Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Live Boards
#11
I have three major reservations about this thread.
(a) The original posting referred to a request rather than to a demand. I could write to the offices of the prime minister and the leader of the opposition tonight and request that they resign. Would that make me a bad person?
(b) Lots of comments refer to rules and regulations that could have been in place. But they were not. To do so would be akin to creating retroactive legislation. This being legal type expression for creating laws which make offences of events that have already happened. The practice is specifically banned by most countries with a written constitution. In the UK this type of legislation has been created in the last 25 years to deal with serious matters such as war crimes from WWII and various Taxation Avoidance schemes.
© When accusing anybody of anything on the noticeboard it helps to name him/her. This simple act would prevent a lot of unnecessary misunderstanding. At least we have moved on from the days of a prolific poster who used to make accusations about unnamed people and unspecified actions at some uncertain time in the past. I think we all know who I mean.
Reply
#12
Phil Thomas Wrote:I have three major reservations about this thread.
(a) The original posting referred to a request rather than to a demand. I could write to the offices of the prime minister and the leader of the opposition tonight and request that they resign. Would that make me a bad person?
(b) Lots of comments refer to rules and regulations that could have been in place. But they were not. To do so would be akin to creating retroactive legislation. This being legal type expression for creating laws which make offences of events that have already happened. The practice is specifically banned by most countries with a written constitution. In the UK this type of legislation has been created in the last 25 years to deal with serious matters such as war crimes from WWII and various Taxation Avoidance schemes.
© When accusing anybody of anything on the noticeboard it helps to name him/her. This simple act would prevent a lot of unnecessary misunderstanding. At least we have moved on from the days of a prolific poster who used to make accusations about unnamed people and unspecified actions at some uncertain time in the past. I think we all know who I mean.

a) Request or demand, only he and the organiser will know the wording, but either way he has asked for it to happen.
b) Correct, there were no rules on this, which is exactly what would be nice, so that everyone knows where they stand, rather than leading to a situation like happened.
c) There is no confusion here, it was Steve Mannion involved
Reply
#13
c) How many IM's were playing at Oban? Who was on board 1 the whole tournament (in other words the top seed??) Shouldn't be too hard to work out who is being spoken about!
Reply
#14
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!
Reply
#15
Oh, this is going to hurt me but Phil makes some good points.
There are no real "rules" regarding the live boards as it stands right now. Steve has a right as it stands right now (as does anyone) to decline from having his/her games broadcast live. Whether we agree or not with the impact it may have to sponsors/ viewers etc, every player, at the moment, is in a rightful position to decide for themselves where they stand when their "live" moment arrives.
Jonathan highlights the possibility of setting print agreement in the tourney entry form. Would that discourage players from entering? I don't think so. Take myself for example, I am a fair major/diddy challenger level player. I would be chuffed to bits if I was able to get far enough up the leaderboard for all my limitations to be exposed in their glory to all and sundry on the live boards.

Robin.
Reply
#16
I'm not sure I follow you Robin?? Why does anyone have a 'right' to decline to have their games broadcast live?

There are no real rules governing a lot of what might occur in a weekend chess congress.

-As someone mentioned earlier, a colour-blind person (me!) or a Rangers fan (not me!) doesn't like the green/white board and refuses to play on it.


-Somebody objects to their game NOT going out live (having told friends and family to switch off Xfactor and tune in!)

That's why it's generally accepted that 'organisers have the right to....' within reason.
Reply
#17
As the idiot who lugs the boards around the country, I suppose I really should comment on the weekend's shenanigans.

Firstly, Oban did not request the boards from me. I had updated software to test and really didn't want to wait until next year to give it a real test so took the boards with me. The first the Oban organisers knew about it was when I arrived with them and offered them the boards.

Had they requested the boards, and as they are looking at for next year, trying to get sponsorship using the boards, then I think it would have been a completely different outcome.

We have never had this issue before and so there is no precedence to fall back on. Oban is a different event, Oban is quite special as everyone has to travel a distance to get there (bar the few local players). It is a friendly congress where most of us take our partners for the weekend. The TD was in an impossible position and trying to find a solution that would work.

I have been asked what my opinion is of the refusal to play on the board and to be honest, with the effort that was put in with fund raising from the general chess community who wanted these boards, it was a disgrace. I was raging when the last two boards were played on essentially what was a dead board when we could have had one of the other games on it.

I suppose the reality is, I am to blame for this mess for taking the boards in the first place. I want these boards to be available to congresses to use, preferably as a service than at a cost, but as has been suggested by several people to me in private, we need a "code of conduct" to prevent this from happening.

Someone has mentioned in a previous post that it is an honour to play on these boards. I can still remember the faces of the players in the Minor last year in the Scottish in Edinburgh when we played a round on them! Indeed I am looking at raising funds to allow us to get more as I would like to have 20 available for congress use giving a minimum of 4 boards a section. But what is the point if this is the reaction we are going to get?

I have real sympathy for the Oban organisers, it was an impossible position they were put in and they are not to blame. If this is going to become the norm, I am just going to give up as it is just not worth the extra effort I have to put in.
"How sad to see, what used to be, a model of decorum and tranquility become like any other sport, a battleground for rival ideologies to slug it out with glee"
Reply
#18
robin moore Wrote:Oh, this is going to hurt me but Phil makes some good points.

Oh ooooh

I have seen the Berlin Wall come down and the end of Apartheid in South Africa but nothing prepared me for this statement. I am going for a lie down....
"How sad to see, what used to be, a model of decorum and tranquility become like any other sport, a battleground for rival ideologies to slug it out with glee"
Reply
#19
Quote:© When accusing anybody of anything on the noticeboard it helps to name him/her. This simple act would prevent a lot of unnecessary misunderstanding. At least we have moved on from the days of a prolific poster who used to make accusations about unnamed people and unspecified actions at some uncertain time in the past. I think we all know who I mean.

I laughed out loud at this post Phil, surely this was written tongue in cheek? :U
Reply
#20
Patrick McGovern Wrote:
Quote:© When accusing anybody of anything on the noticeboard it helps to name him/her. This simple act would prevent a lot of unnecessary misunderstanding. At least we have moved on from the days of a prolific poster who used to make accusations about unnamed people and unspecified actions at some uncertain time in the past. I think we all know who I mean.

I laughed out loud at this post Phil, surely this was written tongue in cheek? :U

I would hope so seeing as half of it is an accusation about an unnamed person! =o Tongue
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)