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.
This thread is almost seven months abandoned. That is as nothing. Writing as one who attended his first CFC Annual Meeting in 1970; not yet the oldest of the old; with luck....
It seems to me a person's self-interest should always rest in not organizing a chess event, considering the risks to one's finances and reputation... ;)
Mmmmm. Yeeees. The wording of the CFC Handbook is not accidental. If say Scarborough submits a bit, it was never the intention that governors from Ontario, nor from Toronto, nor even from Scarborough should recuse themselves from voting. Governor voting is "all in", it is partisan. The governors are the members of the organization, the citizens. That is one reason it is no longer the "Board" of governors, it is the "Assembly" of governors. For the jobs of officers, executive members, presidents, there may be other strictures. When you see the smiling face of Stephen Mugabe put his vote in the box on election day, it's legit. He's voting as a citizen, and even though his vote is for you-know-who, it is a proper vote. The COI, if there is any, starts at a higher level.
Whether you call it "crying over spilt milk" or "closing the gate after the horse has bolted" or "gosh that was a dangerous-looking stapler" or "Homeland Security", there are plenty of instances in our society of using ineffective methods to counter perceived threats.
Let's not add to them. </rant> No trick or protocol will force governors to make good decisions; they must use their noggins.
... If we can learn from other organizations, great. Would you like to research that for us? As Bob A. said, the ethics committee would be happy to receive your brief. Better yet, how would you like to serve on the ethics committee? ...
Hi Bob. Depending on timing, work commitments, etc., I may consider submitting a brief to a CFC ethics committee if they're going to look at COI. Since I'm clearly biased in favour of a broad interpretation of COI, I don't think it would be a good idea for me to sit on the committee. The people on the committee should be perceived as being impartial and open minded.
I realize you're referring to Fred Harvey here, Peter, but I think the answer to that question is most likely NO. He looks to be an interested non-CFC member, as him name doesn't show up in the rating list.
I, Fred McKim am from NB, having moved to PEI in 1997.
''You're sounding like that fred harvey fellow who doesn't want to talk to me anymore. ''
LOL. I am so sorry Peter, that my recognition that I had nothing further to contribute to your debate has left you feeling so rejected! I believe the word of the day is tiresome.
Remind me....what exactly happened that was so disgraceful? Not guesses, not betting, just... oh whatever!
("I had this fear that all my friends were dishonest. So I told them, and they all stopped talking to me." Gospel according to fred 2010)
I have a suggestion. .....a bid assessment committee comprised of, say, six to ten experienced governors (with maybe a few experienced rank-and-filers included) who do not expect to be directly involved in/committed to organizing a bid for a national event that will be submitted during the period ending at the next AGM?
another committee! We already have committees we can't staff. But we have setup the tournament coordination committee staffed with experienced organizers to promote future bids. It is having trouble getting off the ground because Chris hasn't set up the discussion board yet. :( I will send him another reminder in a few minutes!
Then, if some newbie asks whether their bid will be treated impartially and considered on its own merits, you can answer yes (as opposed to answering: sorry, kid, but the whole thing is just a big crap shoot based on regional voting blocks and has nothing to do with merit).
Actually my answer right now would be Yes. I am satisfied that on the whole, merit is given the most weight, and regional and personal bias much less weight. Really! :)
There's a big world out there (e.g. quasi-government entities like hospitals, school boards & universities; financial services providers; investment bankers; other privately and publicly held companies; professional organizations for lawyers, accountants; not-for-profit entities; etc.) and there are plenty of conflict of interest guidelines in use which have little or nothing to do with money and everything to do with fostering fair play and objectivity. The CFC can do this, Bob. It can pursue and achieve a high ethical standard in its operations.
I think allowing all governors to vote on bids does achieve an acceptable ethical standard. If we can learn from other organizations, great. Would you like to research that for us? As Bob A. said, the ethics committee would be happy to receive your brief. Better yet, how would you like to serve on the ethics committee? :D
Peter, I appreciate your motives but I really think changes would be counterproductive.
We can continue the conversation over beers in Niagara Falls in April if you want.
For now, I'll pull a fred harvey too.
Enough said. :)
But if you want the final word, please go ahead!
Last edited by Bob Gillanders; Wednesday, 15th December, 2010, 11:40 PM.
Peter, Roger hits the nail right on the head. We need and want governors to be involved, to submit bid and/or help others. Telling them they can't both help and vote is counterproductive. We want governors to be involved. ...
Bob, over the last decade or so there has been so much online talk about deadwood governors/no-show governors/etc., that I really can appreciate why governors who are actually participating in managing the CFC, organizing tournaments and just generally promoting chess in their communities, are considered to be valuable assets by the CFC. But from my viewpoint that still doesn't justify running the bid process with poor ethical standards.
