If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Policy / Politique
The fee for tournament organizers advertising on ChessTalk is $20/event or $100/yearly unlimited for the year.
Les frais d'inscription des organisateurs de tournoi sur ChessTalk sont de 20 $/événement ou de 100 $/année illimitée.
You can etransfer to Henry Lam at chesstalkforum at gmail dot com
Transfér à Henry Lam à chesstalkforum@gmail.com
Dark Knight / Le Chevalier Noir
General Guidelines
---- Nous avons besoin d'un traduction français!
Some Basics
1. Under Board "Frequently Asked Questions" (FAQs) there are 3 sections dealing with General Forum Usage, User Profile Features, and Reading and Posting Messages. These deal with everything from Avatars to Your Notifications. Most general technical questions are covered there. Here is a link to the FAQs. https://forum.chesstalk.com/help
2. Consider using the SEARCH button if you are looking for information. You may find your question has already been answered in a previous thread.
3. If you've looked for an answer to a question, and not found one, then you should consider asking your question in a new thread. For example, there have already been questions and discussion regarding: how to do chess diagrams (FENs); crosstables that line up properly; and the numerous little “glitches” that every new site will have.
4. Read pinned or sticky threads, like this one, if they look important. This applies especially to newcomers.
5. Read the thread you're posting in before you post. There are a variety of ways to look at a thread. These are covered under “Display Modes”.
6. Thread titles: please provide some details in your thread title. This is useful for a number of reasons. It helps ChessTalk members to quickly skim the threads. It prevents duplication of threads. And so on.
7. Unnecessary thread proliferation (e.g., deliberately creating a new thread that duplicates existing discussion) is discouraged. Look to see if a thread on your topic may have already been started and, if so, consider adding your contribution to the pre-existing thread. However, starting new threads to explore side-issues that are not relevant to the original subject is strongly encouraged. A single thread on the Canadian Open, with hundreds of posts on multiple sub-topics, is no better than a dozen threads on the Open covering only a few topics. Use your good judgment when starting a new thread.
8. If and/or when sub-forums are created, please make sure to create threads in the proper place.
Debate
9. Give an opinion and back it up with a reason. Throwaway comments such as "Game X pwnz because my friend and I think so!" could be considered pointless at best, and inflammatory at worst.
10. Try to give your own opinions, not simply those copied and pasted from reviews or opinions of your friends.
Unacceptable behavior and warnings
11. In registering here at ChessTalk please note that the same or similar rules apply here as applied at the previous Boardhost message board. In particular, the following content is not permitted to appear in any messages:
* Racism
* Hatred
* Harassment
* Adult content
* Obscene material
* Nudity or pornography
* Material that infringes intellectual property or other proprietary rights of any party
* Material the posting of which is tortious or violates a contractual or fiduciary obligation you or we owe to another party
* Piracy, hacking, viruses, worms, or warez
* Spam
* Any illegal content
* unapproved Commercial banner advertisements or revenue-generating links
* Any link to or any images from a site containing any material outlined in these restrictions
* Any material deemed offensive or inappropriate by the Board staff
12. Users are welcome to challenge other points of view and opinions, but should do so respectfully. Personal attacks on others will not be tolerated. Posts and threads with unacceptable content can be closed or deleted altogether. Furthermore, a range of sanctions are possible - from a simple warning to a temporary or even a permanent banning from ChessTalk.
Helping to Moderate
13. 'Report' links (an exclamation mark inside a triangle) can be found in many places throughout the board. These links allow users to alert the board staff to anything which is offensive, objectionable or illegal. Please consider using this feature if the need arises.
Advice for free
14. You should exercise the same caution with Private Messages as you would with any public posting.
I must do the same. I am disappointed by the decision. That said, in response to Sasha's posts, I have nothing to say against how things were done. The executive did poll the governors and sent emails to all of them. A logical choice might have been to not support anyone, seeing how governors were polarized on this issue, but the executive made its decision. The best thing to do now is probably to move on.
There is an upcoming election of the CFC executives and they should have wait to be reelected and only then to deal with the FIDE's election. And if they are not reelected then the newly elected executives would deal with the issue. The way they've done it BEFORE the AGM, taking away the decision from the Governors/Voting Members tells me that they had some motives to do it having nothing to do with the real interests of the Canadian Chess and the Members of CFC.
This is an evidence of Kasparov's support by the English Chess Federation and why: http://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-co...-statement.pdf
I'm asking one more time: those executives who voted for Ilumzhinov's endorsement by CFC please come forward and explain how this decision benefits Canadian Chess.
I must do the same. I am disappointed by the decision. That said, in response to Sasha's posts, I have nothing to say against how things were done. The executive did poll the governors and sent emails to all of them. A logical choice might have been to not support anyone, seeing how governors were polarized on this issue, but the executive made its decision. The best thing to do now is probably to move on.
Hi Felix:
Well said.
I took the original CFC Handbook interpretation, that the FIDE Presidential vote was to be cast by the CFC Governors (as called at the time before Continuance), not the Executive. The majority of Governors never supported my position (they voted by their silence in the debate). I also had decided that it should be cast by the outgoing Governors, since I wanted CFC to endorse a candidate, so they could use the CFC endorsement in their campaign.
However, the Executive straw vote of the Governors did show a majority for Ilyumzhinov. So even if my position had prevailed, the decision would have been the one made (I am a Kasparov supporter).
So I agree - water under the bridge now. If there is any illegality here, the practical on the ground decision seems to trump that in my view (given the impossibility, in my view, of setting aside any "illegal" decision before the FIDE Presidential vote in August).
Time to publicly disagree with the Executive/Governor majority decision, and then move on.
Bob A
P.S. I do note that the actual Executive decision was made "after" Continuance. So the new Constitutional documents, as I understand it, put the CFC Handbook into limbo - no legal status at the moment? Waiting re-adoption into the new regime? If so, then this raises therefore, the additional issue of whether my legal interpretation still stands under the new Constitutional documents, now in effect.
Last edited by Bob Armstrong; Tuesday, 17th June, 2014, 09:05 AM.
I took the original CFC Handbook interpretation, that the FIDE Presidential vote was to be cast by the CFC Governors (as called at the time before Continuance), not the Executive. The majority of Governors never supported my position (they voted by their silence in the debate). I also had decided that it should be cast by the outgoing Governors, since I wanted CFC to endorse a candidate, so they could use the CFC endorsement in their campaign.
However, the Executive straw vote of the Governors did show a majority for Ilyumzhinov. So even if my position had prevailed, the decision would have been the one made (I am a Kasparov supporter).
So I agree - water under the bridge now. If there is any illegality here, the practical on the ground decision seems to trump that in my view (given the impossibility, in my view, of setting aside any "illegal" decision before the FIDE Presidential vote in August).
Time to publicly disagree with the Executive/Governor majority decision, and then move on.
Bob A
P.S. I do note that the actual Executive decision was made "after" Continuance. So the new Constitutional documents, as I understand it, put the CFC Handbook into limbo - no legal status at the moment? Waiting re-adoption into the new regime? If so, then this raises therefore, the additional issue of whether my legal interpretation still stands under the new Constitutional documents, now in effect.
This is an evidence of Kasparov's support by the English Chess Federation and why: http://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-co...-statement.pdf
I'm asking one more time: those executives who voted for Ilumzhinov's endorsement by CFC please come forward and explain how this decision benefits Canadian Chess.
Sasha, you are the best thing that ever happened to Kirsan. Your bullying tactics do a grave disservice to Garry Kasparov.
This is an evidence of Kasparov's support by the English Chess Federation and why: http://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-co...-statement.pdf
I'm asking one more time: those executives who voted for Ilumzhinov's endorsement by CFC please come forward and explain how this decision benefits Canadian Chess.
(not sure if this works in other posts with similar content;
quoting other posts that contain links is tricky on ChessTalk
because what gets quoted often ends up being an invalid link)
(not sure if this works in other posts with similar content;
quoting other posts that contain links is tricky on ChessTalk
because what gets quoted often ends up being an invalid link)
Thank you, Kerry, but your link is exactly the same as mine! Am I missing something?
I can see the reasoning behind the English Chess Federation. There is non from Canadian Executives. There was a public opinion here heavily in Kasparov's favor, split of opinion among the Governors, or so we told, and ENDORSEMENT made by the Executives! And nobody is coming forward to confirm the so called endorsement of KI and explanation of their reas'on for this. As I uhderstand they don't need a public embarrassment. Mr. President, please strike down this ridiculous endorsement!
"However, the Executive straw vote of the Governors did show a majority for Ilyumzhinov. So even if my position had prevailed, the decision would have been the one made (I am a Kasparov supporter)."
I don't have a strong opinion about either candidate, however, I do not see how you can be asking the CFC president to reverse their decision when it is supported by the governors. In any democratic process there is a winner and there is a loser (or losers). In this case, the supporters of Kasparov fall into the latter.
PS -- If truth be told, I too fall into the camp of losers on this issue but that's just the way it goes.
"However, the Executive straw vote of the Governors did show a majority for Ilyumzhinov. So even if my position had prevailed, the decision would have been the one made (I am a Kasparov supporter)."
I don't have a strong opinion about either candidate, however, I do not see how you can be asking the CFC president to reverse their decision when it is supported by the governors. In any democratic process there is a winner and there is a loser (or losers). In this case, the supporters of Kasparov fall into the latter.
PS -- If truth be told, I too fall into the camp of losers on this issue but that's just the way it goes.
Look, the problem is that no executive came forward so far to confirm his vote for KI's endorsement by CFC and the reasons behind it. In a vew that all civilized World England including is supporting Gary Kasparov, the World Champion Magnus Carlson is supporting Gary, I'd like to know what is it that our executives now that neither England nor World Champion don't. And how the interests of Canadian Chess are being served best by ENDORSING KI? Maybe you have the answers?
I took the original CFC Handbook interpretation, that the FIDE Presidential vote was to be cast by the CFC Governors (as called at the time before Continuance), not the Executive.
Given that the history of the decision was given over to the executive or the FIDE rep I did not share this view. This exact debate happened four years ago and the governors decided to maintain the status quo and have the executive make the decision. As the law stands now the first opportunity to revisit this would be five years after the last time this was debated so next year.
The majority of Governors never supported my position (they voted by their silence in the debate). I also had decided that it should be cast by the outgoing Governors, since I wanted CFC to endorse a candidate, so they could use the CFC endorsement in their campaign.
However, the Executive straw vote of the Governors did show a majority for Ilyumzhinov. So even if my position had prevailed, the decision would have been the one made (I am a Kasparov supporter).
So I agree - water under the bridge now. If there is any illegality here, the practical on the ground decision seems to trump that in my view (given the impossibility, in my view, of setting aside any "illegal" decision before the FIDE Presidential vote in August).
Time to publicly disagree with the Executive/Governor majority decision, and then move on.
Bob A
There is nothing illegal about the decision. The Incoming voting members will not be seated in time to render a decision that is relevant. In any case the NFP act shifted the responsibility and the balance of power for non-profit corporations. This is a reality. The voting members still have a say but the idea of being able to micromanage every decision no matter how trivial is no longer on the table if it ever really was.
P.S. I do note that the actual Executive decision was made "after" Continuance. So the new Constitutional documents, as I understand it, put the CFC Handbook into limbo - no legal status at the moment? Waiting re-adoption into the new regime? If so, then this raises therefore, the additional issue of whether my legal interpretation still stands under the new Constitutional documents, now in effect.
The handbook does not have legal status except as a repository of our past procedures and rules. Some parts of it are no longer needed as they are superseded by the provisions of the NFP act along with our new articles and bylaws. We will have to go through the handbook carefully over the next few years and adopt the things that we want to keep and discard the things that are no longer necessary. I took over the NFP compliance process because the alternative was for the CFC to cease to exist as a non-profit corporations and having all of our assets disappear into the coffers of government and charities. Despite repeated pleas for members of the governors to join the process, the only governor that volunteered and helped me with this was Frank Lee our youth coordinator. The only non-governor that helped was Pierre Denomme. I can't blame the members of the original NFP committee as they put as much effort into the failed attempt at transition as I did on the ultimately successful process. I thank them for lighting the way that I had to proceed. That is water under the bridge but I don't have the time or energy to take as active a role in this transition period on a clause by clause exploration of the handbook. I need to spend some time working on the things that were neglected while I was concerned with survival of the CFC.
We have already had a few issues with proposed surprise last minute additions to the agenda of the upcoming AGM after the notification period has passed. We can no longer do this and comply with the law as outlined in the NFP act. You will have to plan ahead from now on when you want to introduce a motion. There is a feeling by some that the rules don't apply to them. They do. So far I have simply used the power of the directors to set the agenda and have added member proposals to the agenda as I would any such proposal from the directors. I cannot add items which fall after the notification period has passed. I will not add items that are not compliant with the laws under the NFP act.
Tweet
Comment