Chesschat - The Great ACF Lie - Page 3 - OzChess

**Firegoat7** · 01-21-2008, 03:47 PM

Originally Posted by KiD

You seem to view some officers' (exclusive) posting at chesschat as ACF endorsement of the forum.

Thats not my belief or view. Thats your interpretation of my belief or view.
It does not bother me where an ACF official posts. Especially if they are posting in the capacity of themselves as a normal person. People are free to choose what they want to do in a democratic society.

However, the theme of role is a completely different issue. Its is here that we appear to be having some sort of disagreement.

Since you have now read my initial post twice, you should have picked up on the theme of role. All ACF officials have roles that they have to act in. Thus, it should follow, rationally, that when a person produces information for public consumption through an 'official' news source they ought to qualify or represent their institutions position, not their own personally held beliefs or values. Their role, morally and rationally, has to be one of public accountability for institutional practices.

The truth on this this issue is of an empirical nature and completely self evident. ...In an official public newsletter an anonymous representative of the ACF announced what the ACF policy will be in regards to Olympic selection. That is a fact that cannot be contested. Are we agreed on this point?

Now your viewpoint is different from mine, and I ,quite simply, don't understand it. If I am to understand what you are saying you will have to help me. I need to know the answers to these questions that result from your statement.

Originally Posted by Kid

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.

1. Please define 'it' that adds value
2. What is a free resource?
3. How do you qualify and quantify that value has been added?
4. Why should officials be praised or not criticised?
5. Who was criticised for posting on Chesschat?

cheers Fg7

**KiD** · 01-23-2008, 11:53 AM

Originally Posted by Firegoat7

Thats not my belief or view. Thats your interpretation of my belief or view. It does not bother me where an ACF official posts. Especially if they are posting in the capacity of themselves as a normal person. People are free to choose what they want to do in a democratic society.

Okay, apologies if it was a misinterpretation, but the tone of your original post communicated such to me, especially when the newsletter snipped you quoted was signed by Kevin Bonham.

Originally Posted by Firegoat7

However, the theme of role is a completely different issue. Its is here that we appear to be having some sort of disagreement.

Since you have now read my initial post twice, you should have picked up on the theme of role. All ACF officials have roles that they have to act in. Thus, it should follow, rationally, that when a person produces information for public consumption through an 'official' news source they ought to qualify or represent their institutions position, not their own personally held beliefs or values. Their role, morally and rationally, has to be one of public accountability for institutional practices.

The truth on this this issue is of an empirical nature and completely self evident. ...In an official public newsletter an anonymous representative of the ACF announced what the ACF policy will be in regards to Olympic selection. That is a fact that cannot be contested. Are we agreed on this point?

The announcement in my copy of the newsletter was clearly signed by Kevin Bonham, so it's not anonymous at all.

Regarding the "theme of role", I thought it was also clear from the newsletter was the only official vehicle for ACF announcements: "Anyone with an interest in applying for ACF selections is expected to subscribe to the ACF email newsletter and remain subscribed at all times to the best of their ability."

So any other modes of communication, like additional mailing lists and postings in publicly accessible web bulletin boards, are not official but personal value adding service done by the ACF officer concerned (i.e. Bonham).

Originally Posted by Firegoat7

Now your viewpoint is different from mine, and I ,quite simply, don't understand it. If I am to understand what you are saying you will have to help me. I need to know the answers to these questions that result from your statement.

1. Please define 'it' that adds value
2. What is a free resource?
3. How do you qualify and quantify that value has been added?
4. Why should officials be praised or not criticised?
5. Who was criticised for posting on Chesschat?

1. Posting on chesschat, maintaining an extra mailing list. These are value adding services personally done by the ACF officer, over and above the official channel, which is the newsletter.
2. Personal time, personal internet access, and whatever else the officer does over and above his official capacity.
3. Those that don't subscribe to the newsletter can have other means of getting the information. That does add value, doesn't it?
4. Praised for being proactive in getting the information out there, beyond the official channels.
5. This may just be my (mis)interpretation of posts, but aren't some people here critical of some ACF officials only posting at chesschat?

Apologies for the late response, by the way.

**phild707** · 01-23-2008, 01:09 PM

Originally Posted by KiD

The announcement in my copy of the newsletter was clearly signed by Kevin Bonham, so it's not anonymous at all.

I suspect that you are both looking at the same "copy" of the newsletter but seeing it with different viewers.
When I open it as a Hotmail attachment the last text in the newsletter is
"Best Regards".

Struck me as curious and I figured that the writer had either forgotten to add his/her name or the text had been truncated.
It would seem that the latter is the case since if you view the newsletter on the ACF site at
http://www.auschess.org.au/newsletter/issue/411.html
I noticed that the Bonham's name is attributed to the document (twice actually).
Also the vast majority of content in the newsletter relating to some "MAILOUT LIST" or other and reporting on the Aus Championships, does not appear in my Hotmail message.

Back to the drawing board I wouild suggest for the ACF IT Guru.

If it was left to me, I would simply email the link above to the intended recipents.
That way I would avoid the hassle above and some others relating to Hotmail security that I havn't mentioned.

Perhaps you could pass the message on kid since you are in with the folks over there.

**Euro-Chess** · 01-26-2008, 07:11 PM

Does the ACF have Newsletters instead of Minutes or are the Minutes from ACF Meetings put into the Newsletters? I searched the ACF site and could not find any Minutes from their meetings.

**Iconoclast** · 01-26-2008, 09:19 PM

Originally Posted by Euro-Chess

I searched the ACF site and could not find any Minutes from their meetings.

Need you ask why?

**Fischer-Fan** · 01-27-2008, 12:24 PM

Originally Posted by Iconoclast

Need you ask why?

you seem to love your one sentence posts but i am considering putting you on ignore because i find that when a person often uses one sentence posts its because they generally lack intellect or something worthwhile to say, and are usually very annoying. however this is not true always, just normally.

**Iconoclast** · 01-27-2008, 01:57 PM

Originally Posted by Fischer-Fan

you seem to love your one sentence posts but i am considering putting you on ignore ...

Just search for posts by iconoclast.
The vast majority are comparatively lengthy.
Most are responsive in nature.
All are considered.
I rest my case.

I allow myself just a handful of arrogant statements a year. Here is my first: Putting me on ignore would be your great loss and a trivial annoyance to me.

**Fischer-Fan** · 01-27-2008, 05:55 PM

Originally Posted by Iconoclast

Just search for posts by iconoclast.
The vast majority are comparatively lengthy.
Most are responsive in nature.
All are considered.
I rest my case.

I allow myself just a handful of arrogant statements a year. Here is my first: Putting me on ignore would be your great loss and a trivial annoyance to me.

good save iconoclast

i was in a bad mood when i made my prior post, and i apologise -sorry. that being the case, very few one liner posts ever turn out to be aces when compared with lengthier well considered posts.

**Iconoclast** · 01-27-2008, 08:15 PM

Originally Posted by Fischer-Fan

good save iconoclast i was in a bad mood when i made my prior post, and i apologise -sorry.

LOL, no probs. I had a feeling that you were not you usual self.

Now, this is a second line so that this post cannot be called a one-liner.

**KiD** · 01-29-2008, 01:04 PM

Originally Posted by phild707

Perhaps you could pass the message on kid since you are in with the folks over there.

I'm not in with anyone. Sorry if I gave such an impression.

**phild707** · 01-30-2008, 01:01 PM

Originally Posted by KiD

I'm not in with anyone. Sorry if I gave such an impression.

Obviously not, for the Jan27 version of the newsletter has arrived in my Hotmail intray and is similar to the previous edition with a couple of paragraphs on selection and the remainder being truncated....

I have notified the editor about his communication problem and will post the response here when I have it.

**Fischer-Fan** · 03-03-2008, 12:13 PM

Originally Posted by garethbcharles

I believe one reason the ACF does not wish to appear to have too close an association with this forum is that occasionally it contains material that could be considered defamatory. So I guess the ACF seeks to minimise its legal liability in this respect. The other reason is that some of the content on our forum from time to time does not reflect well on the wider chess community. This is a pity as it can often be a very useful resource.

i don't know if this adds to the debate or not, but someone pm'd it to me in the course of a private conversation, and i thought i'd put it up for everyone to evaluate and reach their own conclusions. i am told the comment was made on chess chat, but i am unable to find out where in that forum.

**Iconoclast** · 03-03-2008, 03:38 PM

If you have a not-yet-banned account at Chess Chat, just do a search there on: garethbcharles + minimise.

**MOZ** · 03-03-2008, 04:55 PM

Originally Posted by Iconoclast

If you have a not-yet-banned account at Chess Chat, just do a search there on: garethbcharles + minimise.

I had forgotten about that rented hydra.

**Just2Good** · 03-03-2008, 10:29 PM

Originally Posted by Fischer-Fan

i don't know if this adds to the debate or not, but someone pm'd it to me in the course of a private conversation, and i thought i'd put it up for everyone to evaluate and reach their own conclusions. i am told the comment was made on chess chat, but i am unable to find out where in that forum.

FF,

I wouldn't take anything Gareth Charles says with more than a grain of salt. He was on a quiz show once, and he got like 2 questions correct! Needless to say, he got his butt whipped and didn't win any of the big prizes!

Best,

AO

01-21-2008, 03:47 PM	#31 (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	Originally Posted by KiD You seem to view some officers' (exclusive) posting at chesschat as ACF endorsement of the forum. Thats not my belief or view. Thats your interpretation of my belief or view. It does not bother me where an ACF official posts. Especially if they are posting in the capacity of themselves as a normal person. People are free to choose what they want to do in a democratic society. However, the theme of role is a completely different issue. Its is here that we appear to be having some sort of disagreement. Since you have now read my initial post twice, you should have picked up on the theme of role. All ACF officials have roles that they have to act in. Thus, it should follow, rationally, that when a person produces information for public consumption through an 'official' news source they ought to qualify or represent their institutions position, not their own personally held beliefs or values. Their role, morally and rationally, has to be one of public accountability for institutional practices. The truth on this this issue is of an empirical nature and completely self evident. ...In an official public newsletter an anonymous representative of the ACF announced what the ACF policy will be in regards to Olympic selection. That is a fact that cannot be contested. Are we agreed on this point? Now your viewpoint is different from mine, and I ,quite simply, don't understand it. If I am to understand what you are saying you will have to help me. I need to know the answers to these questions that result from your statement. Originally Posted by Kid 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. 1. Please define 'it' that adds value 2. What is a free resource? 3. How do you qualify and quantify that value has been added? 4. Why should officials be praised or not criticised? 5. Who was criticised for posting on Chesschat? cheers Fg7

01-23-2008, 11:53 AM	#32 (permalink)
KiD Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 84	Originally Posted by Firegoat7 Thats not my belief or view. Thats your interpretation of my belief or view. It does not bother me where an ACF official posts. Especially if they are posting in the capacity of themselves as a normal person. People are free to choose what they want to do in a democratic society. Okay, apologies if it was a misinterpretation, but the tone of your original post communicated such to me, especially when the newsletter snipped you quoted was signed by Kevin Bonham. Originally Posted by Firegoat7 However, the theme of role is a completely different issue. Its is here that we appear to be having some sort of disagreement. Since you have now read my initial post twice, you should have picked up on the theme of role. All ACF officials have roles that they have to act in. Thus, it should follow, rationally, that when a person produces information for public consumption through an 'official' news source they ought to qualify or represent their institutions position, not their own personally held beliefs or values. Their role, morally and rationally, has to be one of public accountability for institutional practices. The truth on this this issue is of an empirical nature and completely self evident. ...In an official public newsletter an anonymous representative of the ACF announced what the ACF policy will be in regards to Olympic selection. That is a fact that cannot be contested. Are we agreed on this point? The announcement in my copy of the newsletter was clearly signed by Kevin Bonham, so it's not anonymous at all. Regarding the "theme of role", I thought it was also clear from the newsletter was the only official vehicle for ACF announcements: "Anyone with an interest in applying for ACF selections is expected to subscribe to the ACF email newsletter and remain subscribed at all times to the best of their ability." So any other modes of communication, like additional mailing lists and postings in publicly accessible web bulletin boards, are not official but personal value adding service done by the ACF officer concerned (i.e. Bonham). Originally Posted by Firegoat7 Now your viewpoint is different from mine, and I ,quite simply, don't understand it. If I am to understand what you are saying you will have to help me. I need to know the answers to these questions that result from your statement. 1. Please define 'it' that adds value 2. What is a free resource? 3. How do you qualify and quantify that value has been added? 4. Why should officials be praised or not criticised? 5. Who was criticised for posting on Chesschat? 1. Posting on chesschat, maintaining an extra mailing list. These are value adding services personally done by the ACF officer, over and above the official channel, which is the newsletter. 2. Personal time, personal internet access, and whatever else the officer does over and above his official capacity. 3. Those that don't subscribe to the newsletter can have other means of getting the information. That does add value, doesn't it? 4. Praised for being proactive in getting the information out there, beyond the official channels. 5. This may just be my (mis)interpretation of posts, but aren't some people here critical of some ACF officials only posting at chesschat? Apologies for the late response, by the way.

01-23-2008, 01:09 PM	#33 (permalink)
phild707 Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Burnie International Airport Posts: 298	Originally Posted by KiD The announcement in my copy of the newsletter was clearly signed by Kevin Bonham, so it's not anonymous at all. I suspect that you are both looking at the same "copy" of the newsletter but seeing it with different viewers. When I open it as a Hotmail attachment the last text in the newsletter is "Best Regards". Struck me as curious and I figured that the writer had either forgotten to add his/her name or the text had been truncated. It would seem that the latter is the case since if you view the newsletter on the ACF site at http://www.auschess.org.au/newsletter/issue/411.html I noticed that the Bonham's name is attributed to the document (twice actually). Also the vast majority of content in the newsletter relating to some "MAILOUT LIST" or other and reporting on the Aus Championships, does not appear in my Hotmail message. Back to the drawing board I wouild suggest for the ACF IT Guru. If it was left to me, I would simply email the link above to the intended recipents. That way I would avoid the hassle above and some others relating to Hotmail security that I havn't mentioned. Perhaps you could pass the message on kid since you are in with the folks over there. __________________ "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

01-26-2008, 07:11 PM	#34 (permalink)
Euro-Chess Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Sydney, NSW Posts: 126	Does the ACF have Newsletters instead of Minutes or are the Minutes from ACF Meetings put into the Newsletters? I searched the ACF site and could not find any Minutes from their meetings. __________________ “When you see a good move, look for a better one” - Emanuel Lasker

01-26-2008, 09:19 PM	#35 (permalink)
Iconoclast Immoderator Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Wollongong NSW Posts: 2,302	Originally Posted by Euro-Chess I searched the ACF site and could not find any Minutes from their meetings. Need you ask why? __________________ The individual is hopeless without the group. The group is hopeless without its individuals.

01-27-2008, 12:24 PM	#36 (permalink)
Fischer-Fan Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Perth Posts: 152	Originally Posted by Iconoclast Need you ask why? you seem to love your one sentence posts but i am considering putting you on ignore because i find that when a person often uses one sentence posts its because they generally lack intellect or something worthwhile to say, and are usually very annoying. however this is not true always, just normally. __________________ Patzer see check, patzer give check! - Bobby Fischer

01-27-2008, 01:57 PM	#37 (permalink)
Iconoclast Immoderator Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Wollongong NSW Posts: 2,302	Originally Posted by Fischer-Fan you seem to love your one sentence posts but i am considering putting you on ignore ... Just search for posts by iconoclast. The vast majority are comparatively lengthy. Most are responsive in nature. All are considered. I rest my case. I allow myself just a handful of arrogant statements a year. Here is my first: Putting me on ignore would be your great loss and a trivial annoyance to me. __________________ The individual is hopeless without the group. The group is hopeless without its individuals.

01-27-2008, 05:55 PM	#38 (permalink)
Fischer-Fan Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Perth Posts: 152	Originally Posted by Iconoclast Just search for posts by iconoclast. The vast majority are comparatively lengthy. Most are responsive in nature. All are considered. I rest my case. I allow myself just a handful of arrogant statements a year. Here is my first: Putting me on ignore would be your great loss and a trivial annoyance to me. good save iconoclast i was in a bad mood when i made my prior post, and i apologise -sorry. that being the case, very few one liner posts ever turn out to be aces when compared with lengthier well considered posts. __________________ Patzer see check, patzer give check! - Bobby Fischer

01-27-2008, 08:15 PM	#39 (permalink)
Iconoclast Immoderator Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Wollongong NSW Posts: 2,302	Originally Posted by Fischer-Fan good save iconoclast i was in a bad mood when i made my prior post, and i apologise -sorry. LOL, no probs. I had a feeling that you were not you usual self. Now, this is a second line so that this post cannot be called a one-liner. __________________ The individual is hopeless without the group. The group is hopeless without its individuals.

01-29-2008, 01:04 PM	#40 (permalink)
KiD Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 84	Originally Posted by phild707 Perhaps you could pass the message on kid since you are in with the folks over there. I'm not in with anyone. Sorry if I gave such an impression.

01-30-2008, 01:01 PM	#41 (permalink)
phild707 Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Burnie International Airport Posts: 298	Originally Posted by KiD I'm not in with anyone. Sorry if I gave such an impression. Obviously not, for the Jan27 version of the newsletter has arrived in my Hotmail intray and is similar to the previous edition with a couple of paragraphs on selection and the remainder being truncated.... I have notified the editor about his communication problem and will post the response here when I have it. __________________ "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

03-03-2008, 12:13 PM	#42 (permalink)
Fischer-Fan Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Perth Posts: 152	Originally Posted by garethbcharles I believe one reason the ACF does not wish to appear to have too close an association with this forum is that occasionally it contains material that could be considered defamatory. So I guess the ACF seeks to minimise its legal liability in this respect. The other reason is that some of the content on our forum from time to time does not reflect well on the wider chess community. This is a pity as it can often be a very useful resource. i don't know if this adds to the debate or not, but someone pm'd it to me in the course of a private conversation, and i thought i'd put it up for everyone to evaluate and reach their own conclusions. i am told the comment was made on chess chat, but i am unable to find out where in that forum. __________________ Patzer see check, patzer give check! - Bobby Fischer

03-03-2008, 03:38 PM	#43 (permalink)
Iconoclast Immoderator Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Wollongong NSW Posts: 2,302	If you have a not-yet-banned account at Chess Chat, just do a search there on: garethbcharles + minimise. __________________ The individual is hopeless without the group. The group is hopeless without its individuals.

03-03-2008, 04:55 PM	#44 (permalink)
MOZ Volunteer Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Ozchess is the marginalised cyber-spot where cc-Mods choose to engage with cc-banned posters. Posts: 3,495	Originally Posted by Iconoclast If you have a not-yet-banned account at Chess Chat, just do a search there on: garethbcharles + minimise. I had forgotten about that rented hydra. __________________ FReedom though Fischer-Random chess to enjoy the whole game.

03-03-2008, 10:29 PM	#45 (permalink)
Just2Good Tin Cup Champ 2004 Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Cairns Posts: 6,056 ICC Handle: Advantage FICS Handle: Advantage	Gareth Charles Originally Posted by Fischer-Fan i don't know if this adds to the debate or not, but someone pm'd it to me in the course of a private conversation, and i thought i'd put it up for everyone to evaluate and reach their own conclusions. i am told the comment was made on chess chat, but i am unable to find out where in that forum. FF, I wouldn't take anything Gareth Charles says with more than a grain of salt. He was on a quiz show once, and he got like 2 questions correct! Needless to say, he got his butt whipped and didn't win any of the big prizes! Best, AO __________________ . "You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete." ~ Buckminster Fuller ~

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