04-04-2012, 01:54 PM
What to say? I am sure everyone would agree that " volunteer or not, one person should not have the power to run long-standing CS tournaments in ANY way he sees fit." However is Andy M really making it his tournament doing as he pleases "in every respect?". Really?
" It is perfectly fair to criticise him on these points as he has been unable/unwilling to clarify how this fits the rules as they stand, instead telling me to propose a change!" Ok...how many responses do you want...should he be debating it with you online?
1pm or 2pm start
I have no further comment.
FIDE rating
OK everyone has their own views which is fair.
Board Orders
"SNCL and Richardson are completely different" -yes but you were the one who referenced SNCL in your reply to Ken's opinion.
You state "The rule as stated is fine, I agree. It's simply not being adhered to!". According to who? Kens opinion seems clear on this and it is one that I happen to agree with..you disagree which is fine and reasonable ...but your disagreement it does not make the views of others unreasonable.
You asked Andy for guidance on board order ....and as organiser he has given it... you do not like the guidance...you state that "I have also played in the 4NCL so my point is at least as valid as his" this is great but please recognise that his point is also at least as valid as yours....and I am sure there are others with their own equally valid views who would disagree with you both...he is the organiser... you did ask for guidance.
Actually previous Richardson finals (and earlier rounds) have not been played by just listing by grade i.e. a one point differential and you are on a lower board. If anyone you are the one trying to have your interpretation read into the rule (which does not even mention grading!) but Kens opinion seems unambiguous.
"As you know Pat this has been an issue specific to your Hamilton team for years now" "I seem to recall your team being all upset about being asked to play in grading order against Ed. West in the SNCL a few years back? Why so upset if it doesn't matter to you? "
It mattered because of how it was done. I was the only one who was "upset"...I was actually sitting at B1 waiting for play then informed with a minute to go that we were being asked to play in strict grading order (differences maybe a handful of points)...and that I should move to B3...all a bit rude and unsettling....pure gamesmanship. At least the 50 point rule that was introduced at the AGM put a stop to this kind of nonesence.
The further points re participation v. team balance we just need to disagree on and hardly matters here.
" It is perfectly fair to criticise him on these points as he has been unable/unwilling to clarify how this fits the rules as they stand, instead telling me to propose a change!" Ok...how many responses do you want...should he be debating it with you online?
1pm or 2pm start
I have no further comment.
FIDE rating
OK everyone has their own views which is fair.
Board Orders
"SNCL and Richardson are completely different" -yes but you were the one who referenced SNCL in your reply to Ken's opinion.
You state "The rule as stated is fine, I agree. It's simply not being adhered to!". According to who? Kens opinion seems clear on this and it is one that I happen to agree with..you disagree which is fine and reasonable ...but your disagreement it does not make the views of others unreasonable.
You asked Andy for guidance on board order ....and as organiser he has given it... you do not like the guidance...you state that "I have also played in the 4NCL so my point is at least as valid as his" this is great but please recognise that his point is also at least as valid as yours....and I am sure there are others with their own equally valid views who would disagree with you both...he is the organiser... you did ask for guidance.
Actually previous Richardson finals (and earlier rounds) have not been played by just listing by grade i.e. a one point differential and you are on a lower board. If anyone you are the one trying to have your interpretation read into the rule (which does not even mention grading!) but Kens opinion seems unambiguous.
"As you know Pat this has been an issue specific to your Hamilton team for years now" "I seem to recall your team being all upset about being asked to play in grading order against Ed. West in the SNCL a few years back? Why so upset if it doesn't matter to you? "
It mattered because of how it was done. I was the only one who was "upset"...I was actually sitting at B1 waiting for play then informed with a minute to go that we were being asked to play in strict grading order (differences maybe a handful of points)...and that I should move to B3...all a bit rude and unsettling....pure gamesmanship. At least the 50 point rule that was introduced at the AGM put a stop to this kind of nonesence.
The further points re participation v. team balance we just need to disagree on and hardly matters here.