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.
1. CFC certainly has the right to ask that a post be removed if it is deemed offensive to the CFC in some way, or if it is felt to be dealing with confidential CFC information. That being said, it was up to the CMA administrator whether to remove it ( as I understand it, it was merely moved to a different thread? ).
2. It is unfortunate the CFC banned you from the CFC members' Chess Chat Forum. It may be CFC wanted to deal with this matter in confidentiality, but if you were determined to air it, then, in this particular case, being that you are on the organizing committee, and have been nominated spokesperson for the organizing committee majority, I think it would have been much better to have this discussion on the CFC board ( though CMA is quite OK with CFC matters being discussed here ).
It says distributed to those 3 groups, it doesn't mention how the distribution is to be done. As that isn't specified, the organizing committee would be in its rights to determine how to divide the amount.
Victor has stated his intention to let the CFC decide the matter, but that's a funny way of deciding contract disputes; allowing one party to make the final decision.
As was said, an agreement is an agreement. If it was poorly written in a way that disadvantages the CFC, then it is still just as valid.
Denton
Are you a lawyer? Just wondering because your reasoning and especially the last sentence, even to a layperson like me, is faulty. In other words it ain't necessarily so.
If parties feel there is something that is unclear in a contract, ie one party feels that, and then decides to agree with the other parties interpretation, that's not a funny way at all; that's a perfectly sensible way.
Last edited by Zeljko Kitich; Sunday, 10th July, 2011, 03:22 PM.
Actually I thought his first sentence was the worst :p
That's true, even a quick perusal of my business law text on law of contracts wouldn't support that wild a statement. His suggestion that one party in a contract dispute gets to unilateraly effectively rewrite the terms without the other parties consent is highly questionable.
Last edited by Zeljko Kitich; Sunday, 10th July, 2011, 03:32 PM.
1. CFC certainly has the right to ask that a post be removed if it is deemed offensive to the CFC in some way, or if it is felt to be dealing with confidential CFC information. That being said, it was up to the CMA administrator whether to remove it ( as I understand it, it was merely moved to a different thread? ).
2. It is unfortunate the CFC banned you from the CFC members' Chess Chat Forum. It may be CFC wanted to deal with this matter in confidentiality, but if you were determined to air it, then, in this particular case, being that you are on the organizing committee, and have been nominated spokesperson for the organizing committee majority, I think it would have been much better to have this discussion on the CFC board ( though CMA is quite OK with CFC matters being discussed here ).
Bob
Bob,
1. The mater is not confidential. The 2011 CYCC Organizing Committee has unanimously decided long time ago that all the financial reports of the event will be transparent and open for public. Actually, this was my major condition when I allowed to insert my name into the Richmond Hill bid.
2. That was my original intention to have this discussion at the CFC Public Forum. But when I have realized yesterday that I am kicked-off, I did not have other choice rather than to post at the ChessTalk.
1. The mater is not confidential. The 2011 CYCC Organizing Committee has unanimously decided long time ago that all the financial reports of the event will be transparent and open for public. Actually, this was my major condition when I allowed to insert my name into the Richmond Hill bid.
2. That was my original intention to have this discussion at the CFC Public Forum. But when I have realized yesterday that I am kicked-off, I did not have other choice rather than to post at the ChessTalk.
Victor.
P.S. I still cannot post at the CFC Forum.
When the oraganizing committee signed the contract with the CFC was this what they felt they were contracting to at the time or did they subsequently come up with this new plan an decide to make the change. It seems they decided after by having to have a vote on the matter. If so then there may not have been a meeting of the minds over the contract in the first place or if there was meeting of the minds it wasn't for what you are proposing to do now, by either party.
I am going to mention here a point for people to think about before the meeting tomorrow ...
If the contract states that the surplus is to be distributed to the WYCC, Pan Am and NAYCC entrants, how can we be sure that after a player that finishes top 3 receives this money, they will indeed attend any of these events?
The only way I can see with dealing with this is that the CFC should put the money into the Youth account and distribute once the teams are made up that will go to these events.
(And this should not be retroactive, but the events coming up).
Are you a lawyer? Just wondering because your reasoning and especially the last sentence, even to a layperson like me, is faulty. In other words it ain't necessarily so.
If parties feel there is something that is unclear in a contract, ie one party feels that, and then decides to agree with the other parties interpretation, that's not a funny way at all; that's a perfectly sensible way.
No, I'm not a lawyer, but I was a union president responsible for writing and administering a collective agreement, but that doesn't matter.
I don't know if I should even continue to respond since you actually misinterpreted (hopefully not just misrepresenting) what I said. It's obvious that a party can be convinced that their view is wrong, but that's not what I said.
So an extended restatement: If an opposing party told me that even though they vociferously disagree with my interpretation of a contract, they'll defer to my judgment, I would be quite taken aback (in that case in a good way). It would be much funnier (to me) if they said the language backs them up clearly, but they'll still leave me to make the final decision.
