Chesschat - The Great ACF Lie - Page 2 - OzChess

**KiD** · 01-18-2008, 10:58 AM

Originally Posted by Firegoat7

Could you please explain to me your reasoning for asking such a question before I attempt to answer it. It may help us to understand each other without needless argument.

cheers Fg7

The point: the ACF only needs to provide information on its official site (http://www.auschess.org.au), and perhaps in its official newsletter. Some ACF officers take it upon themselves to "go beyond" this basic service delivery by providing more information on chesschat.

You see the activities of some ACF officials on that bulletin board as the whole organisation endorsing the site, while I see it as merely specific individuals acting out of their own volition to provide "value added" service.

Thus my question: would you rather no additional information was posted on chesschat at all, just to prove the point that the ACF does not endorse the site?

**phild707** · 01-18-2008, 01:30 PM

Originally Posted by KiD

The point: the ACF only needs to provide information on its official site (http://www.auschess.org.au), and perhaps in its official newsletter. Some ACF officers take it upon themselves to "go beyond" this basic service delivery by providing more information on chesschat.

You see the activities of some ACF officials on that bulletin board as the whole organisation endorsing the site, while I see it as merely specific individuals acting out of their own volition to provide "value added" service.

Thus my question: would you rather no additional information was posted on chesschat at all, just to prove the point that the ACF does not endorse the site?

It seems to me to be fairly obvious from earlier posts that no one has voiced any objection to the ACF using bulletin boards in general for media release purposes
The two criteria that have been argued for are
1. There should be a democratic ACF policy put in place to formalise the arrangment and
2. It should be done in a fair and even handed way. Ie both of the currently active and well supported chess chat forums should be given the opportunity to publish media releases.

Do you object to these suggestions?

01-18-2008, 04:43 PM

Originally Posted by phild707

2. It should be done in a fair and even handed way. Ie both of the currently active and well supported chess chat forums should be given the opportunity to publish media releases.

why don't people here repost them if they want to?

theyre not copyright

**KiD** · 01-18-2008, 05:37 PM

Originally Posted by phild707

It seems to me to be fairly obvious from earlier posts that no one has voiced any objection to the ACF using bulletin boards in general for media release purposes
The two criteria that have been argued for are
1. There should be a democratic ACF policy put in place to formalise the arrangment and
2. It should be done in a fair and even handed way. Ie both of the currently active and well supported chess chat forums should be given the opportunity to publish media releases.
Do you object to these suggestions?

1. I do not object to the suggestion that the ACF should have an official bulletin board of its own, but I do not believe that the ACF needs to formally decree some public bulletin board as an official one.

2. Without a formally recognised "official" bulletin board, ACF officials should be free to choose to post in as many publicly accessible fora (including bulletin boards) as they want as a form of voluntary, value-adding service to their constituents. I don't think it's right for us to "demand" from said officials to be "fair and even handed" and post in multiple bulletin boards to satisfy the sensibilities of some people when these are outside of their job descriptions.

And as lotlizard suggested, people posting in this forum are free to copy the publicly available announcements in the other forum. I believe MichaelBaron did the reverse, re the MCC Australia Day Weekender.

**Firegoat7** · 01-18-2008, 07:20 PM

Hello,

KiD, I read your posts 16 and 19. May I suggest that it might be appropriate for you to examine post 1 in this thread. Let us know if you still want to argue or discuss the points you make in posts 16 and 19 after you have read the thread starter.

cheers Fg7

**blank frank** · 01-19-2008, 10:25 AM

Originally Posted by KiD

1. I do not object to the suggestion that the ACF should have an official bulletin board of its own, but I do not believe that the ACF needs to formally decree some public bulletin board as an official one.

2. Without a formally recognised "official" bulletin board, ACF officials should be free to choose to post in as many publicly accessible fora (including bulletin boards) as they want as a form of voluntary, value-adding service to their constituents. I don't think it's right for us to "demand" from said officials to be "fair and even handed" and post in multiple bulletin boards to satisfy the sensibilities of some people when these are outside of their job descriptions.

And as lotlizard suggested, people posting in this forum are free to copy the publicly available announcements in the other forum. I believe MichaelBaron did the reverse, re the MCC Australia Day Weekender.

Freedom of choice is one thing, but blackballing of OzChess and its associate for personal reasons is quite another. Its corrosive, disabling and quiite simply inappropriate. Its contrary to the norms of our society and its extremely unhealthy.

The point is the ACF are being selective because they are intolerant of criticism. By blackballing Ozchess the ACF is not acting as an open organisation, which is clearly what chess players should be demanding.

**MichaelBaron** · 01-19-2008, 03:15 PM

Thats right! Another one of my postings has been deleted.

The posting deleted contained nothing but details of the Aus Day ICC/MCC tournament...

I find this situation really ridiculous! My posting contained no "Ozchess" stuff...Yet the very mention of the the tournament was not allowed!

One thing that i must acknowledge is improving relationship between MCC and CV...However, as far as ACF/ChessChat are concerned..I find their attitude to be rather silly.

**Just2Good** · 01-19-2008, 10:55 PM

Originally Posted by MichaelBaron

Thats right! Another one of my postings has been deleted.

The posting deleted contained nothing but details of the Aus Day ICC/MCC tournament...

I find this situation really ridiculous! My posting contained no "OzChess" stuff...Yet the very mention of the the tournament was not allowed!

I have been told the reason they are not allowing it is because the event is 'associated' with OzChess where several 'banned posters' post. Accordingly, it is Chess Chat policy not to allow details of the event to be posted there.

I think when they start acting so irrationally on matters such as this, it is to the detriment of the wider Australian Chess Community. Its not our fault that they didn't get up off their lazy asses and talk to ICC and the Melbourne Chess Club themselves to 'take some initiative' and organize something like this. But as long as their greasey little fingers remain on the moderation controls at CC, they will try their best to sully this great event and surpress any information relating to it.

01-20-2008, 01:11 PM

but what about this then http://chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=179469&postcount=5

**Euro-Chess** · 01-20-2008, 03:58 PM

Originally Posted by MichaelBaron

Thats right! Another one of my postings has been deleted. The posting deleted contained nothing but details of the Aus Day ICC/MCC tournament. Yet the very mention of the the tournament was not allowed!

Originally Posted by lotlizard

but what about this then http://chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=179469&postcount=5

Good point lotlizard! Perhaps Michael or AO can explain when they remove foot from mouth.

**Just2Good** · 01-20-2008, 10:19 PM

Originally Posted by Euro-Chess

Good point lotlizard! Perhaps Michael or AO can explain when they remove foot from mouth.

There is no foot in my mouth. While my source may have been mistaken, I was completely unable to verify or atest my source's claims before making my post because my IP address has been blocked from Chess Chat. I therefore could not examine the post deletion/cencorship claims for myself. Accordingly, I had no choice but to rely on the accounts of others which in this case may have not been completely accurate.

01-20-2008, 11:23 PM

excuses excuses

if youre blocked from chesschat how come you still quote stuff from it?

**Just2Good** · 01-20-2008, 11:42 PM

Its passed on to me from other sources

**KiD** · 01-21-2008, 12:21 PM

Originally Posted by Firegoat7

Hello,

KiD, I read your posts 16 and 19. May I suggest that it might be appropriate for you to examine post 1 in this thread. Let us know if you still want to argue or discuss the points you make in posts 16 and 19 after you have read the thread starter.

cheers Fg7

I did read the first post, reason why I replied in the first place; but I did read it again, as you suggested.

You seem to view some officers' (exclusive) posting at chesschat as ACF endorsement of the forum. I don't: I see it as value-adding service said officers do out of their own free resources. Thus, I believe rather than criticising for posting (even exclusively) at chesschat, they should be thanked for their extra effort.

**Euro-Chess** · 01-21-2008, 02:14 PM

Originally Posted by KiD

Thus, I believe rather than criticising for posting (even exclusively) at chesschat, they should be thanked for their extra effort.

What if their actions and posts at Chess Chat tarnish the reputation of that organisation (the ACF and NSWCA)? I am not saying that has happened, it depends on who you ask I guess. But I for one think that the Bill Gletsos and Matt Sweeney clashes have been far more detrimental to NSW chess than the participants in that conflict would. I also think that when ACF Officers engage in those kinds of battles there is simply no way to see the ACF as completely insulated and un-involved. This is regardless of the merits (or lack of merits) in the dispute.

01-18-2008, 10:58 AM	#16 (permalink)
KiD Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 84	Originally Posted by Firegoat7 Could you please explain to me your reasoning for asking such a question before I attempt to answer it. It may help us to understand each other without needless argument. cheers Fg7 The point: the ACF only needs to provide information on its official site (http://www.auschess.org.au), and perhaps in its official newsletter. Some ACF officers take it upon themselves to "go beyond" this basic service delivery by providing more information on chesschat. You see the activities of some ACF officials on that bulletin board as the whole organisation endorsing the site, while I see it as merely specific individuals acting out of their own volition to provide "value added" service. Thus my question: would you rather no additional information was posted on chesschat at all, just to prove the point that the ACF does not endorse the site?

01-18-2008, 01:30 PM	#17 (permalink)
phild707 Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Burnie International Airport Posts: 298	Originally Posted by KiD The point: the ACF only needs to provide information on its official site (http://www.auschess.org.au), and perhaps in its official newsletter. Some ACF officers take it upon themselves to "go beyond" this basic service delivery by providing more information on chesschat. You see the activities of some ACF officials on that bulletin board as the whole organisation endorsing the site, while I see it as merely specific individuals acting out of their own volition to provide "value added" service. Thus my question: would you rather no additional information was posted on chesschat at all, just to prove the point that the ACF does not endorse the site? It seems to me to be fairly obvious from earlier posts that no one has voiced any objection to the ACF using bulletin boards in general for media release purposes The two criteria that have been argued for are 1. There should be a democratic ACF policy put in place to formalise the arrangment and 2. It should be done in a fair and even handed way. Ie both of the currently active and well supported chess chat forums should be given the opportunity to publish media releases. Do you object to these suggestions? __________________ "It ain't no sin if you crack a few laws now and then, just so long as you don't break any." Mae West

01-18-2008, 04:43 PM	#18 (permalink)
lotlizard Posts: n/a	Originally Posted by phild707 2. It should be done in a fair and even handed way. Ie both of the currently active and well supported chess chat forums should be given the opportunity to publish media releases. why don't people here repost them if they want to? theyre not copyright

01-18-2008, 05:37 PM	#19 (permalink)
KiD Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 84	Originally Posted by phild707 It seems to me to be fairly obvious from earlier posts that no one has voiced any objection to the ACF using bulletin boards in general for media release purposes The two criteria that have been argued for are 1. There should be a democratic ACF policy put in place to formalise the arrangment and 2. It should be done in a fair and even handed way. Ie both of the currently active and well supported chess chat forums should be given the opportunity to publish media releases. Do you object to these suggestions? 1. I do not object to the suggestion that the ACF should have an official bulletin board of its own, but I do not believe that the ACF needs to formally decree some public bulletin board as an official one. 2. Without a formally recognised "official" bulletin board, ACF officials should be free to choose to post in as many publicly accessible fora (including bulletin boards) as they want as a form of voluntary, value-adding service to their constituents. I don't think it's right for us to "demand" from said officials to be "fair and even handed" and post in multiple bulletin boards to satisfy the sensibilities of some people when these are outside of their job descriptions. And as lotlizard suggested, people posting in this forum are free to copy the publicly available announcements in the other forum. I believe MichaelBaron did the reverse, re the MCC Australia Day Weekender.

01-19-2008, 10:25 AM	#21 (permalink)
blank frank Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 70	Originally Posted by KiD 1. I do not object to the suggestion that the ACF should have an official bulletin board of its own, but I do not believe that the ACF needs to formally decree some public bulletin board as an official one. 2. Without a formally recognised "official" bulletin board, ACF officials should be free to choose to post in as many publicly accessible fora (including bulletin boards) as they want as a form of voluntary, value-adding service to their constituents. I don't think it's right for us to "demand" from said officials to be "fair and even handed" and post in multiple bulletin boards to satisfy the sensibilities of some people when these are outside of their job descriptions. And as lotlizard suggested, people posting in this forum are free to copy the publicly available announcements in the other forum. I believe MichaelBaron did the reverse, re the MCC Australia Day Weekender. Freedom of choice is one thing, but blackballing of OzChess and its associate for personal reasons is quite another. Its corrosive, disabling and quiite simply inappropriate. Its contrary to the norms of our society and its extremely unhealthy. The point is the ACF are being selective because they are intolerant of criticism. By blackballing Ozchess the ACF is not acting as an open organisation, which is clearly what chess players should be demanding.

01-18-2008, 07:20 PM	#20 (permalink)
Firegoat7 Moderator Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Getting owned by White in the Dragon and trying to recover lost positions from shock paralysis OTB Posts: 1,924 ICC Handle: guest	Hello, KiD, I read your posts 16 and 19. May I suggest that it might be appropriate for you to examine post 1 in this thread. Let us know if you still want to argue or discuss the points you make in posts 16 and 19 after you have read the thread starter. cheers Fg7

01-19-2008, 03:15 PM	#22 (permalink)
MichaelBaron Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 136	Another one of My Postings Deleted at ChessChat! Thats right! Another one of my postings has been deleted. The posting deleted contained nothing but details of the Aus Day ICC/MCC tournament... I find this situation really ridiculous! My posting contained no "Ozchess" stuff...Yet the very mention of the the tournament was not allowed! One thing that i must acknowledge is improving relationship between MCC and CV...However, as far as ACF/ChessChat are concerned..I find their attitude to be rather silly.

01-19-2008, 10:55 PM	#23 (permalink)
Just2Good Tin Cup Champ 2004 Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Cairns Posts: 6,056 ICC Handle: Advantage FICS Handle: Advantage	CC's Official Excuse for Deleting Originally Posted by MichaelBaron Thats right! Another one of my postings has been deleted. The posting deleted contained nothing but details of the Aus Day ICC/MCC tournament... I find this situation really ridiculous! My posting contained no "OzChess" stuff...Yet the very mention of the the tournament was not allowed! I have been told the reason they are not allowing it is because the event is 'associated' with OzChess where several 'banned posters' post. Accordingly, it is Chess Chat policy not to allow details of the event to be posted there. I think when they start acting so irrationally on matters such as this, it is to the detriment of the wider Australian Chess Community. Its not our fault that they didn't get up off their lazy asses and talk to ICC and the Melbourne Chess Club themselves to 'take some initiative' and organize something like this. But as long as their greasey little fingers remain on the moderation controls at CC, they will try their best to sully this great event and surpress any information relating to it. __________________ . "You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete." ~ Buckminster Fuller ~

01-20-2008, 01:11 PM	#24 (permalink)
lotlizard Posts: n/a	but what about this then http://chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=179469&postcount=5

01-20-2008, 03:58 PM	#25 (permalink)
Euro-Chess Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Sydney, NSW Posts: 126	Originally Posted by MichaelBaron Thats right! Another one of my postings has been deleted. The posting deleted contained nothing but details of the Aus Day ICC/MCC tournament. Yet the very mention of the the tournament was not allowed! Originally Posted by lotlizard but what about this then http://chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=179469&postcount=5 Good point lotlizard! Perhaps Michael or AO can explain when they remove foot from mouth. __________________ “When you see a good move, look for a better one” - Emanuel Lasker

01-20-2008, 10:19 PM	#26 (permalink)
Just2Good Tin Cup Champ 2004 Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Cairns Posts: 6,056 ICC Handle: Advantage FICS Handle: Advantage	Originally Posted by Euro-Chess Good point lotlizard! Perhaps Michael or AO can explain when they remove foot from mouth. There is no foot in my mouth. While my source may have been mistaken, I was completely unable to verify or atest my source's claims before making my post because my IP address has been blocked from Chess Chat. I therefore could not examine the post deletion/cencorship claims for myself. Accordingly, I had no choice but to rely on the accounts of others which in this case may have not been completely accurate. __________________ . "You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete." ~ Buckminster Fuller ~

01-20-2008, 11:23 PM	#27 (permalink)
lotlizard Posts: n/a	excuses excuses if youre blocked from chesschat how come you still quote stuff from it?

01-20-2008, 11:42 PM	#28 (permalink)
Just2Good Tin Cup Champ 2004 Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Cairns Posts: 6,056 ICC Handle: Advantage FICS Handle: Advantage	Its passed on to me from other sources __________________ . "You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete." ~ Buckminster Fuller ~

01-21-2008, 12:21 PM	#29 (permalink)
KiD Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 84	Originally Posted by Firegoat7 Hello, KiD, I read your posts 16 and 19. May I suggest that it might be appropriate for you to examine post 1 in this thread. Let us know if you still want to argue or discuss the points you make in posts 16 and 19 after you have read the thread starter. cheers Fg7 I did read the first post, reason why I replied in the first place; but I did read it again, as you suggested. You seem to view some officers' (exclusive) posting at chesschat as ACF endorsement of the forum. I don't: I see it as value-adding service said officers do out of their own free resources. Thus, I believe rather than criticising for posting (even exclusively) at chesschat, they should be thanked for their extra effort.

01-21-2008, 02:14 PM	#30 (permalink)
Euro-Chess Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Sydney, NSW Posts: 126	Originally Posted by KiD Thus, I believe rather than criticising for posting (even exclusively) at chesschat, they should be thanked for their extra effort. What if their actions and posts at Chess Chat tarnish the reputation of that organisation (the ACF and NSWCA)? I am not saying that has happened, it depends on who you ask I guess. But I for one think that the Bill Gletsos and Matt Sweeney clashes have been far more detrimental to NSW chess than the participants in that conflict would. I also think that when ACF Officers engage in those kinds of battles there is simply no way to see the ACF as completely insulated and un-involved. This is regardless of the merits (or lack of merits) in the dispute. __________________ “When you see a good move, look for a better one” - Emanuel Lasker

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread: