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.
Just because something is permitted doesn't mean it should be done, Fred. I have no interest in the specific question. In general, theCFC is a national sporting federation and should act like one.
Also Bob G. - do CFC release financial statements every year?
I see Fred has already responded, but please allow me to comment. The CFC does publish its financial statements on a quarterly basis. It is first circulated to the Governors and then made public on the website for all to see.
The CFC did run large deficits for several years, but we are now into our 3rd consecutive year of balanced budgets. The budgets are now approved by the governors each year. Fred and I will begin shortly on the budget for fiscal 2012. We hope to have it ready for discussion at the April Governors' quarterly meeting. Gerry is doing a great job at keeping the books, and gives up timely accurate monthly reports.
Despite all this, the CFC is regularly depicted on chesstalk and other forums as secretive, undemocratic, fiscally irresponsible, and worse. It really does get frustrating at times. :(
I was surprised by Ken's remarks. Does he expect us to forgive all debts and make no effort at collecting our receivables? That would be irresponsible. But I see now that his judgement is being clouded by some previous issue which likely has no bearing on the current issue.
I have not said what you claim in that last paragraph. I said that refusing to publish someone's rating is not a legitimate means to go about collecting receivables. A national sporting federation should continue to publish the rating of a member or a former member regradless of their financial relationship with said individual(s). I trust that is clear enough Bob and you will cease misrepresenteing my argument as you have done above.
I wasn't belittling CFC's financial situation. After all, its the only thing we have =) I saw the 2010 report, the numbers are solid. I was just trying to make a point that situations like these with Raja could (and should) be resolved privately. Since CFC is not a big corp with lots of money, we should all try to yield a little.
And don't worry about people who thinks you guys are doing a bad job - screw them. They probably spent their entire life playing chess and know nothing about how business should run, except their own personal benefits like prize money.
If people want CFC to run like a proper national sports organization, then players who constantly makes public discouraging remarks about the federation, other members, or organizers should be fined/suspended. Thats how NFL/NBA/NHL works, and that's how most companies work too.
When your customers don't pay their bills, withholding services is normal business practice. The account is long overdue and we have made several attempts to resolve the issue. Nevertheless, we are hopeful of a satisfactory resolution soon.
you are not actually withholding services as with a little work, it is possible to see the players rating as described by Hugh in his post.
What you are doing is altering the historical record which is really quite unacceptable.
(and their name is not really hidden as just clicking on the bottom of the page for archived results prior to 2006 brings up the full correct name so all in all, a not effective denial of services)
Last edited by Roger Patterson; Wednesday, 9th March, 2011, 05:36 PM.
This is almost like the Soviets trying to remove all evidence of Bohatirchuk's existance in the chess world.
About 20 years ago, there was an organizer who reneged on most of a large prize fund - i.e. his cheques bounced. The CFC diligently published his name in a blacklist in every issue of its magazine for some time. I was the recipient of one of the bad cheques - but three years later, I received a "good" check from him - plus interest - and a letter of apology. However - I don't recall the CFC removing him from the rating list.
This is almost like the Soviets trying to remove all evidence of Bohatirchuk's existance in the chess world.
Presumably the CFC's actions were taken with the thought of their effect on the Panjwanis, with little thought given to any further issues such as the effect on the rest of the CFC membership regarding its interest in the Panjwanis' rating histories, as recorded up to the point where their memberships became invalid.
The parallel to the Soviets is somewhat incorrect. That would imply a perception by the CFC of all the effects of their decision, unlike the one made by the Soviets, which was simply a deliberate attempt to wipe out any records of Bohatirchuk for all time. The CFC's action seems more like an act of bumbling by comparison.
[edit: perhaps this is a tad harsh on the CFC, especially if their apparent faux pas isn't so easily fixed]
Last edited by Kevin Pacey; Thursday, 10th March, 2011, 03:03 AM.
Reason: Somewhat delayed empathy
Anything that can go wrong will go wrong. Murphy's law, by Edward A. Murphy Jr., USAF, Aerospace Engineer
Whine whine whine.
We complain when the CFC loses money and we complain when they use one of the few tools at their disposal to recoup money owed, we complain some more.
While this is a private matter, I have no problem with the CFC trying to collect accounts payable. Trust me, a collection agency would do much more than delete a name.
Whine whine whine.
We complain when the CFC loses money and we complain when they use one of the few tools at their disposal to recoup money owed, we complain some more.
While this is a private matter, I have no problem with the CFC trying to collect accounts payable. Trust me, a collection agency would do much more than delete a name.
Please re-read Bob's, Joshua's and Brian's posts.
Further, until we know full, exact details, why all the commotion. There will be plenty of time then to criticize the CFC or, god forbid, Raja?
Last edited by Ken MacDonald; Thursday, 10th March, 2011, 11:49 AM.
It's a variation on this from CFC Handbook Section 7 (CFC Rating System)
It is the responsibility of the organizers to ensure that all players are CFC members. We realize that it is possible to overlook a player. We will still rate the tournament, but the rating of a player who does not fulfill CFC membership requirements will be deactivated. xxxx will appear after his name:
Folks - nothing to see here, everyone please go back to your game.
Not really. - the policy problem of altering the historical record if there is some dispute has not been addressed. You seem oblivious to the point that this is not ok. You seem oblivious that other cfc members who are in good standing are having their services (of referring to events and people they have played) curtailed through no fault of their own. Ditto, the organizers of any events in which those players played in are not receiving the proper publication of those events.
If nothing else, I'll point out that the organizer of the 2009 Canadian junior and cycc raised a substantial amount of money for those events. If he tries to go back to those same or new sponsers for say this years chess challenge, all he can show is look - anonymous won this event that you paid for http://www.chess.ca/xtableSQL.asp?TNum=200907040.
In short, whatever the dispute, altering the historical record is not acceptable. By all means, cancel membership, set current rating to 0, refuse to pay fees to FIDE to maintain that rating, whatever else occurs to you - but not rewriting history.
Rewriting history? I would call that over the top. And besides, that sponser may be more impressed that we are financially responsible than whether he can see exactly who won the event. I know I would be.
Not really. - the policy problem of altering the historical record if there is some dispute has not been addressed. You seem oblivious to the point that this is not ok.
Roger - thanks for explaining the "rewriting history" issue. Admittedly, my eyes did glaze over when someone compared us with Soviet propaganda aimed at rewriting history. I did indeed chalk it up to just another case of chesstalk hyperbole. Of course, we had no intention of rewriting history. It was just a case of unintended consequences. We will keep this in mind in the future.:)
other cfc members who are in good standing are having their services (of referring to events and people they have played) curtailed through no fault of their own.
This leads to another, almost seperate topic. If CFC members are 'entitled' as a service to see the historic rating records of other CFC [ex-]members (regardless of their current CFC membership status), it should be noted that non-CFC members have also got access to this service, for free, and they have had so for a long time. Perhaps the CFC should strive to one day make CFC members' ratings lists visible only to CFC members!?
Anything that can go wrong will go wrong. Murphy's law, by Edward A. Murphy Jr., USAF, Aerospace Engineer
Tweet
Comment