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.
I wouldn't worry about the debt. I expect the Americans and Canadians to inflate their way out of the problem. Like around 1980.
The idea is to borrow money in today's hard dollars and pay it back in tomorrow's soft dollars.
In any case, Ontario will have a larger share of power as compared to Quebec. Here's the riding allocations for the next election. Ontario gets 15 new ridings and Quebec a mere 3. Looks like they are losing their influence.
Here's a summary of Quebec politics, which includes a brief description of the Anglophone exodus, which I imagine accounts partly for Quebec's current population:
While I haven't noticed if it's mentioned, there is the controversial recent PQ proposed charter of values, which would seem to be for one thing designed to drive away at least some Quebec Muslims if it actually became law, which is a little puzzling since the province's immigration policies result in taking many immigrants from certain French speaking countries that have largely Muslim populations (interesting what you learn sometimes if you listen to talk radio).
Last edited by Kevin Pacey; Wednesday, 16th October, 2013, 10:52 PM.
Reason: Grammar
Anything that can go wrong will go wrong. Murphy's law, by Edward A. Murphy Jr., USAF, Aerospace Engineer
A common opinion I've heard is that the NDP will lose (plenty of) seats to the Liberals. I believe it. Before Trudeau ran for the Liberal leadership, I thought the common wisdom was that the NDP would lose plenty of seats to the Bloc next time. I believed that too, and perhaps that may still happen, too.
... [The o]nly question may be whether Liberals get a minority (or Conservatives do) or Liberals even get a majority (if the country completely loses its mind, as was the case under Trudeau I). Charisma virtually always trumps substance in politics.... :(
With the latest Senate troubles facing Harper, I now think the Conservatives will have no chance of having even a minority government after the next election. The only question is whether Trudeau the son wins a majority or a minority. I now may hold my nose and vote NDP federally even if I have a fringe party to choose from in my riding (other than Green).
Anything that can go wrong will go wrong. Murphy's law, by Edward A. Murphy Jr., USAF, Aerospace Engineer
I wish there was a test in place to qualify a person to vote.
I also would like voting to be compulsory - although I realize people could still render their vote spoiled or otherwise useless.
Make civics classes in school compulsory instead.
In Australia people are fined for not voting, but I think you have a 'None of the above' option on a ballot there. In Canada you can say out loud that you wish to decline your ballot and be recorded as such. No doubt pressure by some group(s) for having a 'None of the above' option in Canada was handled in practice this way (i.e. voters being forced to decline their ballots so as not to be counted as spoiled ballots) to suit the desires of the three major parties. That is, this is done to not-so-subtly intimidate voters into not declining their ballots in practice, so as to not be embarrased in front of neighbours/strangers at the polling station. It clearly suits the major parties in Canada to maintain the illusion that people spoil their ballots mainly by accident, rather than as a way to vote 'None of the above' as a way to reject the offered candidates explicitly.
Anything that can go wrong will go wrong. Murphy's law, by Edward A. Murphy Jr., USAF, Aerospace Engineer
There are many good reasons to suggest that voting is actually a total waste of time in general. I suppose if one gets a sort of emotional "warm fuzzy" out of the process then that's a good enough reason, but I personally don't see why anyone would waste their time (waiting in polling lines/researching), fuel (driving to the place) or emotional energy, taking part in a process in which they have a statistically almost zero chance of actually having any effect on, and even if they did through a lightning strike amount of luck, vote in a poll in which they were the single swing vote, actually voted for a person who would do what they wanted to etc etc.
I don't begrudge anyone voting if it's something that the want to do as a pasttime, but the idea that voting is something that must be done is archaic and intellectually unsound.
There are many good reasons to suggest that voting is actually a total waste of time in general...
1. Some political parties actually encourage voter apathy/indifference as they seem to do better with lower turnouts. So you're echoing the calculated strategy of a particular point of view ... whether you know it or not.
2. Voting is a kind of social duty, like helping little old ladies onto the bus and so on. If no candidate pleases you, then you can always decline/reject your ballot. If you are genuinely indifferent, then just stay out of the way of people who actually have societal concerns. Contrary to views of the late Lady Thatcher, society actually does exist.
3. The remedy to a lousy democracy is a better one. I'd like to see more vigorous recall laws so that, for example, politicians that lie to get into office are forced to resign. In almost every other social activity, promises not kept are treated very seriously ... sometimes even as a criminal matter.
Of course, maybe they all would have to resign. lol.
Dogs will bark, but the caravan of chess moves on.
