Cheating

reunion

RQ_ennis_chess wrote: »

Dont see why this would be the case, the ICU have not endorsed Irish Chess Cogitations or indicated its an official blog of the ICU. Any opinions expressed on it are the authors own and not official ICU thinking therefore I do not see why any member of the ICU committee would need to be worried about anothers posting on an unrelated forum.

The post has been changed and the minor's name removed; no need to speculate anymore about what could have happened

Zugszwang

Neither the ICU nor its subcommittee are at fault here. The ICU is an amateur organisation and does not have the procedures in place to deal wit this sort of thing, nor the funds for the legal backup required to manage disciplinary action properly. I work in a large company where I deal with disciplinary issues from time to time. As well as strict guidelines vetted by our solicitors, we know to immediately terminate a disciplinary meeting where someone appears with their solicitor, and will only continue when our solicitor is also present (though this has never happened in my experience, even though far more than chess ban is at stake).

In my opinion, the person who cheated at the chess tournament cheated a second time by bringing a solicitor to the meeting with the ICU. This breached the "gentleman's agreement" of going along with the ICU's disciplinary procedures and introduced a not-very-subtle threat of civil action against each of the disciplinary committee's members. Any sensible person on the disciplinary committee would have just rolled over and gone home at that stage. The game isn't worth the candle. The cheater, and his/her advisors, have behaved disgracefully in this affair, in my opinion.

littletoe7

@zugzewang . gentlemen don't cheat & cheats are not gentlemen. ICU & fide long time ago should have decided on automatic course of action (sentence ) should any one get caught cheating and not waited for the event to happen . ICU members could have voted on line ( gave us something to do )for an appropriate sentence . obama went to the whole congress for decision on syria

Sparks

littletoe7 wrote: »

obama went to the whole congress for decision on syria

The President of the United States of America might have slightly more legal authority than the committee of the ICU

littletoe7

<snipped>

Please do not engage in speculation as to the viability or outcome of a legal scenario of which you have no involvement in. Thank you

Ciaran

littletoe7 wrote: »

@ sparky . icu website has voting facility where members can vote .icu could have let the members decide what punishment a cheat deserves ( after all we live in a democracy ? )

Oh come on, should we have a referendum on the sentence for every controversial court case? This is something that the committee should look after and hopefully will be better prepared for in future.

Sparks

littletoe7 wrote: »

ICU members could have voted on line ( gave us something to do )for an appropriate sentence

Oddly, most sports -- actually, all sports -- governing bodies have opted not to use American Idol as their model for how to run a disciplinary process.

Pherekydes

Sparks wrote: »

Oddly, most sports -- actually, all sports -- governing bodies have opted not to use American Idol as their model for how to run a disciplinary process.

But Chess is only a game.

RQ_ennis_chess

Pherekydes wrote: »

But Chess is only a game.

Exactly, in just the same way that football is only a game

mikhail

RQ_ennis_chess wrote: »

Exactly, in just the same way that football is only a game

To paraphrase Shankley, it's not a matter of life and death - it's much more important than that.

Sparks

Sparks wrote: »

From the ICU website:

That doesn't say that the ICU can't overturn the decision, it says that they can't order the subcommittee to return a specific finding (if they could, it'd be a farce).

It also says they disagree with it. There's nothing there that says they can't overturn this tomorrow, or even that the new committee after the upcoming AGM can't do the same.

And according to the Cork Chess Club, that's exactly what's now happened. From twitter:

Cork Chess Club wrote:

ICU to release a statement on the sanction imposed ref 2013 incident.. Not the heaviest of sanctions...

And when asked if that was a new statement (or if their account had somehow tweeted something wierd):

Cork Chess Club wrote:

Yes. Appeals committee met. New statement due out. Sanction applied.

Nothing on the ICU website yet, but it's only been an hour...

Sparks

Seems to have been a misunderstanding somewhere, the statement is now released to ICU members (copyright laws in Ireland don't allow the republication of stuff without permission so I'm not quoting it) but it refers to the second case related to cork, not the first, so it's not a revisiting of the original sanctions in the first case.

Interesting reading; and it's not just a statement on the cork case, but also on the reviewing of the ICU code of conduct and constitution, and the financial accounts for 2012-13.

Sparks

From twitter:

Cork Chess Club wrote:

ICU post decision & found force used on a minor to be proved. 10 month ban with 7 months suspended. 3 year ban from any ICU position

reunion

It would seem that these documents have nothing to do with cheating.

Maybe a new thread discussing these documents might be in order? Well maybe one for each topic.

1. Accounts for our financial year 2012-13
2. The ICU Code of Conduct
3. Review of the Constitution
4. Second Disciplinary Case

Sparks

reunion wrote: »

It would seem that these documents have nothing to do with cheating.

Well, #4 was related. And originally I just thought #4 was the only one being released (I didn't understand CCC's tweet accurately enough, my bad).

Maybe a new thread discussing these documents might be in order? Well maybe one for each topic.

Brilliant idea, but since those docs are ICU member's only, copyright means we'd need them to okay posting the docs themselves (though frankly, for #2 and #3 at least, it could probably be helpful to them to say yes and get more discussion going). Thank Minister Sherlock for that nugget of dross...

You're the mod though, you ask 'em

reunion

Well that's if we wish to reproduce the documents in it's entirety.

We can link to the documents on the ICU website and state that people must be logged in to access them.

A summation of the points or a discussion about the documents would be allowed. With 1 email permitted about some items, I think a discussion might be beneficial

Sparks

reunion wrote: »

Well that's if we wish to reproduce the documents in it's entirety.

Or any ten words from them.
Copyright law in Ireland is properly stupid.

We can link to the documents on the ICU website and state that people must be logged in to access them.

Yup, but you guys are going to be stuck checking every post for any quotes that break the ten word limit (and even that isn't set in statute law, but case law, so it could change in the future).

A summation of the points or a discussion about the documents would be allowed. With 1 email permitted about some items, I think a discussion might be beneficial

I strongly agree, but I think it might be easier all round if we just got permission from the ICU to sidestep the copyright malarky.

cdeb

For the record, I've checked with the ICU, and for the moment, we don't have permission to reproduce the post as it's behind a membership paywall (or whatever you'd call that)

We can discuss what's publicly out there via twitter and the way.

If we link to the ICU documents, I think the link just wouldn't work unless you're logged in, so I don't see a problem with that?

Sparks

As far as I know, links are still okay, it's content is the issue.

cdeb

So link away, and mods will moderate posts if needs be.

Edit - with my mod hat on, do take this as a warning that quoting or reproducing the report will have their post deleted and will pick up an infraction. It's member-only for a reason; let's respect that. Anyone who is a member of the ICU should have no problems logging onto the site and reading it there.

Discussion of the topics is allowed - within the usual reasonable limit - but no direct quotes

Please and thanks

Past sell by Date

OMG Gabriel in the papers again ,this time only page 2 of the herald

Past_Pawn_99

Past sell by Date wrote: »

OMG Gabriel in the papers again ,this time only page 2 of the herald

can you give a link to the article?

Sparks

http://www.herald.ie/news/teen-caught-in-chess-cheat-row-is-banned-30127759.html

That's one confused article, it doesn't seem to understand that there were two disciplinary actions resulting from the one event, it seems like they're reporting on them as seperate actions from seperate events.

cdeb

That doesn't necessarily look like Mirza's doing this time in fairness.

Sparks

Up on Susan Polgar's blog as well (but it's quoting the herald article in full so we can't quote it here).

mikhail

The Indo (I think - I didn't buy it; could have been the Irish Times) also ran this story.