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.
... The issue for me about reopening playing up in CYCC for discussion is the rule in the NFP act that states that we cannot revisit something that has been decided for a period of five years. ...
Vlad, it seems highly improbable that the federal government would constrict an NFP corp., in such a heavy-handed way, from dealing with what is essentially an operating issue. Surely your view must result from a misunderstanding of the NFP Act. Please provide the section and sub-section of the Act that has led you to your five-year interpretation so that others may have a look for themselves. This isn't the first time you've raised this matter and I think it needs to be clarified once and for all (I'm surprised that other executive members haven't requested clarification; c'est la CFC, I guess :().
"We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office." - Aesop
"Only the dead have seen the end of war." - Plato
"If once a man indulges himself in murder, very soon he comes to think little of robbing; and from robbing he comes next to drinking and Sabbath-breaking, and from that to incivility and procrastination." - Thomas De Quincey
I like your thoughts :) I'm to for a competitiveness and not exploiting holes in rules. (I don't think that a player who played once in "upper" section can not return to his own.)
Why are you allowing a Jump up in a National event in the First Place?
Hey if you are a certain age.PLAY in your section.
Really what is this all for to make a debate?
Why does the CFC have loop holes that allow playing up anyway.
Do not allow playing up . Close the files on this thread.
Plan and simple.
The sections are not for a certain age ie. 14 and 15 for example. The sections are under a certain age. The important issue is a deadline for registration in a specific. It might also be important for registration to be blind. ie. players do not know who else has registered for a specific section. I think the former is probably more important than the latter.
How about setting a pre-registration deadline? You must decide if you want to play up or not before that date. Anyone who registers later would have to play in their "regular" age group..
I remember one case in which this 5-year rule was not followed or ignored.
As far as I know the five year rule is something new that came in with the NFP act. It is something to prevent voting members from riding the same hobby horses over and over again. Contrary to my recollection it doesn't seem to prevent the directors of the corporation from doing the same thing (riding the same hobby horses over and over).
On Jan 2013 governors discussed the motion to increase the number of required games for Olympiad Team from 10 to 20. The motion was defeated that time, but was accepted 2 years later, after 2014-Olympiad.
Providing this case doesn't mean that I would like to change the current rules. It's really unclear to me.
From my point of view I still tend to my original view which is that playing up in age should be discouraged in CYCC but do not see this as an important issue that trumps the other 20 things we should be dealing with which are probably a higher priority.
As far as I know the five year rule is something new that came in with the NFP act. It is something to prevent voting members from riding the same hobby horses over and over again. Contrary to my recollection it doesn't seem to prevent the directors of the corporation from doing the same thing (riding the same hobby horses over and over)....
I'm assuming that you're referring to the 'Canada Not-for-profit Corporations Act'. I just used my word search function to search the Act for the word 'five'. It doesn't appear anywhere in the Act. Where are you getting this five-year business from?
"We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office." - Aesop
"Only the dead have seen the end of war." - Plato
"If once a man indulges himself in murder, very soon he comes to think little of robbing; and from robbing he comes next to drinking and Sabbath-breaking, and from that to incivility and procrastination." - Thomas De Quincey
I'm assuming that you're referring to the 'Canada Not-for-profit Corporations Act'. I just used my word search function to search the Act for the word 'five'. It doesn't appear anywhere in the Act. Where are you getting this five-year business from?
You should really include government websites explaining the act in your search.
Member Proposals
Generally, the directors are responsible for setting the agenda of members meetings. However, members have a right to add items to the agenda by submitting a notice – known as a “proposal” – to the corporation 90 to 150 days before the anniversary of the previous annual meeting of members. In this regard, any member entitled to vote at an annual meeting of members may submit a proposal to the corporation about any matter that the member wishes to raise at the meeting of members. Footnote 4 This includes the right of a voting member to submit a proposal to make, amend or repeal by-laws.
If a proposal includes nominations for the election of directors, the NFP Act states that the proposal must be signed by at least 5% of the members entitled to vote at the annual meeting. However, the Act also permits the corporation to use its by-laws to lower this percentage (for example “at least 2%”), but not to raise it.
With few exceptions, the corporation is required to include the proposal in the notice of meeting that is sent to the members.Footnote 5 If requested by the member who submits a proposal, the corporation is required to include in the notice of meeting a statement by the member in support of the proposal and the name and address of the member. The regulations provide that the statement and proposal shall not exceed 500 words in total.
The member who submitted the proposal is required to pay any cost of including the proposal and statement in the notice of meeting unless it is otherwise provided in the by-laws or in an ordinary resolution of the members present at the meeting.
It should be noted that directors are not obliged to include the proposal if:
the submission of the proposal does not meet the requirements above; or
the proposal is improper, in that:
it is intended to enforce a personal claim or redress a personal grievance against the corporation, or its directors, officers, members or debt obligation holders;
it does not relate in a significant way to the activities or affairs of the corporation;
not more than 2 years before the receipt of the proposal, the member failed to raise the matter covered by the proposal at a meeting of members;
it is substantially the same as a proposal previously submitted to members less than 5 years ago and it did not receive the minimum required support at that meeting Footnote 6; or
the rights to submit proposals are being abused to secure publicity.