I have a suggestion. I find it difficult to believe that huge numbers of governors are involved annually in organizing bids for national events. Surely there must be a few governors available for a special assignment. Why not establish, at each AGM, a bid assessment committee comprised of, say, six to ten experienced governors (with maybe a few experienced rank-and-filers included) who do not expect to be directly involved in/committed to organizing a bid for a national event that will be submitted during the period ending at the next AGM? The bid assessment committee's mandate would be to assess bids submitted for national events, subject to some fair and objective criteria established by the CFC, and then recommend the best bids to the governors prior to the governors determining the winners in a vote (or, you could have the bid assessment committee make the final decisions). Then, if some newbie asks whether their bid will be treated impartially and considered on its own merits, you can answer yes (as opposed to answering: sorry, kid, but the whole thing is just a big crap shoot based on regional voting blocks and has nothing to do with merit).
Conflict of interest rules are first and foremost meant to protect the organization from individuals who have a competing financial interest. To extend that definition to try and achieve your utopian ideal of an unbiased vote is neither possible, enforceable, or even desirable!
You're sounding like that fred harvey fellow who doesn't want to talk to me anymore. We're not talking about laws here, or criminal activity. That's ridiculous. There's a big world out there (e.g. quasi-government entities like hospitals, school boards & universities; financial services providers; investment bankers; other privately and publicly held companies; professional organizations for lawyers, accountants; not-for-profit entities; etc.) and there are plenty of conflict of interest guidelines in use which have little or nothing to do with money and everything to do with fostering fair play and objectivity. The CFC can do this, Bob. It can pursue and achieve a high ethical standard in its operations.
CFC Ethics Committee - Will Be Expected to Receive Briefs On COI
Hi Peter:
You have generated a good debate on this issue.
As you are aware, I took it to the governors and they have debated it hotly on the confidential CFC Governors' Discussion Board. It has resulted in a referral of the issue, by CFC President Bob Gillanders, to the exisiting ( though currently undermanned and not functioning ) Ethics Committee.
I look forward to your brief to the CFC Ethics Committee on Conflict of Interest in tournament bids, once CFC manages to people that Committee and get it functioning.
I think some ( many? ) CFC governors see the current system of tournament bid voting, with governors free to vote, despite ties to the bidding team ( as long as there is no financial gain ), using the narrow definition of " conflict of interest ", as both ethical ( everything is up front on this ), and politically necessary.
And they see the system as being run by honest people, trying to achieve beneficial goals.
Bob
Then to be consistent and transparent, I think the CFC should amend the COI section in the Handbook to make the CFC's definition of COI clear to readers. Surely no governor would object to that. If it's going to be a pig then it should be called a pig. Also, if the CFC provides new bidders with materials to assist them in structuring their bids, then the CFC should ensure that those materials contain no misleading comments; e.g. 'winning bids will be selected on the basis of their merits relative to competing bids' would be misleading.
Regarding your "honest" comment, I assume this comes from what I said to fred harvey. To be clear, what I said was that I never encountered an organization run by honest people that found pursuing high ethical standards to be an impediment to conducting business. This was an observation stemming from my business experience.
CFC Ethics Committee - Non-Executive Status Update
I would think it best for a non-executive governor to be the Chair of the Ethics Committee. So far, despite the high visibility of this issue on both this CMA Board, and the confidential CFC Governors' Discussion Board, I am not aware that any volunteer governor has yet come forward to volunteer to chair ( despite there being 53 non-executive governors out of 60 ).
The Committee still has one governor member, elected at the CFC Toronto July AGM, GTCL/Ont. Governor Ilia Bluvshtein.
Members of the Committee can be either governors or CFC members. Again, despite the high visibility of this issue on this CMA Board, no CFC member volunteers have yet come forward to my knowledge as a non-executive governor.
As Fred has noted, in the absence of a functioning Ethics Committee, the governors will have to discuss how now to proceed at the upcoming January 2011 Winter On-line Meeting.
The Perspective of Some Governors on Tournament Bidding
Hi Peter:
I think some ( many? ) CFC governors see the current system of tournament bid voting, with governors free to vote, despite ties to the bidding team ( as long as there is no financial gain ), using the narrow definition of " conflict of interest ", as both ethical ( everything is up front on this ), and politically necessary.
And they see the system as being run by honest people, trying to achieve beneficial goals.
We already have committees we can't staff. But we have setup the tournament coordination committee staffed with experienced organizers to promote future bids. It is having trouble getting off the ground because Chris hasn't set up the discussion board yet. :( I will send him another reminder in a few minutes!
Leave a comment: