Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 25 of 25

Thread: All is not lost. Yet.

  1. | #16
    Volunteer MOZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    MOZ* is my main signon; PMs to me should be directed here. Other special purpose signons are used.
    Posts
    4,825

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HydraTED View Post
    The ACF minutes will not tell you anything of the sort about the ACF's thought processes re the matter I queried, no matter what you might want to read into them. Any other "report" or minute presuming to speak for the ACF's position has no standing to do so.



    There was no such "admission", so give the strawmanning a permanent rest already. Someone has clearly said something confused and silly based on something they have heard or seen and then misunderstood. The only question is whether you have added further garbling, created the garbling yourself from scratch because you misunderstood the facts, or reproduced something that was already fully pre-garbled.
    Are you actually saying anything new in all this surmising?

    I have seen a written report.
    You cast doubt on the source.
    End of story until the reports become public.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hydra
    Anyway this style of debate will do nothing to shed light on why the AusJCL has dissolved itself. If there are innocent parties with a genuine interest I am happy to discuss it on Chesschat. If there are guilty parties with a genuine interest then they will have to unburn their bridges first. They all know how by now, surely.
    Feel free to post suggestions/answers/information on chesschat.

    Perhaps you could address whether the AusJCL can dissolve itself.
    I had presumed the AusJCL was a creature of the ACF so it would be up to the ACF to do the dissolution as they have the resident authority.
    We could anticipate that the ACF would accept recommendations from the AusJCL if that meant the AusJCL funds were quickly secured by the ACF.

    Or or/and you could help with the puzzle piece that points to the location of advert for job/role vacancies in AusJCL as a consequence of resignations.
    FReedom though Fischer-Random chess to enjoy the whole game.

  2. | #17
    Senior Membaaaaaa HydraTED's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    707

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MOZ View Post
    Are you actually saying anything new in all this surmising?

    I have seen a written report.
    You cast doubt on the source.
    End of story until the reports become public.
    I am not casting doubt on you having seen something that you call a "report". I reserve judgement on whether it is properly called a "report" or not.
    What I am casting doubt on is (i) whether it actually even purports to support the statement "who 'think' they have made a loss for 2017" (ii) whether it is capable of supporting that statement even if it purports to do so.

    And I have made points re (ii) that stand quite without seeing the "report", so to pretend that matter is irresolvable until it is seen is just a futile attempt to wave away those points.

    Feel free to post suggestions/answers/information on chesschat.
    I don't intend doing so just in response to questions posted here, as people should initiate serious discussions on a properly moderated forum. Also, if someone reposts questions from here over there, they will be taken down if posted on behalf of a banned poster. But if someone genuine starts a discussion over there, I'll respond. By the way to this stage I have received no queries in response to the invitation posted in #1.

    Perhaps you could address whether the AusJCL can dissolve itself.
    I had presumed the AusJCL was a creature of the ACF so it would be up to the ACF to do the dissolution as they have the resident authority.
    Your presumption is false. Your lucky free clue is item 3 (c) iii of the ACF Constitution.

    Or or/and you could help with the puzzle piece that points to the location of advert for job/role vacancies in AusJCL as a consequence of resignations.
    Your hypothetical entity, you go look for it.
    Last edited by HydraTED; 14-01-18 at 05:47 PM.
    Note: I have poster antichrist on ignore. On no account should anyone assume that I agree with, or am unable to refute, any comment by poster antichrist, simply because I have not responded to it. Chances are I have not even seen it. (NB Quoting posts by antichrist to try to get around this issue will mostly be ineffective). I am also sometimes denied the ability of reply to false accusations in the shoutbox.

  3. | #18
    Volunteer MOZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    MOZ* is my main signon; PMs to me should be directed here. Other special purpose signons are used.
    Posts
    4,825

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HydraTED View Post
    I am not casting doubt on you having seen something that you call a "report". I reserve judgement on whether it is properly called a "report" or not.
    What I am casting doubt on is (i) whether it actually even purports to support the statement "who 'think' they have made a loss for 2017" (ii) whether it is capable of supporting that statement even if it purports to do so.
    Report is the third word in the title.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hydra
    ...

    Quote Originally Posted by Hydra
    Your presumption is false. Your lucky free clue is item 3 (c) iii of the ACF Constitution.
    Thanks for that reference. Your assistance will be nominated for the green-shoots monthly award (rewards unexpected assistance).

    3.The Federation may grant the status of Associated Body to an organisation which: i. represents regions of Australia or its territories that are not represented by a State Association; ii. represents part of the region of a State Association, but only with the consent of such State Association; or iii. represents special aspects of chess



    Quote Originally Posted by Hydra
    ...
    FReedom though Fischer-Random chess to enjoy the whole game.

  4. | #19
    Senior Member CarrierPigeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Flying All Over The Place
    Posts
    137

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Rogers on chesschat
    The ACF used to paid AJCL about $7,000 per year to organise the Australian Junior, the Australian Young Masters, the Australian Schools Teams Final, to organise applications, selections and entries for international junior events and to pay the registration fees for those events.
    Over three years ago the ACF cut off the AJCL from funding, but did not tell them until almost a year later when they asked when the funds would be arriving.
    The official reason given for cutting off the funds was insufficient detail on the AJCL accounts for the previous few years. (For example the JETS income and expenditure were not separated from the main accounts.) There was no suggestion of any impropriety by the AJCL treasurers - in fact the organisation was in a healthy financial state.
    At around the same time as their funds were cut off, the ACF also unexpectedly sent the AJCL a large bill for about 3 years of FIDE fees. (These fees were officially the AJCL's responsibility but after not having been billed them for years, the AJCL reasonably assumed that the ACF had agreed to cover them in appreciation of all the work the AJCL was doing. This was certainly wishful thinking!)
    The AJCL tried to arrange mediation but the ACF set a precondition of the old accounts being reconstructed, which turned out to be impossible. After more than two years of attempting to resolve the issue, running out of money, and with a strong feeling of being exploited and abused by the ACF, the AJCL decided that it had no choice but to hand back it's responsibilities to the ACF and fold. (The AJCL was officially only a sub-committee of the ACF.)

    My disclaimer is that I have not been an official on the AJCL for about 3 years, so others would know some of these issues in greater detail.
    Incoming puzzle pieces; assorted and scrambled.
    My job is to carry relevant posts to Ozchess.

  5. | #20
    Volunteer MOZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    MOZ* is my main signon; PMs to me should be directed here. Other special purpose signons are used.
    Posts
    4,825

    Default

    Jeez, this is a good post .

    It is like that feeling you get when you get all the jigsaw corner and border pieces in place and the mystery is thus contained at least.

    That is not say that all the corner and border pieces have been put on the table in their correct sequence, and that now needs to be checked.

    Some of the pieces I have seen before. Poor old DCC got into the FIDE paid/not-paid/delayed/oops-there-are-two-imposts-on-this-issue. As did a few other CCs.

    And don't get me on my hobby horse of why all these Clubs have rushed headlong into ACF ratings and FIDE ratings for the one event.
    FReedom though Fischer-Random chess to enjoy the whole game.

  6. | #21
    Volunteer MOZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    MOZ* is my main signon; PMs to me should be directed here. Other special purpose signons are used.
    Posts
    4,825

    Default Accuracy matters

    My post, #2 (on Ozchess). Now looks spot on. TICK
    My post, #4. After my re-reading the REPORT; TICK. My source? Well that is between Hydra T and the source.
    FReedom though Fischer-Random chess to enjoy the whole game.

  7. | #22
    Senior Membaaaaaa HydraTED's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    707

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MOZ View Post
    Jeez, this is a good post .
    I can see that it would fit your definition of a good post. For instance almost the entire first paragraph is misleading (except for the final sentence, though even that describes part of the problem.)

    Take care not to take your facts from those who like their chess politics on the excitable side. The most important part in that post is the disclaimer.

    And don't get me on my hobby horse of why all these Clubs have rushed headlong into ACF ratings and FIDE ratings for the one event.
    The ACF does not submit events for FIDE-rating unless they are also submitted for ACF-rating. Why should it? If you want to talk about ratings, let's talk about CV's markups on admin fees.

    Quote Originally Posted by MOZ View Post
    My post, #2 (on Ozchess). Now looks spot on. TICK
    My post, #4. After my re-reading the REPORT; TICK. My source? Well that is between Hydra T and the source.
    Your self-congratulation over the outcomes of your own confirmation bias is hardly worth inflating your postcount over.
    Last edited by HydraTED; Yesterday at 07:12 PM.
    Note: I have poster antichrist on ignore. On no account should anyone assume that I agree with, or am unable to refute, any comment by poster antichrist, simply because I have not responded to it. Chances are I have not even seen it. (NB Quoting posts by antichrist to try to get around this issue will mostly be ineffective). I am also sometimes denied the ability of reply to false accusations in the shoutbox.

  8. | #23
    Senior Membaaaaaa HydraTED's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    707

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MOZ View Post
    [*]Bank accounts increased. TICK.
    Whose bank accounts and over what period?

    Are you claiming the AusJCL's financial position improved in 2017?
    Note: I have poster antichrist on ignore. On no account should anyone assume that I agree with, or am unable to refute, any comment by poster antichrist, simply because I have not responded to it. Chances are I have not even seen it. (NB Quoting posts by antichrist to try to get around this issue will mostly be ineffective). I am also sometimes denied the ability of reply to false accusations in the shoutbox.

  9. | #24
    Volunteer MOZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    MOZ* is my main signon; PMs to me should be directed here. Other special purpose signons are used.
    Posts
    4,825

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HydraTED View Post
    I can see that it would fit your definition of a good post. For instance almost the entire first paragraph is misleading (except for the final sentence, though even that describes part of the problem.)
    My definition of a good post includes those posts that call out the existence of elephant in the room. Now after that comes the problem of deciding if the elephant is facing north (and thus we are looking at its trunk) or the elephant is facing south in which case sunglasses are not required.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hydra T View Post
    Take care not to take your facts from those who like their chess politics on the excitable side. The most important part in that post is the disclaimer.
    Your M.O. is to brand folks.
    On this particular occasion, the source is excitable, in your opinion.
    I reject your whole concept of branding.
    Sometimes folks are right and sometimes folks are wrong.

    Excitable or not, the 1st sentence of the Good Post tells us there is an elephant. Leaving aside (for the moment) the possibility that there may be a herd.



    Quote Originally Posted by HydraTED View Post
    The ACF does not submit events for FIDE-rating unless they are also submitted for ACF-rating.
    I don't have an issue with the nexus.
    What I don't like is sending money overseas for a rating when we already have an adequate classic rating system. And I don't enjoy the import/export tax for the ACF handling the FIDE transaction.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hydra T View Post
    Why should it?
    Quote Originally Posted by Hydra T View Post
    If you want to talk about ratings, let's talk about CV's markups on admin fees.
    We have a whole thread here on Ozchess on ratings. You are welcome to post your position there.



    Quote Originally Posted by Hydra T View Post
    Your self-congratulation over the outcomes of your own confirmation bias is hardly worth inflating your postcount over.
    Jut defending the brand.
    FReedom though Fischer-Random chess to enjoy the whole game.

  10. | #25
    Senior Membaaaaaa HydraTED's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    707

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MOZ View Post
    My definition of a good post includes those posts that call out the existence of elephant in the room. Now after that comes the problem of deciding if the elephant is facing north (and thus we are looking at its trunk) or the elephant is facing south in which case sunglasses are not required.
    Rubbish. My post prior to Ian's (#5) alluded to the same issues set from a more informed perspective and yet you didn't make similar comments about it. Either the "elephant" is alluded to by both posts (less accurately in one than the other), or if the elephant is only alluded to by Ian's post then the elephant doesn't exist. You may have confused it with the imaginary rhinoceros that Russell and Wittgenstein argued about.

    On this particular occasion, the source is excitable, in your opinion.
    That source is excitable on many occasions when it comes to chess politics. It goes to whether you should place trust in unconfirmed statements.

    I reject your whole concept of branding.
    Sometimes folks are right and sometimes folks are wrong.
    And this is a spurious dichotomy, since I've pointed out some of the many factual errors in this instance already.

    Excitable or not, the 1st sentence of the Good Post tells us there is an elephant.
    False. The existence of a former income stream was already referred to. The supposedly "Good Post"'s first sentence only stated the amount of the stream (correctly) and then incorrectly implied that the money was only to be used for the listed purposes.

    What I don't like is sending money overseas for a rating when we already have an adequate classic rating system.
    Tough. While I am the first to agree that the FIDE classic rating system is mathematically simple and in some respects not as good as ours, it has uses that ours cannot provide, and this is a major and logical driver of player and organiser demand for it. The most obvious of these is that FIDE ratings are needed for FIDE titles.
    Note: I have poster antichrist on ignore. On no account should anyone assume that I agree with, or am unable to refute, any comment by poster antichrist, simply because I have not responded to it. Chances are I have not even seen it. (NB Quoting posts by antichrist to try to get around this issue will mostly be ineffective). I am also sometimes denied the ability of reply to false accusations in the shoutbox.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Members who have read this thread : 7

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •