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 spoke with David Lavin last night and sorta pushed the idea that the easiest change for the better he could do to help speed things up would be to reinstate the Governors Forum and enforce that rather than GLs as the primary method of communication and voting.
He couldn't believe that it had been allowed to lapse just because the CFC didn't want to pay $4 per month to keep it online.
If we reinstate the forum some clear rules of order need to be drawn up. Aside from standard Roberts (modified to reflect an online environment) rules about length of debate, time to vote etc. need to be ironed out.
I suggest it be "chaired" by a CFC Parliamentarian rather than by the President. Procedural issues have been too politicized over the last few years.
The governors forum on the CFC website was simply seldom used. Also, it was constantly down and unreliable.
We set up a new governors forum on the website, still it was almost never used.
Then it was suggested a google group for the governors be setup. I did that, and everyone applauded. All governors were sent invitations, only 21 signed up. But again, also almost no dialogue took place.
The governors communicate thru emails. Some of you think it is crude, but they have voted with their keyboards to use emails.
I have left the google group alive for the governors to use, if they choose.
However, official governor communication will be by email. It works fine.
For items of urgency, the governor email communication channel is available where the GL process is too slow.
However, official governor communication will be by email. It works fine.
I'm not so sure it can be said "it works fine".
There simply are too many Governors and not enough actual work being done. IF the number of Governors was reduced to (say) two per provincial affiliate plus the Executive, AND those in the positions were actually committed to dilligently working on the issues, some progress could be made.
The governors forum on the CFC website was simply seldom used. Also, it was constantly down and unreliable.
We set up a new governors forum on the website, still it was almost never used.
Then it was suggested a google group for the governors be setup. I did that, and everyone applauded. All governors were sent invitations, only 21 signed up. But again, also almost no dialogue took place.
The governors communicate thru emails. Some of you think it is crude, but they have voted with their keyboards to use emails.
I have left the google group alive for the governors to use, if they choose.
However, official governor communication will be by email. It works fine.
For items of urgency, the governor email communication channel is available where the GL process is too slow.
Okay.?
No offense Bob, but unless and until the GLs are abolished or reduced in importance to mere newsletters (bimonthly executive updates to the Governors, committee reports but no votes/discussions) and official sanction is given to one of these boards as the official method of communication, it won't take off. That's partly why I didn't bother signing up for the Google group - the other being it wasn't even officially sanctioned by the Executive! The old Governors forum at least had executive support and was actually created by a motion by the Governors.
The reliability issues were not bad until near the very end, and just like the final going down could have been solved with $4 per month. Instead the CFC will merely let its $160 investment in the forum software go to waste... And P.S. I don't particularly like Google Groups either and that's the other reason I haven't signed up yet, although I would do so grudgingly if it was made official and meaningful. It would still be better than email!
Does Motion 2008-10 Bonus Points in the Rating System have a chance to be implemented in a near future? or will it be done with a pen?
As: H.Bond "no one at the Office could modify the rating program" and
C.Mallon "software can no longer be modified since we no longer have the source code,".
I concur with the rationale of Chris reply to Bob. The forum method will work with the abolition of GLs. It will be the method of decision making if the Governors so choose it. Email is still too crude an instrument. Gl's made sense when I first became a Governor in 1981; a few things have changed over the last quarter of a century.
Does Motion 2008-10 Bonus Points in the Rating System have a chance to be implemented in a near future? or will it be done with a pen?
As: H.Bond "no one at the Office could modify the rating program" and
C.Mallon "software can no longer be modified since we no longer have the source code,".
Given that the LAST change to the bonus points was never implemented I wouldn't hold my breath on this one. And the CFC has missed its chance to get a whole new website AND ratings software for the insanely low price of $5000... those guys have gone on to better things and wouldn't have time to work for so little anymore.
Given that the LAST change to the bonus points was never implemented I wouldn't hold my breath on this one. And the CFC has missed its chance to get a whole new website AND ratings software for the insanely low price of $5000... those guys have gone on to better things and wouldn't have time to work for so little anymore.
If you said they had wiped it from their drive and would have to start again, it would be a bit different. This looks like an attempt to negotiate a higher price for a finished product.
It never was a finished project, it was finished almost to phase 1 which is about 20% of the work.
And of course there's a price that they would work for, everybody has a price. They are really not that interested in it anymore though. You'll notice a couple months ago when I found that out I stopped pushing for it to happen and went to "if only the CFC had done this ..."
Of course they should still do it, maybe they can still find someone to work for that cheap.
No programmer in their right mind ever deletes ANY code though, so if I said they had I'd just look like a liar. And the CFC certainly can't afford a higher price at the moment, can they.
It never was a finished project, it was finished almost to phase 1 which is about 20% of the work.
And of course there's a price that they would work for, everybody has a price. They are really not that interested in it anymore though. You'll notice a couple months ago when I found that out I stopped pushing for it to happen and went to "if only the CFC had done this ..."
Of course they should still do it, maybe they can still find someone to work for that cheap.
No programmer in their right mind ever deletes ANY code though, so if I said they had I'd just look like a liar. And the CFC certainly can't afford a higher price at the moment, can they.
In the good old days when there wasn't much money around people weren't looking to get much money from the CFC. Incentive basis wasn't unknown.
These days the sky is the limit when it comes to wages and deficits.
The kind of person we need running the CFC is one who squeezes a penny so tight the queen squeels. A guy who tosses around dimes like they are manhole covers.
How long does it take to make a program like that? Usually a round figure like 5,000. is an estimate and over runs are added on.
Tweet
Comment