The proposal could be submitted by the directors. My reading is that it could not be submitted by a voting member because substantially the same issue was dealt with within the last five years. Time is short with regard to bringing it up at the upcoming AGM. I recall arguing that playing up should not be allowed less than five years ago.
Originally posted by Vlad Drkulec May 13,2016View Post
That was a totally constructive post that shouldn't upset anyone. The issue for me about reopening playing up in CYCC for discussion is the rule in the NFP act that states that we cannot revisit something that has been decided for a period of five years. ...
Originally posted by Vlad Drkulec May 16, 2016View Post
As far as I know the five year rule is something new that came in with the NFP act. It is something to prevent voting members from riding the same hobby horses over and over again. Contrary to my recollection it doesn't seem to prevent the directors of the corporation from doing the same thing (riding the same hobby horses over and over). ...
You should really include government websites explaining the act in your search. ...
Alright!! Now we're making headway. Thank you for (finally ) clarifying that the five-year rule to which you have referred more than twice (i.e. not just the first two quotes above) does not come directly from the NFP Act at all.
"We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office." - Aesop
"Only the dead have seen the end of war." - Plato
"If once a man indulges himself in murder, very soon he comes to think little of robbing; and from robbing he comes next to drinking and Sabbath-breaking, and from that to incivility and procrastination." - Thomas De Quincey
You should really include government websites explaining the act in your search.
Member Proposals
...
It should be noted that directors are not obliged to include the proposal if:
the submission of the proposal does not meet the requirements above; or
the proposal is improper, in that:
it is intended to enforce a personal claim or redress a personal grievance against the corporation, or its directors, officers, members or debt obligation holders;
it does not relate in a significant way to the activities or affairs of the corporation;
not more than 2 years before the receipt of the proposal, the member failed to raise the matter covered by the proposal at a meeting of members;
it is substantially the same as a proposal previously submitted to members less than 5 years ago and it did not receive the minimum required support at that meeting Footnote 6; or
the rights to submit proposals are being abused to secure publicity.
The proposal could be submitted by the directors. My reading is that it could not be submitted by a voting member because substantially the same issue was dealt with within the last five years. Time is short with regard to bringing it up at the upcoming AGM. I recall arguing that playing up should not be allowed less than five years ago.
Something that jumps to one's attention on a first reading of your blue text is that the Directors are not **OBLIGED** to accept a proposal from a member if one of the given scenarios applies. It doesn't say they CAN'T accept the proposal; rather, it seems to be a matter of choice. And if the Directors are perceived as being unreasonable *ssholes (Heaven forbid that should ever happen!!), the NFP Act contains a provision for the removal of the Directors by the voting members.
p.s. Sorry. Now I'm forgetting to include section numbers: going from memory - section 170 (5)
Last edited by Peter McKillop; Monday, 16th May, 2016, 07:40 PM.
Reason: section number in nfp act
"We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office." - Aesop
"Only the dead have seen the end of war." - Plato
"If once a man indulges himself in murder, very soon he comes to think little of robbing; and from robbing he comes next to drinking and Sabbath-breaking, and from that to incivility and procrastination." - Thomas De Quincey
Ok, now I'm completely buffaloed. I looked both the NFP act, which does not mention any explicit time limits for passing motions and the GoC website about operating a not for profit act, which does give the 5 year term limit.
How is it that the GoC website can define terms that are not covered by the NFP act without modifying the act?
Ok, now I'm completely buffaloed. I looked both the NFP act, which does not mention any explicit time limits for passing motions and the GoC website about operating a not for profit act, which does give the 5 year term limit.
How is it that the GoC website can define terms that are not covered by the NFP act without modifying the act?
(e) substantially the same proposal was submitted to members in a notice of a meeting of members held not more than the prescribed period before the receipt of the proposal and did not receive the prescribed minimum amount of support at the meeting; or
and Regulations:
68 (1) For the purpose of paragraph 163(6)(e) of the Act, the prescribed minimum amount of support is
(a) three per cent of the total number of memberships voted, if the proposal was introduced at one annual meeting of members;
(b) six per cent of the total number of memberships voted at its last submission to members, if the proposal was introduced at two annual meetings of members; and
(c) 10 per cent of the total number of memberships voted at its last submission to members, if the proposal was introduced at three or more annual meetings of members.
(2) For the purpose of paragraph 163(6)(e) of the Act, the prescribed period is five years.
You can see that FIVE years is not an absolute criteria, the previous proposal must have been totally worthless at the time of discussion.
Why those numbers are in separate documents >> that for lawyers :) Maybe it's written somewhere in those documents (act and regulations).
"We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office." - Aesop
"Only the dead have seen the end of war." - Plato
"If once a man indulges himself in murder, very soon he comes to think little of robbing; and from robbing he comes next to drinking and Sabbath-breaking, and from that to incivility and procrastination." - Thomas De Quincey
Tweet
) clarifying that the five-year rule to which you have referred more than twice (i.e. not just the first two quotes above) does not come directly from the NFP Act at all.
Comment