19-11-2012, 08:17 PM
Hi Phil,
To respond to some of your comments..
a)The original posting actually refers to a 'refusal' and a 'request'. It would be useful to know which it actually was. I don't think anybody is claiming that it makes that person 'bad', but the feeling of those who have commented (and in particular some of those who were there) is that it wasn't quite right for various reasons.
b) It is common practice that 'organisers reserve the right to...blahblahblah' although Oban doesn't state this on their entry form. It could be argued that this would cover things such as playing on live boards (which is becoming more prevalent, particularly since we have been given some boards for this purpose!). I think that organisers should now explicitly state that 'entering this event may require you to play on live boards, etc etc' just to clarify the issue(s) beforehand.
c) Agreed, but I don't think there was any misunderstanding likely in this instance as there was only one IM playing as far as I know. I know from experience that it's not very nice to have your name bandied about on this forum in a negative way (I'm no longer a 'caveman with no understanding of strategy') but hopefully Steve can come on and post his reasons and version of events. If it was a simple request which the organisers agreed to then that's one thing (if a little annoying for some of us) - a 'refusal' or 'demand' is a more contentious issue.
*Note to self - type more quickly in future!
To respond to some of your comments..
a)The original posting actually refers to a 'refusal' and a 'request'. It would be useful to know which it actually was. I don't think anybody is claiming that it makes that person 'bad', but the feeling of those who have commented (and in particular some of those who were there) is that it wasn't quite right for various reasons.
b) It is common practice that 'organisers reserve the right to...blahblahblah' although Oban doesn't state this on their entry form. It could be argued that this would cover things such as playing on live boards (which is becoming more prevalent, particularly since we have been given some boards for this purpose!). I think that organisers should now explicitly state that 'entering this event may require you to play on live boards, etc etc' just to clarify the issue(s) beforehand.
c) Agreed, but I don't think there was any misunderstanding likely in this instance as there was only one IM playing as far as I know. I know from experience that it's not very nice to have your name bandied about on this forum in a negative way (I'm no longer a 'caveman with no understanding of strategy') but hopefully Steve can come on and post his reasons and version of events. If it was a simple request which the organisers agreed to then that's one thing (if a little annoying for some of us) - a 'refusal' or 'demand' is a more contentious issue.
*Note to self - type more quickly in future!