I know you don't believe in polls, Gary, but they do often have currency. I knew you'd want to know about this one - will stir your commitment to get that $ 20 saved up in advance!!
Bob A, NDP supporter
CBC Website:
" Liberal support is the highest it has been since the summer of 2009, when Michael Ignatieff took over the leadership, according to the latest tracking numbers by Nanos Research.
The research was done before Senator Mike Duffy made some extraordinary allegations against the Prime Minister's Office this week.
The Nanos weekly ballot tracking has Liberal national support at 37 per cent. The Conservatives are second at 29 per cent, the NDP is third at 23 per cent and the Green Party is fourth at five per cent. The ballot tracking is one aspect of the Party Power Index that Nanos Research releases every week..........
While the Liberal Party is going up in the polls the NDP is going down, and Nanos said that while Mulcair is a good performer in the House of Commons and is doing a good job "tearing down" the prime minister and the Conservatives, Mulcair also needs to build himself and the NDP up as a government in waiting.
"It's not enough just to tear down the PM," Nanos said."
Seems like my bet is going sour - the NDP are again being relegated to third place by the public. And this without Trudeau doing much of anything (except joining the legalization lobby). I'm starting to prepare my nervous $ 20 sitting patiently on my chess bookshelf, that it may indeed have to think about adapting to a new home at the Ruben residence. But I am also teaching him that in politics, anything can happen in a short time (as per the senate scandal).
1. Some political parties actually encourage voter apathy/indifference as they seem to do better with lower turnouts. So you're echoing the calculated strategy of a particular point of view ... whether you know it or not.
2. Voting is a kind of social duty, like helping little old ladies onto the bus and so on. If no candidate pleases you, then you can always decline/reject your ballot. If you are genuinely indifferent, then just stay out of the way of people who actually have societal concerns. Contrary to views of the late Lady Thatcher, society actually does exist.
3. The remedy to a lousy democracy is a better one. I'd like to see more vigorous recall laws so that, for example, politicians that lie to get into office are forced to resign. In almost every other social activity, promises not kept are treated very seriously ... sometimes even as a criminal matter.
Of course, maybe they all would have to resign. lol.
Not voting does not equal apathy. Actually the opposite. I care so much about the community I live in that I would rather use my limited hours in a day to participate in actions that (in my opinion) make real change in my community. City cleanup, fundraising activities for local charities etc. Wasting an entire day to check a box that will practically change nothing about the Universe is the exact opposite of social duty in my books. It's actually making a conscious decision to engage in an action that does nothing.
The idea that non-voters are doing so out of apathy or indifference is sometimes true, but in many cases not at all.
Now, I want to make it clear that I am exceptionally grateful for the sacrifices people have made throughout history to allow me to live in a society where voting is an option - though not a law enforced upon me. It's a powerful thing to execute my right as a citizen to not vote, or to choose to vote - whichever I may decide. I also think if people want to vote that I support them in that.
I haven't voted in some years. The voting place is in a school gymnasium which is a long walk even from the parking lot. The last time I went to vote school was in and the parking lot full. I assume teachers cars. The closest legal parking spot was more than a block away. Too far for me to walk. They have 3 polling stations in that large gymnasium but with the limited parking it seems to be too many.
If they want people to vote they should use the local community center which is closer and has loads of parking spots for the seniors. It's only one day.
I guess if the government doesn't want people to vote they do these kind of things to discourage them.
Our wager didn't have anything to do with "anything can happen". It was specifically on what I analyzed would not happen.
I don't consider the current problems in the Senate to be a big deal for the government. The Senate is unelected.
Three of the party leaders are from Quebec. The ROC is getting a little tired of what's going on in that province. If those party leaders want to make things better maybe they should be running for positions in the elected Quebec government.
Not voting does not equal apathy. Actually the opposite. I care so much about the community I live in that I would rather use my limited hours in a day to participate in actions that (in my opinion) make real change in my community. City cleanup, fundraising activities for local charities etc. Wasting an entire day to check a box that will practically change nothing about the Universe is the exact opposite of social duty in my books. It's actually making a conscious decision to engage in an action that does nothing.
The idea that non-voters are doing so out of apathy or indifference is sometimes true, but in many cases not at all.
I wasn't making the claim that not voting is ONLY the result of apathy. The fact that you spend time on a public forum trying to substantiate why you don't vote demonstrates that.
We have a real problem with declining voter turnout in Canada and elsewhere. I think a big factor is that more and more people are of the opinion that the real power in society rests outside of government and that, therefore, voting is a kind of circus or distraction. Something like what you were saying. But it is also true, as noted, that there are calculated efforts to discourage certain groups of voters. In the USA, this is very blatant ... with efforts to benefit the GOP by making it more difficult for African-Americans and poor people to vote.
Dogs will bark, but the caravan of chess moves on.
Supplemental: Comedian Russell Brand from the UK tore a strip off a smart alec commentator and backed up his own claim why not voting makes sense for him. It's significantly different from previous arguments on this thread ....
Originally posted by Russell Brand
“I am not not voting out of apathy,” Brand said. “I am not voting out of absolute indifference and weariness and exhaustion from the lies, treachery and deceit of the political class that has been going on for generations…Why pretend? Why be complicit in this ridiculous illusion?”
The fact remains that in Canada, legal but unacceptably extreme parties IMO (e.g. Marxist) might get elected to seats (where they run a candidate) by default if virtually almost everyone else decided not to vote (whatever their reasons). To me that's an unacceptable possibility, even if only theoretical. Hence everyone with such parties in their ridings should vote if able, for what they think is the lesser evil.
If one were to be in a country where one could only chose between unacceptable extremes (e.g. Communist and Fascist parties were all that was on offer), then it clearly would be time to leave that country if at all possible. If every country in the world had only extreme choices to choose from, then one would be SOL, at least if they looked to politics for any sort of salvation.
That's my logic at the moment re: voting, fwiw.
Last edited by Kevin Pacey; Friday, 25th October, 2013, 02:33 PM.
Reason: Grammar
Anything that can go wrong will go wrong. Murphy's law, by Edward A. Murphy Jr., USAF, Aerospace Engineer
I agree that some groups would prefer for specific other groups not to vote. That's an excellent point, but also not a reason to vote.
Interesting video re: Russell Brand. I don't know much about him, but I agree with some of what he says (particularly the part you quoted).
Kevin,
I choose not to vote because of practical reasons, rather than choosing to vote for theoretical reasons that have no practical chance of happening (such as extreme fringe parties being elected). It's a case of real things (time spent in lines, time spent researching) being far more real than theoretical things that will never happen. If that makes sense (it does in my head, but that doesn't mean much)
Again, I fully support those who vote, and who think that it's the right decision for them. It's only when silly things like 'If you don't vote you can't complain', or 'You're not a real citizen if you don't vote' that I become annoyed. I've not seen those attitudes in this conversation though, which is really refreshing.
Fwiw, in my federal riding, last election I was faced with choosing between only the three major parties and Green. Hence no 'extreme' parties like Maxist I felt compelled to vote against by voting for someone else.
The Green party has been completely unacceptable to me - just look at what the Liberal's Green Energy policies (formed perhaps largely thanks to the environmental lobby here) have done to Ontario's economy (not only that, but the inane pesticide ban and windmills are harming people's health as I write these words, even). Thus, in the last election I was tempted to spoil my ballot, or even play the embarrasing game of declining my ballot, as none of the three major parties appealed to me. Declining my ballot would at least demonstrate my disappointment with the options. However the threat of a Liberal-NDP-Bloc coalition had to be voted against IMO, hence I voted for the Cons, even though I feared they'd be radical (due to their at least partially Reform party roots), if not heavy-handed, in case they got a majority.
Turned out, the Cons got a majority, and so far they have not been too radical IMO, although they/Harper have indeed been heavy-handed. Unfortunately, now the signs are that they may have become more than minimally corrupt. Hence they lose my vote next election. Too bad, they were providing fairly good government - but the rot of too many years in power is a deal breaker in my books. Not only that, Harper keeping an enemies' list is an eerie echo of the Nixon administration.
If I'm faced with just choosing from the same four parties to choose from as last time again, I'm holding my nose and voting NDP, to vote against all the other three choices, for reasons previously given. I wouldn't be too critical of someone else in my riding who felt less strongly against corruption or Green policies, however, if they spoiled or declined their ballot, if there is still no extreme party to vote against here. Plus, I'm still hoping there is another, relatively harmless, fringe party I can vote for this time instead.
[edit: fwiw, I believe declining (or perhaps even spoiling) your ballot at least may show that you care about the process. Not voting at all less informs those who keep track, although again I guess I won't be too critical if there are no extreme parties in one's riding that must be stopped (and one should try to make sure as possible that they are)]
Last edited by Kevin Pacey; Friday, 25th October, 2013, 04:15 PM.
Reason: Grammar
Anything that can go wrong will go wrong. Murphy's law, by Edward A. Murphy Jr., USAF, Aerospace Engineer
Tweet
Comment