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.
"Conflict of interest" has been a given with respect to the CFC and OCA for almost the whole decade. I could cite numerous examples. All of them hurt organized chess in Canada. Here's an example. The OCA decided one year to give second and third place finishers at CYCC a $500 bursary to go to WYCC. Patrick McDonald was on the executive. His son got the bursary. My daughter did not. They said later you had to apply for it, but there was no communication to the players or their families that it even existed. Clear conflict of interest, we found out about it in Greece. Some time later, I was at another event and Barry was going on about this bursary and how it was an example of the OCA helping juniors. He seemed unaware how insulting it was to me to talk about this project when we got no money.
Was it not possible to apply for the bursary after the fact? If not, that is clearly unfair.
What I'm saying is Barry is being villified for just following standard procedure in these chess organizations. Barry was actually one of the nicer people you'll meet in these roles. He did the legwork to get the money.
If he had delivered a great result instead of excuses as to why he couldn't hold the tournaments that were part of the initial deliverables then we probably wouldn't be talking about this at all. If the behaviour was business as usual (which I don't agree that it was) it was also several magnitudes of order larger than business as usual usually is.
I find it questionable whether the OCA fulfills much of a useful function given that fifty percent of the CFC comes from Ontario and most of the officers of the OCA are also active in CFC leadership. The money collected now might be better left in the pockets of the membership and maybe there wouldn't be as many complaints about the high cost of CFC membership.
... If he had delivered a great result instead of excuses as to why he couldn't hold the tournaments that were part of the initial deliverables then we probably wouldn't be talking about this at all. ...
When you say "initial deliverables", I assume these were the deliverables that were the basis of Trillium's grant approval. Yes/no? Why did you use the word 'initial'? Was there a different set of deliverables subsequently approved by Trillium?
So, if Thorvardson didn't hold these tournaments then where did the approximately $85,000 go that he allegedly paid to himself?
... If the behaviour was business as usual (which I don't agree that it was) it was also several magnitudes of order larger than business as usual usually is. ...
Given this (i.e. the grant amount being substantially larger than any amount the OCA had a history of handling), don't you think that it would have made good sense, during the Trillium period, for OCA executives other than Thorvardson to have said to themselves, "hey, this is a lot of money and we need to pay attention to what's happening to it"?
"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
It seems to me that the OCA did have at least one annual general meeting which I attended in Kitchener as an observer where the facts were clearly established. ...
Well if that's the case then I wonder why those facts were never communicated to the members and why, for example, Bob Armstrong went to such great lengths to piece together the available information a year or more after the AGM to which you refer. I wonder if you meant that the facts were established to *your* satisfaction, which from others' perspectives may not mean the same thing as being clearly established.
... I don't see how much more the OCA could be expected to undertake. By the time key records disappeared in the course of an investigation it was already past the expiration date for doing much about the whole situation. Flogging dead horse optional.
I've never had an interest in pursuing Thorvardson. As I see it, if he had done something illegal I'm sure Trillium would have dealt with it. And of course the grant monies, or any portion of them, were never recoverable. However, what the OCA could and should have done was to examine what happened in detail, find where the mistakes were make, and then put in place the necessary procedures/by-law changes/etc. to reduce the probability of the same mistakes recurring in similar future situations. To the best of my knowledge, the OCA has done none of this.
To give Chris Mallon some credit, he did attempt to get an investigation rolling after persistent criticism from some loudmouth (oops....I think that might have been me :o ). Unfortunately, as you mentioned, the "key records disappeared." I'm still astounded by this disappearance of key records. What a great way to leave observers with an entirely negative impression; i.e. that a coverup is afoot. In any event, the OCA could have recovered a large portion of those missing/shredded records but didn't have the will to do so. Consequently, in my opinion, the reputations of some people who served on the OCA executive during the Trillium era will remain sullied. That's unfortunate because it really wouldn't have taken a huge effort to set matters right.
"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
Well if that's the case then I wonder why those facts were never communicated to the members and why, for example, Bob Armstrong went to such great lengths to piece together the available information a year or more after the AGM to which you refer. I wonder if you meant that the facts were established to *your* satisfaction, which from others' perspectives may not mean the same thing as being clearly established.
I'm not sure. I was never a governor of the OCA. I was there as an observer during the OYCC, I think, and only attended because John Coleman wanted to be there.
I've never had an interest in pursuing Thorvardson. As I see it, if he had done something illegal I'm sure Trillium would have dealt with it. And of course the grant monies, or any portion of them, were never recoverable. However, what the OCA could and should have done was to examine what happened in detail, find where the mistakes were make, and then put in place the necessary procedures/by-law changes/etc. to reduce the probability of the same mistakes recurring in similar future situations. To the best of my knowledge, the OCA has done none of this.
No need for an investigation. The procedures were in place. The rules were in place. Barry chose to ignore them. The penalty was a lifetime ban which is not much of a penalty. It sucks but that is the position that we are staring at. You may have had your queen before the blunder but now you have to play without it or resign. It is time to move on. Endlessly covering the same ground doesn't make the outcome any different.
To give Chris Mallon some credit, he did attempt to get an investigation rolling after persistent criticism from some loudmouth (oops....I think that might have been me :o ). Unfortunately, as you mentioned, the "key records disappeared."
Key records were shredded if my understanding is correct by a person charged with investigating all of the details of the situation.
I'm still astounded by this disappearance of key records. What a great way to leave observers with an entirely negative impression; i.e. that a coverup is afoot.
Never assume malfeasance when simple incompetence is a sufficient explanation. Occam's razor and all that.
In any event, the OCA could have recovered a large portion of those missing/shredded records but didn't have the will to do so. Consequently, in my opinion, the reputations of some people who served on the OCA executive during the Trillium era will remain sullied. That's unfortunate because it really wouldn't have taken a huge effort to set matters right.
The records were largely irrelevant at that point. The facts of the case had been established. I don't think that the funds from Trillium flowed through the OCA account though I could be wrong on that.
Well if that's the case then I wonder why those facts were never communicated to the members and why, for example, Bob Armstrong went to such great lengths to piece together the available information a year or more after the AGM to which you refer. I wonder if you meant that the facts were established to *your* satisfaction, which from others' perspectives may not mean the same thing as being clearly established.
I had the situation explained to me at that OCA meeting. They allowed the members of the peanut gallery to ask questions and I did. Bob Armstrong was there if my memory isn't playing tricks on me. I am pretty sure that the details of that meeting were posted online.
Tweet
Comment