PDA

View Full Version : Going bonkers



PHAT
13-06-2004, 08:11 AM
We New South Welshmen know that nothing Queersland or Mexico can up stage us - doubly so for any ACT fracas. So it is with greatpride that I inform the BB that the NSWCA Open has now usurped the Doeberl as the most dangerous place on Earth.

The fellow was quoted as saying to a DOP that that were prepared to "do time in gaol" for "breaking [their] neck". Needless to say, the fellow has been given his marching orders.

Rincewind
13-06-2004, 10:46 AM
Name names! (R)

Trent Parker
13-06-2004, 01:32 PM
OMG. What dh said this?

Bill Gletsos
13-06-2004, 04:20 PM
We New South Welshmen know that nothing Queersland or Mexico can up stage us - doubly so for any ACT fracas. So it is with greatpride that I inform the BB that the NSWCA Open has now usurped the Doeberl as the most dangerous place on Earth.
I'm not sure I would agree.
Based on reports of the Doeberl incident I think it was worse than this players verbal threat.

jenni
13-06-2004, 06:03 PM
I'm not sure I would agree.
Based on reports of the Doeberl incident I think it was worse than this players verbal threat.

I have to agree - I don't think even this very colourful threat can compare with bodies thudding into glass and screaming children.

Jai
13-06-2004, 06:05 PM
I have to agree - I don't think even this very colourful threat can compare with bodies thudding into glass and screaming children.
Why am I never at tourneys that stuff like this happen!! :(

JGB
13-06-2004, 10:15 PM
Nothing like that happens here in Germany!?! :(

Im looking forward to all the action when I get back! :lol:

jenni
14-06-2004, 12:08 PM
Nothing like that happens here in Germany!?! :(

Im looking forward to all the action when I get back! :lol:

We're not exactly proud of it - and fortunately doesn't happen very often. :)

PHAT
14-06-2004, 09:55 PM
We New South Welshmen know that nothing Queersland or Mexico can up stage us - doubly so for any ACT fracas. So it is with greatpride that I inform the BB that the NSWCA Open has now usurped the Doeberl as the most dangerous place on Earth.

The fellow was quoted as saying to a DOP that that were prepared to "do time in gaol" for "breaking [their] neck". Needless to say, the fellow has been given his marching orders.

Correction: The gaol quote was actually someone's description of the fellows behaviour - "as if he would be prepared to do time in gaol. Nevertheless, his photo was taken off the security cameras and given to the gorillas on the door, with instructions terminate with extreme prejudice.

OK OK. I'll name names. The DOP was Kathy Rogers - deputised as such for a portion of the tournamnet. The cranky man was Ilija Ilic. As rumour has it, these two had a disagreement some years ago in Yugoslavia and Ilic continues to remember the matter.

This current disagreement started when Ilic's mobile phone alarm clock went off 5 minutes before the orginal start time for the round. Rogers gave him a warning at the table. Ilic went on to win his game. He then approaches Rogers outside the playing hal and gave her a gob full. Firther details will have to come from the combatants, who include CZ and BG.

PHAT
14-06-2004, 09:58 PM
Nothing like that happens here in Germany!?!

Yep, they got it out of thier system with two world wars. :uhoh:

ursogr8
14-06-2004, 10:08 PM
This current disagreement started when Ilic's mobile phone alarm clock went off 5 minutes before the orginal start time for the round.
.

The VIC OPEN had one of these too!!

Five minutes before the round is due to start Gazza is saying that the first mobile phone to go off during play will
a) make the newspapers as an Australian first disqualifiaction
b) result in immediate loss of a game.
While he is saying this a phone goes off and the player sheepishly leaves the hall. Whew it was close. (And for those who like detail with their anecdotes...the offending ring tone was like a town-crier's hand-held bell!!).

And no, Baz, the player is not who you think it was. (While I have got your attention; what is that footer line on your quotes?)


starter

JGB
14-06-2004, 10:28 PM
Yep, they got it out of thier system with two world wars. :uhoh:

Then why didn't we get it out of our systems too! We were also there! :hmm:

PHAT
14-06-2004, 10:34 PM
Then why didn't we get it out of our systems too! We were also there! :hmm:

"Don't, mention, the war. I did once, but I think I got away with it."

JGB
14-06-2004, 10:35 PM
"Don't, mention, the war. I did once, but I think I got away with it."


I try not to here as well, no matter how you put it, it just dosn't go down well.

Rincewind
14-06-2004, 11:12 PM
And no, Baz, the player is not who you think it was. (While I have got your attention; what is that footer line on your quotes?)

:) Not b72 then?

It's probably very bad greek, but supposed to translate to "The unexamined life is not worth living".

Rincewind
14-06-2004, 11:16 PM
"Don't, mention, the war. I did once, but I think I got away with it."

"I hope their cafes are well stocked -- everyone seems determined to eat out the moment they arrive."

Perhaps we should move this to the random English comedy quotation thread now. ;)

jenni
15-06-2004, 12:02 AM
Interesting - I had a major run in with Mr Ilic a number of years ago at an Aus Juniors in Sydney, where he was making sex related jokes about a game between a female and male. He didn't take that too kindly either.

[NB - I mistakenly clicked edit instead of reply on Jenni's post here so Matt's quote she was responding to about Ilic has disappeared - Kevin.]

Trent Parker
15-06-2004, 12:13 AM
He is quite a loud man, isn't he?

Bill Gletsos
15-06-2004, 12:18 AM
Correction: The gaol quote was actually someone's description of the fellows behaviour - "as if he would be prepared to do time in gaol. Nevertheless, his photo was taken off the security cameras and given to the gorillas on the door, with instructions terminate with extreme prejudice.

OK OK. I'll name names. The DOP was Kathy Rogers - deputised as such for a portion of the tournamnet. The cranky man was Ilija Ilic. As rumour has it, these two had a disagreement some years ago in Yugoslavia and Ilic continues to remember the matter.
Cant comment on that as I jave no knowledge of it.
Also its Cathy not Kathy.


This current disagreement started when Ilic's mobile phone alarm clock went off 5 minutes before the orginal start time for the round. Rogers gave him a warning at the table. Ilic went on to win his game. He then approaches Rogers outside the playing hal and gave her a gob full. Firther details will have to come from the combatants, who include CZ and BG.
This part is mostly incorrect.

The round started at 5.30pm An hour ahead of schedule.
Charles Zworrestine phoned Ilic to let him know the round was starting early.
Ilic's game against Bruce Murray started normally without any incident on time.
At 6.30m Ilics phone alarm clock went off.
By this time Charles deputised Cathy, left her in charge and had gone down to the bistro to have some dinner.
Now I believe Cathy informs him he is receiving a warning and a second offence will lead to loss of the game. The game continues and Ilic wins shortly thereafter.
He goes to the arbiters table, fills in the result and then approaches Cathy who is talking to Bruce in one corner of the room. Words are exchanged and Cathy moves the discussion outside of the palying area. It is at this point that Ilic's voice continues to rise and he threatens to break her neck. Bruce and Ilic start to square off although no punches are thrown.
It just so happens at this stage Charles is returning.
Ilic argues with Charles that he had no right to appoint Cathy as an arbiter and no right to change the advertised start time of round 2. Charles informs him he has every right to do both.
Ilic states only the NSWCA can appoint an arbiter. At which point I stepped in an pointed out that he was incorrect and that the Chief arbiter can appoint other arbiters. I pointed out to Ilic that it just so happened that when I was talking to Peter Cassettari on Friday night I had informed Peter to tell Chales that Charles could appoint whoever he liked as a depity/assistant arbiter but that if Cathy was available to approach her. (The reason for this being even discussed was Charles had another commitment for a few hours on Sunday and was seeking a stand-in). Whilst this is going on Cathy heads down to the front desk of the club to report Ilic.
At this point Ilic calls me a liar. I tell him to shut up and calm down.
He makes a couple of other comments to Charles and then heads off to work.
Apparently there was then some discussion between Cathy, Ilic and the Duty Manager downstairs.

Charles decides he is going to expel Ilic from the tournament. He waits approx 45 mins then calls Ilic on his mobile to inform him he is expelled from the event. This phone call lasts 18 minutes. Ilic threatens to turn up the following morning for the 3rd round.

I go downstarirs and discuss the situation with the Duty Manager, inform them that he is expelled and that he is not welcome. They tell me they will pull up his image from the security cameras, print it off and inform the door staff not to admit him.
As it turns out he didnt show up the next day anyway.

PHAT
15-06-2004, 01:01 AM
This part is mostly incorrect.

Actually, duuuude, I got it mostly correct. The only minor difference was that he approached her inside the hall. Big deal. :rolleyes:

As I said, his alarm went off 5 minutes before the original start time, which was 6:30. His phone did not go off, his alarm clock, built into the phone, went off. For that he was given a warning. It is arguable that the warning should have been a less serious "noise warning" and not a more serious "mobile phone warning."

Further to that, Ilic had no way of knowing that Rogers was a stand-in DOP, hence his initial surprise and offence at being warned by her for an infringment that was arguably not the appropriate call.

I also think that a person - Bruce - who escalates an already volatile situation by doing the "come on, come on, throw one," routine needs to be dealt with too - don't you?

Trent Parker
15-06-2004, 01:15 AM
Well my position on this is that the NSWCA Should perhaps give Bruce Murray a letter/ warning in relation to this incident. And that the NSWCA should give at very minimum a stern warning to Ilic. From the evidence above it is clear that Ilic was acting in a way which no person, let alone an arbiter/DOP should put up with. But the reprocussions of this incident is for all the NSWCA council members to discuss.

Kevin Bonham
15-06-2004, 03:17 AM
As I said, his alarm went off 5 minutes before the original start time, which was 6:30. His phone did not go off, his alarm clock, built into the phone, went off. For that he was given a warning. It is arguable that the warning should have been a less serious "noise warning" and not a more serious "mobile phone warning."

Once a round starts, even if the round starts early for whatever reason, all players should have their mobile phones switched off. Whether the noise the phone makes is an alarm, a text message noise, a phone call or a random electronic blipping noise doesn't matter - distraction alone is enough reason for any player whose mobile makes a noise to be warned and threatened with forfeit. Indeed by FIDE standards this approach is mild.

I assume that Cathy Rogers' warning was limited to a second mobile phone offence warning.

ursogr8
15-06-2004, 08:19 AM
Once a round starts, even if the round starts early for whatever reason, all players should have their mobile phones switched off. Whether the noise the phone makes is an alarm, a text message noise, a phone call or a random electronic blipping noise doesn't matter - distraction alone is enough reason for any player whose mobile makes a noise to be warned and threatened with forfeit. Indeed by FIDE standards this approach is mild.


Perhaps I was not paying close enough attention. But when all those discussions were posted last year on the old BB wasn't the rationale for a disqualification the possession of a mobile? I thought the theory/fear was that some mobiles were 'smart' enough to have converged to also having data-bases (chessic of course in this context) and players might be be tempted to infringe the rules about consulting analysis by 'reading' their mobile phone display.
Distraction while being annoying was not sufficient rationale for loss of game. At least that was my understanding.

starter

Alan Shore
15-06-2004, 08:26 AM
Perhaps I was not paying close enough attention. But when all those discussions were posted last year on the old BB wasn't the rationale for a disqualification the possession of a mobile? I thought the theory/fear was that some mobiles were 'smart' enough to have converged to also having data-bases (chessic of course in this context) and players might be be tempted to infringe the rules about consulting analysis by 'reading' their mobile phone display.

Paranoia city... !

ursogr8
15-06-2004, 08:30 AM
:) Not b72 then?

It's probably very bad greek, but supposed to translate to "The unexamined life is not worth living".
hi Baz
No not b72.
He had a wonderful tournament and shared a prize.

The culprit while the PA announcements were on had the initials PA; how is that for synergy.


And re your quote. > Now that I have examined it I am not sure it was worth it. :uhoh:

starter

Ian Rout
15-06-2004, 10:42 AM
I also think that a person - Bruce - who escalates an already volatile situation by doing the "come on, come on, throw one," routine needs to be dealt with too - don't you?
Did Bruce Murray say this? I was on the next board and I heard Ilja Ilic's opponent making conciliatory noises immediately after the incident, I didn't hear anything inflammatory at the time.

So far as the incident itself goes I think it is understandable that somebody may have omitted to adjust a beeper when the round times have changed (for a variety of reasons I think the round times should be set down and adhered to) but obviously the subsequent behaviour is not acceptable. But worse than the 2000 incident? Well Nimzovich did say that the threat may be stronger than its execution.

What starter says is right, phone beeps are not of themselves worse than some other sounds. Though if the success of the phone rule leads to similar action being taken against the Elderly Gentlemen's Conversation Clubs which seem to form so readily in playing halls we should all be grateful.

Ian_Rogers
15-06-2004, 10:52 AM
Cathy Rogers here.
I wasn't going to get involved but when I read a couple of comments about Bruce Murray's actions I thought I had to reply and so I will comment on a few other matters as well.

Firstly I have never had a run in with Ilija in Yugoslavia. We were on friendly terms then. The incident for which Ilija hasn't forgiven me occurred when I was the Chief Arbiter at the Australian Open in Sydney in 1992/3 and I paired Ilic in the last round against Canfell giving Ilic black. The start of the round was delayed while Ilic argued with me about the pairings - pairings which I had double checked with a number of other arbiters about an hour before the round when I first became aware Ilic was not happy with them. The other arbiters all agreed Canfell - Ilic was the correct pairing. Eventually it was Robert Jamieson who simply told Ilic sit down and play or we will get security to evict you. So that's the history.

When Ilija's phone went off (yes just the alarm part of it but equally distracting for all competitors) I told Ilija firstly to turn it off because by the time I got to his board it was still ringing. Then I told him if it happened again he was out. Then I immediately told him Charles had deputized me as DOP while he was out and that this was his official warning and if it happened again he would be out. Then I told him to just play his game which he did.

By the way I thought a warning was very mild but Charles had told me at the start of the tournament that they were only going to give a warning for the first mobile phone offence and expulsion for the second. I followed Charles' ruling when reprimamding Ilija. The next day, probably because of this incident or perhaps because Charles was then able to give an emphatic warning, the penalty had escalated to forfeit for the first mobile phone offence. (This is the FIDE rule anyway.)

Bruce blundered immediately after the incident and quickly resigned and I was talking to Bruce in the corner of the room when Ilija approached me and started telling me I had no right to give him a warning because the round hadn't yet begun and he would take the matter to court because he had an entry form to say that the round would begin at 6.30 so there was no problem when his phone went of at 6.29! He also told me I was nothing and Charles was the arbiter.
So I took him outside so as not to disturb the rest of the tournament and very soon after he made the threat the break my neck and kill me. At this stage Bruce said to Ilija "Don't you ever threaten a lady like that again." To which Ilija replied something like 'or what?' and Bruce replied "you will have me to deal with" At this stage Ilija put his hands up in a boxing stance and said he was happy to take Bruce on and Bruce instinctively put his own hands up and yes I believe if Ilija had thrown a punch Bruce would have thrown one back. At this stage I grabbed Bruce's arm and said "He's not worth it." and pulled him away. Bruce was still saying no it's not right that he can speak to a lady that way and I agree there is no way Ilija should speak to anyone that way particularly when there are children around - and there were many parents and younger children just outside the playing hall.

While most people were quite rightly and understandably arguing with Ilija about the rights and wrongs of mobile phones and starting times of the tournament etc I was really touched by Bruce's chivalry and I would be utterly appalled and disgusted if any letters of reprimand or similar were sent to someone who was defending me against the assault by Ilija. (A threat to break your neck is an assault under the law and indeed Bruce thought I should call the police.) I think Bruce was more upset than I was.

As far as calling security, I had asked Charles if he wanted me to get security and Charles said yes but in the end Ilija left soon after so security never did have to throw him out but he did continue his barrage of words against me in front of the club manager by the entrance to the club.

Cathy

ursogr8
15-06-2004, 10:53 AM
Paranoia city... !


hi BD
Don't get me wrong.........I was not arguing to treat mobile infringements in this way......I was just summarising the conclusion that I thought the thread reached.

