best suck up post of 2004.

Bill Gletsos
16-02-2004, 06:45 PM
I nominate this for the best suck up post of 2004.
Ha ha ha.

Actually I think some of his posts praising paulb, Matt and Kevin during his argument with me over self nominations etc could possibly challenge it. ;)

Rincewind
16-02-2004, 08:59 PM
Actually I think some of his posts praising paulb, Matt and Kevin during his argument with me over self nominations etc could possibly challenge it. ;)

As could some of his efforts praising some emails of yours. But I'm note sure if you've been the recipient of any this year. :confused:

Bill Gletsos
16-02-2004, 09:47 PM
As could some of his efforts praising some emails of yours. But I'm note sure if you've been the recipient of any this year. :confused:
Yeah I wasnt sure if he had this year. Thats why I didnt mention it in regard to Jeo's 2004 nomination. ;)

Cat
17-02-2004, 12:25 AM
What about a prize for the best avator? Arosar's is brilliant, it gets my vote. Where did you find it? Maybe there should also be a prize for the most ridiculous?

skip to my lou
17-02-2004, 12:33 AM
Then, lets have a prize for the BB with most prizes.

All people that win prizes from anything or anywhere must donate their prize to the bb.

arosar
17-02-2004, 08:17 AM
What about a prize for the best avator? Arosar's is brilliant, it gets my vote. Where did you find it? Maybe there should also be a prize for the most ridiculous?

I'll buy a pint to the first who can tell me the name of my avatar. I'll give a hint. It is my most favourite painting of all time!

AR

Ian Rout
17-02-2004, 09:08 AM
I'll buy a pint to the first who can tell me the name of my avatar. I'll give a hint. It is my most favourite painting of all time!

AR
The Scream

arosar
17-02-2004, 09:37 AM
Aaahhh....then I owe you a pint when I'm down in Canberra for Doeberl! :) By Edward Munch it is.

This is my favourite painting because I think it just about accurately captures modern life. Well, at least mine anyway.

AR

skip to my lou
17-02-2004, 09:40 AM
I think Ive seen it somewhere before. It looks like a holocaust painting.

skip to my lou
17-02-2004, 09:41 AM
Aaahhh....then I owe you a pint when I'm down in Canberra for Doeberl! :) By Edward Munch it is.

This is my favourite painting because I think it just about accurately captures modern life. Well, at least mine anyway.

AR
oh ok...... sorry I left browser open too long again -_-

I'd laugh if he was just guessing :lol:

Paul S
17-02-2004, 01:56 PM
I am disappointed (but not entirely surprised) at the efforts of some people on this BB to try to undermine and sabotage my constructive suggestion of having a prize for the best BB post of 2003 (would have been prizes if I had my way!).

I have noticed that the biggest objectors to my constructive idea have been those who either 1) insist on having the "last word" on something (ego-tripping in my book) and/or 2) get a kick out of making smart-a***d comments and/or 3) get a kick out of wrecking interesting threads by turning them into slanging matches.

By having prize(s) for the best BB post(s) of 2003 I had hoped that this would:
1) Have shown that the ACF welcomes constructive ideas to improve Australian chess.
2) Given incentive to people to put forward constructive ideas/initiatives on how to better Australian chess.
3) Shown that the ACF is not solely interested in the elite of chess (a claim that is sometimes fairly or unfairly levelled at the ACF).
4) Improve the quality of posts on the ACF BB - in recent weeks I have come across chess players who say they no longer look at the ACF BB due to the large amount of rubbish (junk posts) that is on there.
5) Helped to minimise the number of slanging matches on the BB.
6) Have some of the ACF's funds re-invested in the "grass roots" of Australian chess as per my suggestion of prize winners being "forced to donate" their winnings to a "chess cause" of their choosing.

I have noticed that there are very few people who post on this BB (compared to the total amount of Australian chess players) and I am not surprised when I look at the large amount of rubbish on this BB. Well, all I can say is that I am trying to improve 1) Australian Chess and 2) the quality of this BB by my constructive suggestion of having BB prize for the best post of 2003. IMHO the actions of some of my critics/saboteurs in recent weeks have done more harm than good for Australian Chess. It borders on the bizzare that more fuss has been made about how approximately 0.1% of the ACF's funds (for best BB post of 2003) should be spent has attracted more comment/criticism than the other 99.9% of ACF's funds put together!

ursogr8
17-02-2004, 02:42 PM
I am disappointed (but not entirely surprised) at the efforts of some people on this BB to try to undermine and sabotage my constructive suggestion of having a prize for the best BB post of 2003 (would have been prizes if I had my way!).

I have noticed that the biggest objectors to my constructive idea have been those who either 1) insist on having the "last word" on something (ego-tripping in my book) and/or 2) get a kick out of making smart-a***d comments and/or 3) get a kick out of wrecking interesting threads by turning them into slanging matches.

By having prize(s) for the best BB post(s) of 2003 I had hoped that this would:
1) Have shown that the ACF welcomes constructive ideas to improve Australian chess.
2) Given incentive to people to put forward constructive ideas/initiatives on how to better Australian chess.
3) Shown that the ACF is not solely interested in the elite of chess (a claim that is sometimes fairly or unfairly levelled at the ACF).
4) Improve the quality of posts on the ACF BB - in recent weeks I have come across chess players who say they no longer look at the ACF BB due to the large amount of rubbish (junk posts) that is on there.
5) Helped to minimise the number of slanging matches on the BB.
6) Have some of the ACF's funds re-invested in the "grass roots" of Australian chess as per my suggestion of prize winners being "forced to donate" their winnings to a "chess cause" of their choosing.


Paul S
I think that you have been supported in general and have achieved 1), 2), 3), and 6). And you personally should be congratulated for bring these good points of the ACF into focus.

However, for 4) it would be a big ask for a prize for the best post to have any effect on the dross/junk posts. You would have had to lobby for a prize for something like “the most consistent good disciplined poster”.

And similarly your objective 5) is not influenced by having a best post prize.
To achieve 4) and 5) would require a different tactic.






I have noticed that there are very few people who post on this BB (compared to the total amount of Australian chess players) and I am not surprised when I look at the large amount of rubbish on this BB. Well, all I can say is that I am trying to improve 1) Australian Chess and 2) the quality of this BB by my constructive suggestion of having BB prize for the best post of 2003.



I agree, there are few who post, but if you keep the window open called “who is viewing what” you might gain quite a different impression. There are in fact many viewers.




IMHO the actions of some of my critics/saboteurs in recent weeks have done more harm than good for Australian Chess. It borders on the bizzare that more fuss has been made about how approximately 0.1% of the ACF's funds (for best BB post of 2003) should be spent has attracted more comment/criticism than the other 99.9% of ACF's funds put together!


Yes Paul S. it has been an extraordinary dog-fight over a very small bone.
But ask yourself, do you know where the ACF spends its money? Personally I don’t. It is not surprising then that there is not debate on other spending areas.


On balance your best-post initiative has allowed some cream to rise to the top. Casual viewers can now economically read the best of the 2003 BB. Thank you for continually encouraging this to happen.

The challenge for 2004 is how to discourage the junk while still allowing the differences of opinion and view. Some of the most vigorous differences of opinion have actually been valuable. (I have in mind Bill's defence of the rating system; and the CV/MCC 'feud'). But the slanging matches have been pointless I agree. The opponents would have been better advised to dial into a chess server and just combat over a few games.

starter

eclectic
17-02-2004, 04:40 PM
6) .... as per my suggestion of prize winners being "forced to donate" their winnings to a "chess cause" of their choosing.

with due respect if there are prizes ( i don't think there are ) i doubt if there is anybody who likes being told how to spend their prizemoney

eclectic

Kevin Bonham
17-02-2004, 04:48 PM
4) Improve the quality of posts on the ACF BB - in recent weeks I have come across chess players who say they no longer look at the ACF BB due to the large amount of rubbish (junk posts) that is on there.

Actually in the last few weeks or so I have noticed an upsurge in the number of high-quality posts. Indeed there have been at least half a dozen posts in the last few weeks that I thought were better than pretty much all the nominees for 2003. I would not venture any suggestion as to why this has occurred.

Wading through rubbish to find quality material is a fact of life on bulletin boards, excepting those that have large and supremely committed moderation teams. I don't generally see those complaining about the amount of rubbish volunteering to assist with the moderation.


5) Helped to minimise the number of slanging matches on the BB.

I suggest you try something simpler first, like permanent peace in the Middle East.


It borders on the bizzare that more fuss has been made about how approximately 0.1% of the ACF's funds (for best BB post of 2003) should be spent has attracted more comment/criticism than the other 99.9% of ACF's funds put together!

This may be partly because (i) the value of a BB prize is more debatable than the value of most things the ACF spends $$$ on (ii) most posters here don't know much about the latter anyway. Flashy controversy is for the many, scrutinising budget sheets is for the few.

paulb
17-02-2004, 05:10 PM
PaulS: regarding the quality of posts, you're right - there's a lot inconsequential stuff on the board .But it's fairly inevitable.

One way around this that has already been discussed by the moderators in setting up a closed thread where we'll copy all the good stuff. Possibly the best posts thread might be the start of this. A closed (ie moderator-only) thread would allow people to read the things of lasting value without having to wade through lots of small talk etc. Of course, people would be welcome to alert us to valuable stuff, and we'd put it in, but we wouldn't allow general posting to the board.

paulb
17-02-2004, 05:25 PM
3) Shown that the ACF is not solely interested in the elite of chess (a claim that is sometimes fairly or unfairly levelled at the ACF).

....

6) Have some of the ACF's funds re-invested in the "grass roots" of Australian chess as per my suggestion of prize winners being "forced to donate" their winnings to a "chess cause" of their choosing.


The idea that the ACF is seen to be "elitist" is interesting. It's not really elitist, in my experience, but the structure of chess organisation in Australia might give a certain impression that it is. What I mean is this: it falls to the ACF to organise/co-ordinate some very big Australia-wide events, such as Aust champs/junior/Olympiad selections/junior selections etc. These are in some senses "elite" activities, but that's not the reason the ACF does them. It's natural that the state associations are obviously going to do the state and regional stuff, and the national federation does the national stuff, but this is an organisational matter rather than a question of bias.

Garvinator
17-02-2004, 05:46 PM
I don't generally see those complaining about the amount of rubbish volunteering to assist with the moderation.
where do i sign up :hmm:

Bill Gletsos
17-02-2004, 06:05 PM
I don't generally see those complaining about the amount of rubbish volunteering to assist with the moderation.
The point is just because someone might volunteer to be a moderator does not make them actually a good moderator.
There is the danger that you may get someone whose method of moderation is incompatible with the existing moderators or the general BB membership.
Personally I think the current 3 moderators do a good job.

Garvinator
17-02-2004, 06:12 PM
The point is just because someone might volunteer to be a moderator does not make them actually a good moderator.
There is the danger that you may get someone whose method of moderation is incompatible with the existing moderators or the general BB membership.
Personally I think the current 3 moderators do a good job.
and that would be because they allow you to keep being involved in slanging matches.

Kevin Bonham
17-02-2004, 06:20 PM
There is the danger that you may get someone whose method of moderation is incompatible with the existing moderators or the general BB membership.

True, this is always a risk. We have seen what happens when anything but a rather lax moderation policy is followed.

Garvinator
17-02-2004, 06:23 PM
True, this is always a risk. We have seen what happens when anything but a rather lax moderation policy is followed.
i think there is a big difference between banning ppl from posting and deleting some of the trash that has been posted on here.

Bill Gletsos
17-02-2004, 06:36 PM
and that would be because they allow you to keep being involved in slanging matches.
No, its because they generally allow complete free speech.

Many psosters make reasonable posts.
So do you most of the time. ;)

I dont think you will find I have had a slanging match with Jenni, Kevin, Barry, Paul S, starter, arosar or jase even though I might have disagreed with some of their posts. Even in my debate with jammo over the ACF Commission I dont think there was any actual "slanging".

In fact my only "slanging" matches have been consistently with 4 posters.

Matt on many subjects last year(Although it has been virtually nonexistent this year compared to last year).
firegoat7(Mostly over his clown comments from last year) however I wasnt the only one.
Chesslover(Virtually only this year over BB board prizes and self-nomination), although his sucking up to some posters seems to have reached new heights this year.
David Richards(Mostly over his rating theories), although Kevin also gave him a hard time there.

Bill Gletsos
17-02-2004, 06:38 PM
i think there is a big difference between banning ppl from posting and deleting some of the trash that has been posted on here.
I think you miss the point.
Originally there was no banning but still many posts were deleted or threads locked.
Virtually everyone from the old ACF BB found that style of moderation un-acceptable.

Paul S
18-02-2004, 12:33 PM
Actually in the last few weeks or so I have noticed an upsurge in the number of high-quality posts. Indeed there have been at least half a dozen posts in the last few weeks that I thought were better than pretty much all the nominees for 2003. I would not venture any suggestion as to why this has occurred.


Yes, I agree with you, Kevin, that there has ben an upsurge of high quality posts in recent times. BTW, the people (3 of them) that I have spoken to in recent weeks who said they no longer look at the BB told me they gave up on looking at the BB 6 to 18 months ago (and haven't looked at it since they made their decision). Perhaps with the "improvement" in BB post quality in recent weeks they may be now be enticed to look at it again? (I will ask them next time I seee them!).

I will venture a suggestion as to why this has occured! At the risk of sounding arrogant/conceited, I think it is because of an indirect result of my suggestion for best BB posts of 2003!


Wading through rubbish to find quality material is a fact of life on bulletin boards, excepting those that have large and supremely committed moderation teams. I don't generally see those complaining about the amount of rubbish volunteering to assist with the moderation.


Again I agree.

I wouldn't mind being a BB moderator myself, but I have enough trouble finding time to read (let alone thoroughly scrutinise!) the Australian Chess threads (let alone the non-chess threads) - my flatmate (whose computer this is) has first choice over when to access it (ie if we both want to use it at the same time he gets preference) and also (while I have email access at work), I can't access the Internet at work (and even if I could, my boss would be very annoyed if I spent my worktime looking at BB posts)! I have a bit more time this week (I'm on annual leave), and so have been able to read through the non-chess threads for the first time in a few weeks and have found some of the stuff there quite interesting (although there is a lot of rubbish there aswell!).

Be warned, though, in the unlikely event I became a BB moderator I would be deleting a lot more than is presently deleted (although I wouldn't stand in the way of "constructive" arguments/feuds). For instance, I would delete all this rubbish about who is (or is not) a goose. To be fair though, I must admit that a few of my posts have been rubbish/trivial, so I'm not entirely "pure" (although I think I'm better than most in this respect).


I suggest you try something simpler first, like permanent peace in the Middle East.


I don't know about that! In the past, I've given some thought to the Middle East conflict and I reckon it would be easier to try and minimise the number of slanging matches on the BB than find peace in the Middle East! :D


This may be partly because (i) the value of a BB prize is more debatable than the value of most things the ACF spends $$$ on (ii) most posters here don't know much about the latter anyway. Flashy controversy is for the many, scrutinising budget sheets is for the few.

Indeed! In my experiences in chess admin I have sadly often found that a lot of people place excessive focus on minutae, while more important issues get overlooked. I guess its a case of "penny wise and pound foolish" or "can't see the forest though the trees"!

Paul S
18-02-2004, 12:51 PM
with due respect if there are prizes ( i don't think there are ) i doubt if there is anybody who likes being told how to spend their prizemoney

eclectic

A fair enough point.

I guess that I had assumed that "everyone" agreed with my suggestion that the prizemoney should be re-invested in Australian chess (which, BTW, I think is in keeping with the volunteering ethos of Australian chess admin, of which most BB posters are involved in in some way or other).

Still, I guess if the ACF is putting up the money (prize) then its their call as to what (if any) conditions are placed on it. I don't think I would get too excited about the prizemoney, though (as Paul B said, the prize for best 2003 BB post will be small and mainly for kudos/recognition purposes only).

chesslover
18-02-2004, 07:05 PM
Paul S
I think that you have been supported in general and have achieved 1), 2), 3), and 6). And you personally should be congratulated for bring these good points of the ACF into focus.

However, for 4) it would be a big ask for a prize for the best post to have any effect on the dross/junk posts. You would have had to lobby for a prize for something like “the most consistent good disciplined poster”.

And similarly your objective 5) is not influenced by having a best post prize.
To achieve 4) and 5) would require a different tactic.

I agree, there are few who post, but if you keep the window open called “who is viewing what” you might gain quite a different impression. There are in fact many viewers.

Yes Paul S. it has been an extraordinary dog-fight over a very small bone.
But ask yourself, do you know where the ACF spends its money? Personally I don’t. It is not surprising then that there is not debate on other spending areas.

On balance your best-post initiative has allowed some cream to rise to the top. Casual viewers can now economically read the best of the 2003 BB. Thank you for continually encouraging this to happen.

The challenge for 2004 is how to discourage the junk while still allowing the differences of opinion and view. Some of the most vigorous differences of opinion have actually been valuable. (I have in mind Bill's defence of the rating system; and the CV/MCC 'feud'). But the slanging matches have been pointless I agree. The opponents would have been better advised to dial into a chess server and just combat over a few games.

starter

well psoted Starter :) . I agree with all that you have posted

but "the most consistent good disciplined poster" award? how would u do that? :confused:

chesslover
18-02-2004, 07:11 PM
No, its because they generally allow complete free speech.

Many psosters make reasonable posts.
So do you most of the time. ;)

I dont think you will find I have had a slanging match with Jenni, Kevin, Barry, Paul S, starter, arosar or jase even though I might have disagreed with some of their posts. Even in my debate with jammo over the ACF Commission I dont think there was any actual "slanging".

In fact my only "slanging" matches have been consistently with 4 posters.

Matt on many subjects last year(Although it has been virtually nonexistent this year compared to last year).
firegoat7(Mostly over his clown comments from last year) however I wasnt the only one.
Chesslover(Virtually only this year over BB board prizes and self-nomination), although his sucking up to some posters seems to have reached new heights this year.
David Richards(Mostly over his rating theories), although Kevin also gave him a hard time there.

what about your slanging with Jeo? another "msitake"? ;)

but yes, i agree with most of what you state...

Bill Gletsos
19-02-2004, 12:36 AM
what about your slanging with Jeo? another "msitake"? ;)
Nope no mistake.
Pay more attention CL.
I said my only slanging matches have been consistently with 4 posters.
The main word there being consistently.

I had an argument with Jeo but so did virtually most of the old ACF BB posters when we first came over.
He and I had a minor slanging match a little while later, however it was rather short compared to those of the above 4 posters.

ursogr8
19-02-2004, 06:59 PM
[QUOTE=chesslover]what about your slanging with Jeo? another "msitake"? ;) QUOTE]
Nope no mistake.
Pay more attention CL.
I said my only slanging matches have been consistently with 4 posters.
The main word there being consistently.

I had an argument with Jeo but so did virtually most of the old ACF BB posters when we first came over.
He and I had a minor slanging match a little while later, however it was rather short compared to those of the above 4 posters.

Bill

Have you watched any other slanging matches beyond the 4 you quote? Can you list?
Eg, was KB v fg7 one?

starter

ursogr8
19-02-2004, 07:04 PM
well psoted Starter :) . I agree with all that you have posted

but "the most consistent good disciplined poster" award? how would u do that? :confused:

CL

You, who has championed democracy. You, who has laid more polls than anyone. You, who has supreme faith in fair-play.

It is called a vote.

starter

Bill Gletsos
19-02-2004, 09:47 PM
Bill

Have you watched any other slanging matches beyond the 4 you quote? Can you list?
Eg, was KB v fg7 one?

starter
I would think so.
Also Matt and CL at various times last year, Matt and peanbrain last year, fg7 and jammo this year and possibly Kevin and David last year.

Kevin Bonham
19-02-2004, 10:32 PM
I would think so.
Also Matt and CL at various times last year, Matt and peanbrain last year, fg7 and jammo this year and possibly Kevin and David last year.

Also missed out Matt and I, I've had a lot more and at times worse/better (depending on viewpoint) with Matt than David. Mostly on the off-topic sections though, so you (Bill) might not have seen that many.

Can't remember getting into serious scraps with anyone else since Butcherbird on the really old BBs.

Bill Gletsos
19-02-2004, 10:46 PM
Also missed out Matt and I, I've had a lot more and at times worse/better (depending on viewpoint) with Matt than David.
Silly me, how could I have forgotten them. :hmm:

Mostly on the off-topic sections though, so you (Bill) might not have seen that many.
I read the off topics I just dont post to them very often. ;)