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.
Hi Peter, There is a debate over whether the first paragraph you wrote is a conflict of interest if a financial gain is not involved.
I've made my point of view clear, i.e. that conflict of interest should be (and is, in the real world,) more broadly defined. If people disagree, that's their prerogative. Where do you stand?
"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
what I think is that you are creating mountains out of mole hills and hallucinating an imaginary conflict of interest.
Well, of course I disagree. :) At the very least, Roger, just so everyone is on the same wavelength, the CFC needs to take the following section from the Handbook and either expand it to include the CFC's definition of conflict of interest or, if the matter is just going to be treated as a joke by supposedly responsible people, get rid of the section altogether:
Originally posted by From CFC Handbook
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Whenever a proposal is being considered which puts any CFC officer in a potential conflict of interest he shall declare the conflict and abstain from discussion, voting or other involvement in the matter.
"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
If a person gains in a material manner from a motion s/he should declare their conflict of interest and recuse themselves.
If 20 Governors put together a bid for a tournament from which they were not going to benefit personally in a material way, they should be free to vote in favor of their bid.
I think Ken's point of view is the one the Ethics Committee is going to hear the most in the submissions to them from the governors, given the debate on the Governors' Board so far. I think Peter's view is in the minority re this particular issue ( ie. tournament bids ).
I also think, in some other situations, some governors agree the definition should be the broader one.
If a person gains in a material manner from a motion s/he should declare their conflict of interest and recuse themselves.
If 20 Governors put together a bid for a tournament from which they were not going to benefit personally in a material way, they should be free to vote in favor of their bid.
I wonder when the last time was that twenty governors were on the organizing committee of a group bidding for a tournament? Let's say that I'm part of the organizing committee for a competing bid. Let's say that there are no governors on the organizing committee I've joined. Let's say that, by some reasonable criteria, the bid I'm associated with is as good as, or even slightly better than, the 20-governor bid. Let's suppose that the bid I'm associated with loses the vote and that all of the governors associated with the 20-governor bid cast their ballots for their own bid. Is it a good idea to leave third parties with the impression that my bid lost because we didn't have the decision making body 'stacked' with our 'own' governors?
Please see Ken MacDonald's post in this thread. The perception of conflict can be just as damaging as the real McCoy (but perhaps I'm only hallucinating )
"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
As you said above, we obviously disagree on what constitutes a conflict of interest. If Governors are not allowed to vote for bids of which they are part of the organizing committee, you will inevitably get a situation where no bids will be put forth by Governors.
As you said above, we obviously disagree on what constitutes a conflict of interest. If Governors are not allowed to vote for bids of which they are part of the organizing committee, you will inevitably get a situation where no bids will be put forth by Governors.
Should a group of people who want to submit a bid to organize one of the CFC's fixture events be entitled to the expectation that their bid will be considered fairly and objectively by the CFC, or not? If your answer is that they should be entitled to that expectation, then explain to me how the CFC can satisfy that expectation by having decision makers who sit on the organizing committees of competing bidders? Seriously, explain it to me.
Any governor who would avoid becoming involved with the organization of a tournament for fear that s/he wouldn't be allowed to vote for their own tournament isn't worth a pinch of you-know-what as far as I'm concerned.
"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
In the recent CYCC bid competition, it appears a few governors were significantly involved in assisting each team to put together their bid, to give them advice on how to make it the most attractive. I think we could safely assume they were no longer " objective " under your broader conflict of interest definition. It appears they had no financial interest in the outcome. But they were not named on the team's formal " Organizing Committee ".
In future, do you see each side being able to challenge the right to vote of governors in this situation, before the Ethics Committee, if the governors, before the vote have not yet declared their conflict?
Bids can be hotly contested ( though we seldom see it ) - the 2011 CYCC tournament vote was a 15-14 vote ( I can't put my finger on this total anywhere at the moment, but I think this was it with the " missed " votes counted ). I foresee use of this challenge in future where parties perceive the vote to be close, if this manoeuver is allowed.
In the recent CYCC bid competition, it appears a few governors were significantly involved in assisting each team to put together their bid, to give them advice on how to make it the most attractive. I think we could safely assume they were no longer " objective " under your broader conflict of interest definition. It appears they had no financial interest in the outcome. But they were not named on the team's formal " Organizing Committee ".
In future, do you see each side being able to challenge the right to vote of governors in this situation, before the Ethics Committee, if the governors, before the vote have not yet declared their conflict?
Bids can be hotly contested ( though we seldom see it ) - the 2011 CYCC tournament vote was a 15-14 vote ( I can't put my finger on this total anywhere at the moment, but I think this was it with the " missed " votes counted ). I foresee use of this challenge in future where parties perceive the vote to be close, if this manoeuver is allowed.
Is this what you are proposing?
Bob
Moreover, some of the team was not announced until after the bid was decided (e.g. the TD). Is it proposed that the organizing team be 'frozen' and governers are not allowed to join in after the bid is decided? Otherwise, someone sensitive to the appearence of conflict of interest could cry foul....
Note that the TD is often (and also in this case) from somewhere anywhere in the country. If a TD is not announced as part of the bid, (i.e. the one person who might get a financial incentive), are all competent TDs with experience in large tournaments (i.e. those who have the most knowledge among us about what a good bid looks like) to be banned from voting?
As far as financial interest is concerned, the financial interest of those of the bidding team is probably negative, certainly so once the cash value of their donated time is included (not to mention the downside of a guaranteed prize fund). Perhaps the worry is that they will vote for the other bid. :-) Also, anybody who plans to play (with possible travel expenses) or has a reasonable expectation of prize money has greater positive financial inducements than the organizing team.
Am I concerned that an involved governer will vote for his own bid? No, I'm not. In fact, I should probably demand it. And should it lead to an arms race by bidding teams to involve governers in their bid, well, that's a good thing.
Every decision I make is subjective, Peter. I make them through my lens and my biases. If there was some objective analysis that existed around issues facing the Federation then we would find unanimity on all motions. Obviously we do not.
Last edited by Ken Craft; Tuesday, 14th December, 2010, 09:36 AM.
Am I concerned that an involved governer will vote for his own bid? No, I'm not. In fact, I should probably demand it. And should it lead to an arms race by bidding teams to involve governers in their bid, well, that's a good thing.
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.
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!
Last edited by Bob Gillanders; Tuesday, 14th December, 2010, 10:17 AM.
To repeat what I posted earlier in this thread, without the "pinhead" embellishments....
""Conflict of interest" in the usual sense refers specifically to direct potential financial benefit only. It also refers to the "appearance" of a conflict.
If people feel that executives or governers are going to driectly benefit financially from any of the bids, then there is a case. Any other "conflict" is only in the minds of whoever is arguing, and has no legal status whatsoever. It will then be up to the CFC to decide as to whether the actions were appropriate.
Seems to me that if someone works for a bid, they have every right to support it....sort of like voting for yourself in an election....."
Every decision I make is subjective, Peter. I make them through my lens and my biases. If there was some objective analysis that existed around issues facing the Federation then we would find unanimity on all motions. Obviously we do not.
Ken, should I infer from your comments that your position is that there is no such thing as a fair and objective decision at the CFC? If that's not what you intended, then what is your position re the questions below?
Originally posted by Peter McKillop
Should a group of people who want to submit a bid to organize one of the CFC's fixture events be entitled to the expectation that their bid will be considered fairly and objectively by the CFC, or not? If your answer is that they should be entitled to that expectation, then explain to me how the CFC can satisfy that expectation by having decision makers who sit on the organizing committees of competing bidders?
"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
Objectivity doesn't exist, Peter. Each Governor having a vote unless s/he is in conflict of interest is fair.
I feel like we are going around a mulberry bush.
Let's use an example: Let's say Toronto and Fredericton both put in bids for a Co. The Toronto bid committee consists of all of the Toronto area Governors. The Fredericton bid contains all of the N.B. Governors. All of the Toronto Governors vote for their bid. All of the N.B. Governors vote for their bid. The Toronto bid wins. That is fair.
Our model differs from Olympic bidding or FIDE bidding in that in those cases a country brings forward a bid and everyone votes including the countries that bring forward the bid.
In our case, bids are brought forward by individuals and/or committees, who may or may not have voting rights.
If we had a model where each bid was brought forward by a single governor, then it would seem more of a fair system.
Alternatively, we could simply say that if you live within 100 (or 250) miles of a nominated location you may not vote. This way only the truly disinvolved people would get to choose.
I think regular Governor business such as election of Officers and tournament locations do not fall under conflict of interest, unless there is a potential financial gain, which 99.9% of the time there would not be for these type of endeavours.
However, when we get into special one-time situations, especially dealing with funding to strong players and juniors there might well be conflict of interest.
Tweet
)
Comment