Personally I am happy to have mobile go off. I think those who are complaining of distraction are a bit like part of Jeo's avatar.

starter

Bill Gletsos
15-06-2004, 11:30 AM
Actually, duuuude, I got it mostly correct. The only minor difference was that he approached her inside the hall. Big deal. :rolleyes:
I disagree. Just because you said it went off 5 mins before the original start time there was no way anyone reading your post could tell that the phone went off during the game as they could not determine if the round started early or late.


As I said, his alarm went off 5 minutes before the original start time, which was 6:30. His phone did not go off, his alarm clock, built into the phone, went off. For that he was given a warning. It is arguable that the warning should have been a less serious "noise warning" and not a more serious "mobile phone warning."
It is my understanding that Charles had informed everyone to have their phones switched off. If his phone was switched off then it "could/should not" make a noise.


Further to that, Ilic had no way of knowing that Rogers was a stand-in DOP, hence his initial surprise and offence at being warned by her for an infringment that was arguably not the appropriate call.
As I understand it and cathy has confirmed above she informed Ilic she was the deputy arbiter. Also her warning was entirely appropriate.
In fact no major blow up occurred at this time.
As I said above, the game continued and Ilic won. It was only then that he approached Cathy. If Ilic had just walked away after winning his game instead of confronting her, then none of this would have happened.


I also think that a person - Bruce - who escalates an already volatile situation by doing the "come on, come on, throw one," routine needs to be dealt with too - don't you?
Perhaps, but you were not there. I was. I'll wait for the arbiters report but I'd be surprised if any action is taken.

Bill Gletsos
15-06-2004, 11:32 AM
Well my position on this is that the NSWCA Should perhaps give Bruce Murray a letter/ warning in relation to this incident. And that the NSWCA should give at very minimum a stern warning to Ilic. From the evidence above it is clear that Ilic was acting in a way which no person, let alone an arbiter/DOP should put up with. But the reprocussions of this incident is for all the NSWCA council members to discuss.
I think Ilic will face a much stiffer penalty than just a stern warning.

Bill Gletsos
15-06-2004, 11:41 AM
Perhaps I was not paying close enough attention. But when all those discussions were posted last year on the old BB wasn't the rationale for a disqualification the possession of a mobile? I thought the theory/fear was that some mobiles were 'smart' enough to have converged to also having data-bases (chessic of course in this context) and players might be be tempted to infringe the rules about consulting analysis by 'reading' their mobile phone display.
Distraction while being annoying was not sufficient rationale for loss of game. At least that was my understanding.

starter
The point was that the FIDE ruling states that if a mobile goes off then the player loses the game.
Geurt believes it should be that mobiles are banned from the playing hall entirely, but this is not the current rule.

ursogr8
15-06-2004, 11:53 AM
The point was that the FIDE ruling states that if a mobile goes off then the player loses the game.
Geurt believes it should be that mobiles are banned from the playing hall entirely, but this is not the current rule.

Thanks Bill for clarifying that this is the official ruling.

Sounds like a victory for those who are a little bit to precious about distractions. Let us hope that their next target is not aimed at the disturbing sounds of rain on the roof, as experienced yesterday at the VIC OPEN. Or a dozen other 'natural' disturbances.
I think the ban on mobiles is in place because we 'can' ban it, rather than we 'should' ban it.
Try banning thunder-storms in Melbourne.

starter

Rincewind
15-06-2004, 12:32 PM
Thanks Bill for clarifying that this is the official ruling.

Sounds like a victory for those who are a little bit to precious about distractions. Let us hope that their next target is not aimed at the disturbing sounds of rain on the roof, as experienced yesterday at the VIC OPEN. Or a dozen other 'natural' disturbances.
I think the ban on mobiles is in place because we 'can' ban it, rather than we 'should' ban it.
Try banning thunder-storms in Melbourne.

starter

Mobile phone are not a natural disturbance at all and should be banned as they are an entirely artificial and provide the potential for unscroupulous players to upset their opponents and fellow competitors in general. I think FIDEs ruling is the most managable, not banning their presence (which could present administrative problems for tourny organisers) but loss of game if it goes off.

I think dispensations should be granted for medical doctors who are on call and have silent (vibrate) phones.


Perhaps you should declare your conflict of interest on this issue. ;)

ursogr8
15-06-2004, 12:52 PM
Perhaps you should declare your conflict of interest on this issue. ;)

Try as I am to think what you mean, I cannot. :hmm:
Surely you are not referring to our Club mobile?

starter

ursogr8
15-06-2004, 12:56 PM
Mobile phone are not a natural disturbance at all and should be banned as they are an entirely artificial and provide the potential for unscroupulous players to upset their opponents and fellow competitors in general. I think FIDEs ruling is the most managable, not banning their presence (which could present administrative problems for tourny organisers) but loss of game if it goes off.

I think dispensations should be granted for medical doctors who are on call and have silent (vibrate) phones.



Well, well, well, Baz.
Has the anti-mobile lobby moved its position from 'mobiles are a disturbance', to 'mobiles could be a disturbance'?

What about loose coins in the pocket? They could be used to create a disturbance. Ban them too?

starter

arosar
15-06-2004, 01:48 PM
. . . I would be utterly appalled and disgusted if any letters of reprimand or similar were sent to someone who was defending me against the assault by Ilija. (A threat to break your neck is an assault under the law and indeed Bruce thought I should call the police.) I think Bruce was more upset than I was.

There will be no letter of reprimand to Mr Murray. If the NSWCA sends him one, we'll embarass the <deleted>. This Trent Parker just shoots his mouth off without thinking. He is young and unwise - you see Mrs Rogers. Just ignore him.

Mr Ilic, on the other hand, should be expelled from the NSWCA for a period of 12 months. Let's see if the NSWCA actually has any <deleted> - the <deleted>.

AR

Bill Gletsos
15-06-2004, 02:03 PM
There will be no letter of reprimand to Mr Murray. If the NSWCA sends him one, we'll embarass the <deleted>. This Trent Parker just shoots his mouth off without thinking. He is young and unwise - you see Mrs Rogers. Just ignore him.
To be fair to trent, he was only responding based on Matthews comments.


Mr Ilic, on the other hand, should be expelled from the NSWCA for a period of 12 months.
The council will discuss it at its next meeting.


Let's see if the NSWCA actually has any <deleted> - the <deleted>.
I think thats uncalled for.

Rincewind
15-06-2004, 02:04 PM
Try as I am to think what you mean, I cannot. :hmm:
Surely you are not referring to our Club mobile?

Sorry, I thought you worked for a rather large mobile phone network provider. I must be mistaken.

Rincewind
15-06-2004, 02:09 PM
What about loose coins in the pocket? They could be used to create a disturbance. Ban them too?

Have you actually ever read the FIDE Laws of Chess?

I refer in particular to 12.5 but also 13.2.

Here is a link for your future reference.

http://www.fide.com/official/handbook.asp?level=EE101

If you wish to discuss specious examples further, I would suggest beginning a new thread. Perhaps you will find someone who will accomodate.

Rincewind
15-06-2004, 02:13 PM
I think thats uncalled for.

I agree. It would also be of some assistence to the moderators if you didn't quote possibly offensive language in your replies.

ursogr8
15-06-2004, 02:22 PM
Sorry, I thought you worked for a rather large mobile phone network provider. I must be mistaken.


Baz
With I 've Been Moved.
starter

ursogr8
15-06-2004, 02:34 PM
Have you actually ever read the FIDE Laws of Chess?

I refer in particular to 12.5 but also 13.2.

Here is a link for your future reference.

http://www.fide.com/official/handbook.asp?level=EE101

If you wish to discuss specious examples further, I would suggest beginning a new thread. Perhaps you will find someone who will accomodate.

Baz
Yes. Read them.
Read them again. Thanks for the link. I have added to my favourites.


They only apply because a precious few think the mobile phones are a distraction.
And I think the thread title is entirely appropriate for describing those who react to a phone ringing by calling for a disqualification of the opponent.

On the other hand, I do support the action against those who would be deliberately distracting.
But disqualification because a phone rings, and it might be distracting, is the position you seem willing to support.

starter

Rincewind
15-06-2004, 02:52 PM
Baz
With I 've Been Moved.
starter

IC Perhaps a former allegiance or major customer of your current employer, then. ;)

Rincewind
15-06-2004, 03:02 PM
They only apply because a precious few think the mobile phones are a distraction.
And I think the thread title is entirely appropriate for describing those who react to a phone ringing by calling for a disqualification of the opponent.

On the other hand, I do support the action against those who would be deliberately distracting.
But disqualification because a phone rings, and it might be distracting, is the position you seem willing to support.

I think a lot depends on the environment which changes from venue to venue, club to club.

Our club (currently) has a relaxed attitude to mobile phones and occasionally one does go off but we have never warned players that a new rule has come into force nor has a penalty been imposed on a player for these offenses. Before enforcing this rule in a club event we would announce it to everyone first.

However, I can well imagine some environments where mobile phone's going off would be a major source of distraction (especially in larger tournaments) and so I support the idea that a there is a rule that if your phone goes off, you lose the game. I will discuss it with our club's main DoP w.r.t. falling in line with FIDE and weekend tourny practices.

Regarding my allegiances, I usually bring a mobile phone but leave it switched off, even during club events, because I don't want to be distracted. ;)

ursogr8
15-06-2004, 03:16 PM
IC Perhaps a former allegiance or major customer of your current employer, then. ;)

Yes that is true.
But no COI.

ursogr8
15-06-2004, 03:20 PM
I think a lot depends on the environment which changes from venue to venue, club to club.

Our club (currently) has a relaxed attitude to mobile phones and occasionally one does go off but we have never warned players that a new rule has come into force nor has a penalty been imposed on a player for these offenses. Before enforcing this rule in a club event we would announce it to everyone first.

However, I can well imagine some environments where mobile phone's going off would be a major source of distraction (especially in larger tournaments) and so I support the idea that a there is a rule that if your phone goes off, you lose the game. I will discuss it with our club's main DoP w.r.t. falling in line with FIDE and weekend tourny practices.

Regarding my allegiances, I usually bring a mobile phone but leave it switched off, even during club events, because I don't want to be distracted. ;)

Baz
Nicely written, but that does not persuade me to your point of support.

BTW, I guess logically you would support a rule to disqualify some-one whose PDA went-off too?
And their pager?
And the watch reminder?

starter

Alan Shore
15-06-2004, 04:05 PM
Mr Ilic, on the other hand, should be expelled from the NSWCA for a period of 12 months. Let's see if the NSWCA actually has any <deleted> - the <deleted>.

AR

After reading Cathy's testimony I completely agree, expelled for a year minimum. There is absolutely no place for that behaviour, in chess or anywhere for that matter. I might have knocked that guy out for saying what he said had I been in Bruce's shoes.

Alan Shore
15-06-2004, 04:14 PM
hi BD
Don't get me wrong.........I was not arguing to treat mobile infringements in this way......I was just summarising the conclusion that I thought the thread reached.

Personally I am happy to have mobile go off. I think those who are complaining of distraction are a bit like part of Jeo's avatar.

starter

Hehe, I agree in some respects. Maybe there should be some sort of compromise where you can have a nice ringtone but if you have an irritating one then you forfeit? :p

I was just in the University library writing an assignment and the number of times phones went off.. maybe like 20? Ah well, wasn't the end of the world. The library was preferable to working on the home computer with my #%*#$@ neighbours renovating with their jackhammers.


Mobile phone are not a natural disturbance at all and should be banned as they are an entirely artificial and provide the potential for unscroupulous players to upset their opponents and fellow competitors in general. I think FIDEs ruling is the most managable, not banning their presence (which could present administrative problems for tourny organisers) but loss of game if it goes off.

I think dispensations should be granted for medical doctors who are on call and have silent (vibrate) phones.


Perhaps you should declare your conflict of interest on this issue. ;)

I respectfully disagree. If phones are on silent they're not harming anyone and banning them is simply showing more of the gestapo crap the NSWCA showed in banning cd/tape players. People get important calls, whether it be business, family, friends etc. and it's not your perogative to limit calls to medical practitioners. Also phones are required to make calls during rounds or whenever, where are people supposed to put their phones during this time?

JGB
15-06-2004, 04:17 PM
After reading Cathy's testimony I completely agree, expelled for a year minimum. There is absolutely no place for that behaviour, in chess or anywhere for that matter. I might have knocked that guy out for saying what he said had I been in Bruce's shoes.

Sounds correct to me. If players get away with such behaviour it says nothing for the game. He should be banned for a minimum of one year; he did threaten to take a life! :(

Alan Shore
15-06-2004, 04:22 PM
Baz
Nicely written, but that does not persuade me to your point of support.

BTW, I guess logically you would support a rule to disqualify some-one whose PDA went-off too?
And their pager?
And the watch reminder?

starter

May be extended to anything electronic. If Gameboys aren't banned maybe I should rock up playing Tetris at full volume! The downside of course is people with pacemakers might be subject to disqualification?

I think perhaps a line needs to be drawn as to what constitutes distraction.. I would argue it would need to contain the words 'annoying' and 'continuous' and 'at an unreasonable volume'. If all three of those criteria are met then the individual may be subject to forfeit?

Things regarding computer devices are simply excessive paranoia.. allow us honest chaps to continue with our headphones, cd players and phones and simply ban anyone caught using computer assistance for two years. Simple and everybody wins....

Bill Gletsos
15-06-2004, 04:30 PM
I respectfully disagree. If phones are on silent they're not harming anyone and banning them is simply showing more of the gestapo crap the NSWCA showed in banning cd/tape players. People get important calls, whether it be business, family, friends etc. and it's not your perogative to limit calls to medical practitioners. Also phones are required to make calls during rounds or whenever, where are people supposed to put their phones during this time?
Where did Barry say that phones should be banned from the playing area.

In fact you goose, if you had been paying attention you would have seen my response to starter where I said:

The point was that the FIDE ruling states that if a mobile goes off then the player loses the game.
Geurt believes it should be that mobiles are banned from the playing hall entirely, but this is not the current rule.

As for CD/tape players you are there to play chess. If you want to listen to music, go to a concert or stay home.

Bill Gletsos
15-06-2004, 04:35 PM
May be extended to anything electronic. If Gameboys aren't banned maybe I should rock up playing Tetris at full volume! The downside of course is people with pacemakers might be subject to disqualification?
Then expect the arbiter to discipline you for breaking Artilce 12.5.


I think perhaps a line needs to be drawn as to what constitutes distraction.. I would argue it would need to contain the words 'annoying' and 'continuous' and 'at an unreasonable volume'. If all three of those criteria are met then the individual may be subject to forfeit?
The FIDE law is explicit. It states it is illegal to distract or annoy your opponent in any manner whatsoever.
With the exception of mobile phones it is up to the Arbiter to determine the penalty.


Things regarding computer devices are simply excessive paranoia.. allow us honest chaps to continue with our headphones, cd players and phones and simply ban anyone caught using computer assistance for two years. Simple and everybody wins....
No its not exceesive paranoia.
The use of musical devices was banned because of continual complaints by players at various tournaments that they could hear the music coming from the offending device.

Alan Shore
15-06-2004, 05:02 PM
Where did Barry say that phones should be banned from the playing area.

Barry's now made himself clear, my bad on the interpretation. The rest still stands though.


As for CD/tape players you are there to play chess. If you want to listen to music, go to a concert or stay home.

a) Who the hell are you to dictate to players?
b) If that's your attitude maybe I will!

Alan Shore
15-06-2004, 05:07 PM
Then expect the arbiter to discipline you for breaking Artilce 12.5.

It was a joke, Joyce.



The FIDE law is explicit. It states it is illegal to distract or annoy your opponent in any manner whatsoever.
With the exception of mobile phones it is up to the Arbiter to determine the penalty.

Far from explicit. Who is to say what constitutes 'distract' and 'annoy'? Of course it will ultimately be up to the arbiter.


No its not exceesive paranoia.

If the best you can do is direct contradiction with no backup, then that's quite poor.


The use of musical devices was banned because of continual complaints by players at various tournaments that they could hear the music coming from the offending device.

As I've said previously, there exists a magic button on music devices called 'Volume'. If a complaint is made, the 'volume' can be turned down. If a player is wearing headphones and the volume is down, the opponent is obviously being unreasonable. If the player with the music does not follow the arbiter's instruction to turn the music down, then further action can be taken. I don't see how it's that difficult to implement.

Rincewind
15-06-2004, 05:29 PM
Yes that is true.
But no COI.

Yes, and I think I have already apologised for that mistake so double-jeapardy has attached.

Rincewind
15-06-2004, 05:34 PM
I respectfully disagree. If phones are on silent they're not harming anyone and banning them is simply showing more of the gestapo crap the NSWCA showed in banning cd/tape players. People get important calls, whether it be business, family, friends etc. and it's not your perogative to limit calls to medical practitioners. Also phones are required to make calls during rounds or whenever, where are people supposed to put their phones during this time?

When I said banned I meant in in the context of the FIDE ruling. They should not be banned from the playing hall (I said previously that I think there a several issues which make this more hassle than it is worth) but that should that mobile go off during a round, that the player forfeit the game.

So if you are at liberty to bring your phone, but don't be on the cusp of beating a GM when the blasted thing rings. ;)

Making calls outside of the playing hall is fine with me.

Alan Shore
15-06-2004, 05:37 PM
When I said banned I meant in in the context of the FIDE ruling. They should not be banned from the playing hall (I said previously that I think there a several issues which make this more hassle than it is worth) but that should that mobile go off during a round, that the player forfeit the game.

So if you are at liberty to bring your phone, but don't be on the cusp of beating a GM when the blasted thing rings. ;)

Making calls outside of the playing hall is fine with me.

..... Smeg. Time to edit some posts. Damn you and your ambiguity :p

Bill Gletsos
15-06-2004, 05:45 PM
a) Who the hell are you to dictate to players?
Unlike you, a duly elected official of the NSWCA.
There has been no complaint by NSWCA members against the NSWCA's decision on this matter.

PHAT
15-06-2004, 05:47 PM
I might have knocked that guy out for saying what he said had I been in Bruce's shoes.

And might have got yourself a conviction for assult, as well as a NSWCA ban.

Alan Shore
15-06-2004, 05:50 PM
Unlike you, a duly elected official of the NSWCA.
There has been no complaint by NSWCA members against the NSWCA's decision on this matter.

Doesn't give you absolute power. I don't see it in the FIDE rules either. Presidents come and go :p

Btw, I thought chesslover complained too? I guess he doesn't count hey?

Alan Shore
15-06-2004, 05:55 PM
And might have got yourself a conviction for assult, as well as a NSWCA ban.

Fear not Matt, I'm not the sort to resort to physical violence. However, it is interesting to note how far the law goes to protect people who are just asking to be roughed up...

As for the NSWCA ban, Bill might ban me for a year anyway for daring to speak up against his music ban :confused:

Rincewind
15-06-2004, 05:57 PM
BTW, I guess logically you would support a rule to disqualify some-one whose PDA went-off too?
And their pager?
And the watch reminder?

Are you sure you read those rules on the other end of that URL I posted?

Any distraction is an offense. The penalty for such offenses is at the discretion of the arbiter. My understanding is that the penalty for a mobile phone ringing has been codified.

PHAT
15-06-2004, 06:02 PM
Fear not Matt, I'm not the sort to resort to physical violence. However, it is interesting to note how far the law goes to protect people who are just asking to be roughed up...


... or raped?

jenni
15-06-2004, 06:04 PM
I think Ilic will face a much stiffer penalty than just a stern warning.

I think it is about time chess administrators started being a bit tougher with these sorts of people.

His behaviour at the Aus Juniors was pretty bad - I don't really care if 2 adults make sexual remarks about kids' games and snigger together. What I objected to was that Ilic was doing it in a loud voice and many parents and juniors were sitting next to them.

When I challenged him about what he was saying - it was very much "get stuffed who are you anyway - a coach?" If not I should just shut up and go away.

I lodged a complaint with the DOP over his behaviour and I was told by a number of people that Ilic had a reputation for being a bit of a pain (I won't go into what I was told, because I don't want to be sued!)

I would rather see someone playing who has holes in his clothes and looks a bit daggy, than someone who acts in an inappropriate way towards people.

Alan Shore
15-06-2004, 06:07 PM
... or raped?

No Matthew, absolutely not.

If you want to go the other direction will it get to the point where verbal assault is criminal? When people will be too frightened even to say anything?

PHAT
15-06-2004, 06:23 PM
No Matthew, absolutely not.

If you want to go the other direction will it get to the point where verbal assault is criminal? When people will be too frightened even to say anything?



News Flash: Verbal abuse is prosecutable. More to the point, it is not what you say, but how you say it.

Alan Shore
15-06-2004, 06:27 PM
News Flash: Verbal abuse is prosecutable. More to the point, it is not what you say, but how you say it.

I had heard it could be in terms of defamation but not aware how or to what extent.. quite ludicrous. Can you give me any examples of what's deemed prosecutable verbal abuse?

Bill Gletsos
15-06-2004, 06:41 PM
Doesn't give you absolute power. I don't see it in the FIDE rules either. Presidents come and go :p
But you miss the point. It wasnt just my decision.
It was a unanimous decision by the NSWCA Council last August.
No one has seen fit to raise it as an issue since its implimentation, not even at the NSWCA AGM last December.


Btw, I thought chesslover complained too? I guess he doesn't count hey?
Actually back on the old ACF BB he supported it.
He only raised it on the new BB when he was pretending to be Jose.

Bill Gletsos
15-06-2004, 06:43 PM
I had heard it could be in terms of defamation but not aware how or to what extent.. quite ludicrous. Can you give me any examples of what's deemed prosecutable verbal abuse?
A verbal threat of bodily harm.

Of course the only thing ludicrous is your attitude.

Alan Shore
15-06-2004, 08:19 PM
A verbal threat of bodily harm.

Of course the only thing ludicrous is your attitude.

I'm not sure now.. is the threat stronger than the execution? Perhaps it does come down to true intent, as Matt mentioned in his post. If I said for instance 'Bill you're a patz I'm going to club you over the head' I don't think it would have any meaning since there's no intent. Yet what if I showed up at his house with a baseball bat, yet just grinned and said nothing? In that respect scenario A could legally be followed up on, yet in scenario B I can think of nothing wrong with that. Bit of a philosophical conundrum in some respects.. then again there's matter of proving things occurred, etc. What it really could boil down to is who has the pricier lawyer.. then justice doesn't get served at all. If the law doesn't deliver justice then what good is it? I guess the clause has been implemented to protect against 'potential threats', however I'd argue if you're going to do something like that you'd hardly be announcing it, therefore the purpose of the law is somehwat defeated.

I'm just kind of thinking aloud here.. feel free to comment. I'm tired and need to get back to my exam study..


Legal Disclaimer: Bruce has no intention of doing anything to Bill regarding baseball bats, the situation is purely hypothetical.

Kevin Bonham
15-06-2004, 08:43 PM
Distraction while being annoying was not sufficient rationale for loss of game. At least that was my understanding.

I don't think distraction is sufficient rationale for loss without warning. Loss of game for second offence though, especially when a player's already been warned. What reason - other than simply being obnoxious - could a player have for not switching the thing off when warned the first time?

Trent Parker
15-06-2004, 10:28 PM
I shouldn't have commented until all evidence was in before letting my fingers do the talking. I think definitely a one year ban for Ilja. and I retract my comment about bruce.

PHAT
02-09-2004, 05:43 AM
What was the outcome?

arosar
02-09-2004, 09:09 AM
2 year ban I hear.

AR

Bill Gletsos
02-09-2004, 12:01 PM
2 year ban I hear.

AR
He's lodged an appeal.
It will be heard tonight during the Council meeting.

antichrist
02-09-2004, 07:49 PM
He's lodged an appeal.
It will be heard tonight during the Council meeting.


He should have taken Matt in to represent him.

Bill Gletsos
03-09-2004, 10:50 AM
He should have taken Matt in to represent him.
I know your joking but that would have been of no benefit as Matt didnt witness the incident.

PHAT
03-09-2004, 03:28 PM
I know your joking but that would have been of no benefit as Matt didnt witness the incident.

He said represent, not, be a witness. Wingnut.

Bill Gletsos
03-09-2004, 05:19 PM
He said represent, not, be a witness. Wingnut.
You have no credability you moron, so you representing anyone would be a joke.

antichrist
05-09-2004, 11:33 AM
You have no credability you moron, so you representing anyone would be a joke.

By the way, what was the result of the appeal, is it still 2 years? Should he have taken Matt?. Should fellow Serb, Slobian(?) Milosevic, also request Matt's services?

PHAT
05-09-2004, 09:53 PM
You have no credability you moron, so you representing anyone would be a joke.

Moron or not, I am right to point out that he said "repesent", not, "be witness for". Nigel

antichrist
06-09-2004, 02:21 PM
I still would like to know the final result of Ilja's appeal, as we share friends and they like to know his fate.

Bill Gletsos
06-09-2004, 02:37 PM
I still would like to know the final result of Ilja's appeal, as we share friends and they like to know his fate.
Since Matt was stupid enough to go off topic and ask the question in the "My NSW Championship" thread which genererated other posts that is where you will find the answer.

antichrist
06-09-2004, 02:59 PM
Since Matt was stupid enough to go off topic and ask the question in the "My NSW Championship" thread which genererated other posts that is where you will find the answer.

thanks

arosar
06-10-2004, 03:57 PM
If any local chess personality makes certain pronouncements in the media - are we still allowed to make comment upon that? How about speculate like: "do they have an extra nipple or something"? Can we criticise? Is it permitted to even whisper their names?

AR

ursogr8
06-10-2004, 04:24 PM
If any local chess personality makes certain pronouncements in the media - are we still allowed to make comment upon that? How about speculate like: "do they have an extra nipple or something"? Can we criticise? Is it permitted to even whisper their names?

AR

Amiel

I think allowable answers to your questions are
No
No
No
and No


Have a quiet, good day,
regards,
starter

ursogr8
06-10-2004, 04:44 PM
It's probably very bad greek, but supposed to translate to "The unexamined life is not worth living".



hi Baz
You know, I have waited for years to use the word 'prescient', and I have never had a chance. First, I had trouble remembering how to spell it; and second, I was not sure what it meant.

But your previous signature line, and Amiel's post #85 just seemed to be 'prescient'.

starter

Rincewind
06-10-2004, 07:49 PM
But your previous signature line, and Amiel's post #85 just seemed to be 'prescient'.

:cool:

ursogr8
06-10-2004, 08:11 PM
:cool:

Just what I thought you would do. A response without actually saying anything.
Thread title got your tongue? Or Amiel's fish?

starter

Rincewind
06-10-2004, 08:25 PM
Just what I thought you would do. A response without actually saying anything.
Thread title got your tongue? Or Amiel's fish?

Just biding my time until I can think of a new tagline to use and this one becomes prescient.

Rhubarb
07-10-2004, 05:41 AM
This thread seems as good a place as any to attempt to atone for my sins of yesterday. I really do wish I wouldn't post here when I'm that tired and emotional. My apologies to Barry, Jeo and anyone else I offended. But in particular to Shaun - I haven't got the slightest idea about the PNG team or what set off my addled brain that time, so I'm singly unqualified to talk about the team, and I do appreciate how much work you do for chess.