Finally, being a lawyer does not particularly qualify one to be adept at reading and interpreting contracts.
That's true, even a quick perusal of my business law text on law of contracts wouldn't support that wild a statement. His suggestion that one party in a contract dispute gets to unilateraly effectively rewrite the terms without the other parties consent is highly questionable.
OK, that's the second time.
Where the heck did you get even such a statement from me? How can you even in the least bit infer that from what I wrote?
I take it (I would hope) you haven't had to write and argue many binding contracts...
A lot of people are missing the point here. People like Denton Cockburn - debate all you want about the future of the program. That has nothing to do with this case.
The fact is that it is the CFC's money and Victor Itkine is not allowed to spend it however he wishes no matter how many "organizing committee votes" he has to back him up.
Show me where it states the surplus is the CFC's money as you claim. You guys are vary vague on your rules, which I believe will tend to dissuade anyone from wanting to run this event next year.
Let's assume the CFC Youth Fund is stated as the destination. Who is administering this fund, and under what guidelines ? Where is this written ?
How do organizers and parents know that it won't be like 2007 when reportably $21,000 of CYCC surplus simply disappeared ?
The CFC is not operating out of a position of strength here. Trying to hush it up after the money was announced at the awards ceremony ( with many of the key people in attendance, including numerous CFC officials ) is ridiculous.
So the CFC solution apparently is some debate at the AGM. May I remind you of Montreal, where an infamous CYCC resolution was voted in almost unanimously by CFC Governors because it was perceived that female participation in the CYCC Open sections was a threat of some type. How can anyone trust the AGM ? You have a bunch of Governors who know almost zip about youth events voting.
Show me where it states the surplus is the CFC's money as you claim. You guys are vary vague on your rules, which I believe will tend to dissuade anyone from wanting to run this event next year.
Let's assume the CFC Youth Fund is stated as the destination. Who is administering this fund, and under what guidelines ? Where is this written ?
How do organizers and parents know that it won't be like 2007 when reportably $21,000 of CYCC surplus simply disappeared ?
The CFC is not operating out of a position of strength here. Trying to hush it up after the money was announced at the awards ceremony ( with many of the key people in attendance, including numerous CFC officials ) is ridiculous.
So the CFC solution apparently is some debate at the AGM. May I remind you of Montreal, where an infamous CYCC resolution was voted in almost unanimously by CFC Governors because it was perceived that female participation in the CYCC Open sections was a threat of some type. How can anyone trust the AGM ? You have a bunch of Governors who know almost zip about youth events voting.
This is where contracts/agreements come in. Victor quoted the bid proposal for the organizers. What someone thinks something says is (almost) irrelevant if the plain contract language says otherwise.
I just think this will get more interesting if both parties stand their ground...
Let's see what the CFC's counter-argument will be.
how the eff is this going on for three pages. contract clearly states that EXCESS SCRITCH GOES TOWARDS HELPING YOUNG MEN AND WOMEN PLAY IN INTERNATIONAL TOURNIES. comrade itkine's decision to give money to top 3 finishers in each section is SO OBVS not in line with this directive. get this money out of his reach asap; dude is clearly not capable of handling basic tasks
No, I'm not a lawyer, but I was a union president responsible for writing and administering a collective agreement, but that doesn't matter.
I don't know if I should even continue to respond since you actually misinterpreted (hopefully not just misrepresenting) what I said. It's obvious that a party can be convinced that their view is wrong, but that's not what I said.
So an extended restatement: If an opposing party told me that even though they vociferously disagree with my interpretation of a contract, they'll defer to my judgment, I would be quite taken aback (in that case in a good way). It would be much funnier (to me) if they said the language backs them up clearly, but they'll still leave me to make the final decision.
Finally, being a lawyer does not particularly qualify one to be adept at reading and interpreting contracts.
Denton
Oh, if that's your only expertise then I don't think you should be going around tossing legal interpretations out and about. I was a union local secretary-treasurer, have formal collective agreement training and negotiated a contract with our local's office staff. I also have two courses in business law at university.
No wonder you are giving out that kind of advise, it's one thing for a union with deep pockets to go around being confrontational and going to arbitration, it's another thing for others.
Your last sentence is rather amazing but then again being a union president dealing with one type of contract only does not a contract expert make you either.
Where the heck did you get even such a statement from me? How can you even in the least bit infer that from what I wrote?
I take it (I would hope) you haven't had to write and argue many binding contracts...
You're very much off base, what you are suggesting does not even show a basic understanding of contract law. What I said is straight forward interpretation of your remarks. You are obviously suggesting one party here can make unilateral decisions which is not supported in contract law.
This is where contracts/agreements come in. Victor quoted the bid proposal for the organizers. What someone thinks something says is (almost) irrelevant if the plain contract language says otherwise.
I just think this will get more interesting if both parties stand their ground...
Let's see what the CFC's counter-argument will be.
Denton
Is this really what it's all about, making things more interesting for you?
Tweet
Comment