(A few) Members of the Irish Chess Union a disgrace

Banrion Fichille

Members of the Irish Chess Union a disgrace

The ICU AGM was a disgrace yesterday as members of the Irish Chess Union bombarded our Chairman Jonathan O’Connor and our secretary Kevin O’Flaherty with abuse.

On the week before the AGM, provisions were being put in place to honour the wonderful chess achievements of our youth. Unfortunately the audacious activities, of <snipped>, diverted energies in his public demonisation of Jonathan O’Connor. In my research I have never found one officer report scripted by <snipped> and obviously <snipped> is well known for scripting. Dialogue of the nature published of salacious propaganda on our esteemed Chairperson is deeply disturbing. I’m not sure I wish to work for an organisation that supports damning misinformation. Much to my consternation the website Irishchessunion Pro (www.facebook.com/ExIrishChessUnion.Pro) seems to be still alive despite it having no connection to the position of the Irish Chess Union PRO. It even uses the old ICU logo. It seemed that <snipped> was not happy with the webpage being controlled by the 2012-13 PRO officer which was myself. Interesting!

<snipped> greeted me with “you shouldn’t be on the committee, you’re not a real chess player” – Disrespectful and Disgusting!

After I presented my report as PRO Officer I heard a mumbling of a sexist comment from <snipped> which was greeted with a giggling murmur. <Snipped> harassment episodes are not new to me with many harassment complaints submitted to the ICU, and one complaint of abuse of power. These complaints are in the hands of our secretary Kevin O’Flaherty should he see fit to let members access this information.

One member at the meeting was so disgraceful in his disrespect and disruption of proceedings that he received a number of warnings. This same individual was at the centre of much of the abuse yet he himself would not put himself forward for nomination to work on the committee. Actually it was a joke to him. Joke enough to fill himself with alcohol during the serious discussions within the meeting.

Working on the ICU committee is no joke. It involves a lot of time, energy and money. Most of the committee members pay out of their own pocket to get things done and done properly. Perhaps the disciplinary committee should see fit to teach our membership how to behave with decorum in public.

I would like at this stage to quote from our previous Chairperson’s report from 2010 (and our present FIDE Delegate) Eamon Keogh: “This year was also marked by a spate of libellous online publications that involved continual bickering, anonymous personal attacks and occasional intimidation of ICU officials and players. This was an extremely negative and counterproductive development that can only damage the standing and perception of Chess in Ireland. … The existence and tolerance of such incendiary blogs implies that personal and libellous attacks and character assassinations are not just acceptable but the norm. … Here it is worth remembering that these are voluntary and time consuming efforts by dedicated people who have attempted to the best of their abilities to promote Chess in Ireland. Using the Internet for non-constructive and occasionally vicious personal attacks is unacceptable.”

These harassments only serve to divert the energies of good work carried out by the vast majority of the chess volunteers and members throughout Ireland.
Chess is not politics, it is a sport, it is chess. Let it not be a clash of egos. Despite much criticism I do not actively engage in political digital chess banter. While I very much encourage dialogue among chess players I believe it is more important for me to read and listen and that is what I do best (unless, of course, I’m listening to trash!).

It has always been at the forefront of my mind to protect the good name of the ICU. I no longer feel compelled to do this. Should I care? Probably not! If it wasn’t for exceptional volunteers who do not look for glory I probably wouldn’t care. I do know that I cannot stand and let bully boys do what bully boys do in every walk of life. Bully boys with their large typefaces, large egos and very large voices do not rule the roost in Irish Chess. Of course you can be guaranteed that I will be next on the hit list. I’m a musician boys, harassment and criticism comes with the territory. Sticks & stones …

Zugszwang

Well said! I wasn't at the ICU meeting, but no doubt 10% of the decent members turned up and 90% of the plonkers. Hang on in there!

JohnDelaney

Well said. You speak for the vast majority of members of the ICU.

SimonLynch

I'm just waiting for Nelson Muntz's opinion. And 'John Delaney', I f that's not your real name I like the cut of your jib :-)

phnompenhchess

Zugszwang wrote: »

... no doubt 10% of the decent members turned up and 90% of the plonkers. Hang on in there!

Spot on. Most people you meet at league and tournament meets are sound.

cdeb

Hear hear. There was much to be ashamed of on Sunday. From committee members apologising on behalf of other committee members (but ignoring their own abuses of power), to (witnessed) physical intimidation outside the room, to irrelevant personal attacks on the chairman and secretary, to open and unfounded accusations of malfeasance against specified individuals, it really wasn't a great night for chess at all.

I think there's a number of people who were at that meeting last night who the 90% need to see should have no part whatsoever in the administration of chess in Ireland. I think that constantly needs to be borne in mind.

Desmond Beatty at one stage quoted a bit of Kipling to me - "If you can keep your head while all around are losing yours and blaming it on you". I thought Jonathan and Kevin were excellent in the face of continued abuse from Colm, Bernard and Eric in particular (the latter two receiving several warnings, and would probably have been ejected if it weren't likely that the others would gang up and accuse the Chair of expelling people purely to boost his chances of a confidence vote). More of the former and fewer of the latter and the game will be far stronger.

But as Úna alluded to, the only way of guaranteeing that is for people to put themselves forward for committee positions.

Sparks

If I'd seen that AGM before meeting the people at my local club, I would have turned on my heel and walked as far away from chess as possible. I haven't seen the level of maturity and adult behaviour that some of those present on Sunday were displaying, since the secondary school playground twenty years ago when common assault was considered a valid way to handle disagreements. There were people there trying to conduct business in an adult fashion, and there were valid points of contention (the lack of a treasurer's report - even if there were accounts presented - was a valid criticism, for example) -- but instead of a group of grownups discussing a problem and reaching a solution, we were instead witness to the grownups having to deal with a small bunch of ego-addled teenagers in adult bodies having a shouting row with the grownups. It was embarrassing for everyone, it was time-wasting and ineffectual, it blocked any chance of a real conversation, and it made the entire procedure a farce. And that's without getting into the point that it saw several people being accused of criminal acts in public (malfeasance not actually being just some random word) and abused with innuendo suggesting they had carried out other illegal or immoral acts as well.

reunion

The AGM was a disgrace but I think the title is a bit misleading.

Some members were a disgrace; others weren't. The AGM is the time when everyone has their say; the loons, the drunks and the sane.

People's conduct at the meeting only harmed Irish chess at a national level and some of those people were elected; I hope they realise that their actions can harm Irish chess on an international and very public stage.

I hear Killian Delaney said something so sensible during AOB; something along the lines of "if people put half as much effort into furthering Irish chess instead of bickering; we'd do so much better"

Ballynafeigh Chess

A sane result from an insane situation

hewhowatches

who is next on the list? the exec have been warned once already!
this was sent to the exec and circulated to the masses apparently....

[snip][/snip]

Sparks

Banrion Fichille wrote: »

Of course you can be guaranteed that I will be next on the hit list.

hewhowatches wrote: »

who is next on the list?

Banrion was, as those who read the blogs of the shouty brigade already know.

It must be interesting to have the kind of brain that can wholeheartedly believe that it's completely rational and acceptable for the owner of said brain to say any defamatory thing they want about someone with no proof and - as was pointed out to everyone in the AGM - no understanding of the law or its constraints at all; and simultaneously be able to wholeheartedly believe that it's utterly outrageous for anyone else to criticise them for it.

Chess_Coach

There must be a reason why people were laud at the meeting .
Lets talk about record of the some officers working for ICU .

Junior Office :
1.Saving of 3 000 euro in junior budget and achieving much more - juniors got 20 hours of coaching with our best Irish players
2. Coaches - Top Irish players
3. Transparent way to chose the Team Captains - https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BwjlJ5xXCEshRFdEdEQybU9PLXM/edit?usp=sharing
as you know Junior Officer is member of the Selection Committee as well - working double work for Union
4.Including Woman team and all ladies in coaching next year
5. Proper Coaching Infrastructure inside the Union - http://www.icu.ie/articles/display.php?id=19
6. The 4 Academy Instructors
7. Working on child protection policy - with Development Officer soon to find way how to get Garda vetting for our coaches and instructors
8. Fide representatives to visit Ireland in 2014 to speed up the process of chess in schools or chess as a sport

etc

In aim to get any funds from any organization we ( ICU ) need they accounts audited and transparent to ICU membership and Irish public .

The proposer EK - ex ICU Chairman proposed the motion - all accounts with invoices to be provided to ICU and published at ICU web site . The majority voted in favor . That is democracy .

Some members of the Committee were not happy with this . One can tell that asking for accounts could damage ICU . NO. Not providing proper accounts and information for the AGM can and will .
I have asked for accounts for 3 months now . I was ignored .
All in all I invite all members to come to EGM to hear what really happened. AUDARE AT ALTERA PARS is needed here .
For start lets compare work of the officers in the union and lets compare they efforts and time given to Union .

cdeb

Chess_Coach wrote: »

The proposer EK - ex ICU Chairman proposed the motion - all accounts with invoices to be provided to ICU and published at ICU web site . The majority voted in favor . That is democracy .

Some members of the Committee were not happy with this .

Those who voted for that motion didn't understand what they were voting for. It makes no logical sense whatsoever to demand the accounts details of a completely different organisation, which is what happened on Sunday.

I thought the Junior Officer apologising on behalf of other committee members while ignoring his own abuse of power was particularly objectionable and typical of the in-fighting within the ICU at the moment.

phnompenhchess

cdeb wrote: »

Those who voted for that motion didn't understand what they were voting for. It makes no logical sense whatsoever to demand the accounts details of a completely different organisation, which is what happened on Sunday.

"ICU demands accounts from all constituent clubs"

It has a ring to it but is, as you say, senseless.

Chess_Coach

Interesting debate https://www.facebook.com/groups/306657479415939/

Chess_Coach

Regarding the abuse of the power

Junior Officer got green light from the Chairman and NK. Chairman approval by email .

Getting the approval from the Chairman is procedure . Junior officer apologized and was calming situation after many parents were not happy after their kids were exposed - names on the internet . That was fixed .
We had chance to talk about this at the AGM and you have asked question on which I gave explanation . How many times that should go out ? Will you now question Chairman approval of this ?

Zugszwang

It would be more impressive if someone else told us what the Junior Officer has achieved. Oh, the OP did just that already -- sexist comments at the AGM and several claims of harassment.

Chess_Coach

I would like to see how many heard any comments that no one ever said

cdeb

phnompenhchess wrote: »

"ICU demands accounts from all constituent clubs"

ICU demands accounts from UL Chess Club for an event it outsourced to UL Chess Club, but isn't that fussed about accounts from e2e4 for an event it outsourced to e2e4.

Makes no sense whatsoever.

cdeb

I think this sentence in the Treasurer's Report is interesting -

Next up came Mureck (EUYCC) and this went well except for one individual that remained completely uncommitted to actually going and did not communicate in any way what their real intentions actually were and this lead to an embarrassing situation whereby the ICU having the competitors name cancelled officially the day before the competition through the Austrian Federation, only to find this individual turned up mysteriously the following day in Austria.

There weren't that many who travelled (three I think?)

reunion

Chess_Coach wrote: »

I would like to see how many heard any comments that no one ever said

I hear the secretary took a recording of the meeting for the purposes of a transcript. I won't get into a he said she said; let's wait for the transcript where it will state what was said.

The motion passed at the AGM was "A seperate account be prepared for the Irish Championship and published on the ICU website". This motion makes no reference to which Irish Championships or when; as this wasn't a requirement for this years Irish Championships (and motions don't backdate); it applies to the next bidder of the Irish Championships; I believe is Trinity?

cdeb wrote: »

ICU demands accounts from UL Chess Club for an event it outsourced to UL Chess Club, but isn't that fussed about accounts from e2e4 for an event it outsourced to e2e4.

Makes no sense whatsoever.

More interestingly; where are all the receipts and where did all the money go from the Junior Chess Championships and the Junior coaching? I hear people weren't paid on time; did the Junior Officers line his pocket? Maybe we should email the UL club about that; I know how certain people like contacting the wrong people.

No proper set of accounts (for the entire UNION) and 2 people are crying about seeing a specific invoice they aren't entitled to see. Nice to know they put Irish chess ahead of a personal vandetta.

It was also nice to hear that Colm Daly likes contacting people's employers but he can't send an email to the UL chess club. As the secretary said; he can't take any action on behalf of UL without the entire UL committee being informed.

cdeb

reunion wrote: »

It was also nice to hear that Colm Daly likes contacting people's employers

That's interesting. I missed the contrast in the meeting there, but for clarity - he did say he contacted UL directly, didn't he?

Colm also said he dislikes people contacting people's employers as well, even when on Garda advice.

Curious.

reunion

cdeb wrote: »

That's interesting. I missed the contrast in the meeting there, but for clarity - he did say he contacted UL directly, didn't he?

Colm also said he dislikes people contacting people's employers as well, even when on Garda advice.

Curious.

Yes he did and he said he did so as Vice-chairperson of the union (except under no direct order from the union). So he contacted them and used his position on the executive to get that information (which still isn't enough?!). Sad really to see chess reduced to personal vandettas. Every email sent to him he publishes online but not the ones on such a "controversial topic".

Chess_Coach

reunion wrote: »

I hear the secretary took a recording of the meeting for the purposes of a transcript. I won't get into a he said she said; let's wait for the transcript where it will state what was said.

The motion passed at the AGM was "A seperate account be prepared for the Irish Championship and published on the ICU website". This motion makes no reference to which Irish Championships or when; as this wasn't a requirement for this years Irish Championships (and motions don't backdate); it applies to the next bidder of the Irish Championships; I believe is Trinity?



More interestingly; where are all the receipts and where did all the money go from the Junior Chess Championships and the Junior coaching? I hear people weren't paid on time; did the Junior Officers line his pocket? Maybe we should email the UL club about that; I know how certain people like contacting the wrong people.

No proper set of accounts (for the entire UNION) and 2 people are crying about seeing a specific invoice they aren't entitled to see. Nice to know they put Irish chess ahead of a personal vandetta.

It was also nice to hear that Colm Daly likes contacting people's employers but he can't send an email to the UL chess club. As the secretary said; he can't take any action on behalf of UL without the entire UL committee being informed.

Junior Officer do not have access to cash , cheques or bank account . All he can do is inform treasurer about the hours done by other coaches . As I remember Junior Officer explained that he did that on time and asked Treasurer and Chairman to make and approve payment .That 2nd stage was big delay . Why I do hope that we all will find out .

All accountants and payments are done by treasurer and no other Officer can make any payment . I agree that all Officers should explain their budget in details and all tournament organizers including the Junior Championship .

Contacting Employers is just very very bad in any case .

I think that Officers should not attack each other and I think that ICU should answer all questions from membership rather then individuals without any coordination with Organization .

Chess_Coach

reunion wrote: »

I hear the secretary took a recording of the meeting for the purposes of a transcript. I won't get into a he said she said; let's wait for the transcript where it will state what was said.

I do hope that those present on the meeting were warned that meeting was recorded and that this was approved by present at the meeting .

I have heard that Secretary was not the only one recording the meeting

Ciaran

This thread is thoroughly depressing. Quite apart from the unpleasant stuff mentioned in the OP, we have ICU officials airing their dirty linen in public again. As bad as the antics at the AGM must have looked to anyone looking in from outside, this is as bad.

cdeb

Chess_Coach wrote: »

Contacting Employers is just very very bad in any case .

I assume you agree, though, that it's ok when on the advice of the Gardaí?

Do you want to continue your suggestions of improper accounting based on LCU membership numbers which have since been proven false, by the way?

It'd be nice to hear you acknowledge an error - somewhere; anywhere! - and show that you actually do intend working for the good of Irish chess, as opposed to in some blinkered manner against the current committee.

Celtic What?

Editing post, as I rambled..
To summarise, I don't think the OP should have named people..



This he said she said stuff is tiresome and honestly is turning me (and older person just getting into chess) off

Banrion Fichille

Firstly, my reason for my blog on boards.ie: I was deeply disturbed with the writings of our previous Vice chairperson in the weeks prior to the AGM on his irishchesscogitations.com website, which have now been removed. It was obvious that I was not the only one. I felt completely useless in not being able to do anything about it. Engaging in digital discussions is not my forte and would have done nothing. I have not known Jonathan nor Kevin long but have grown to see them as good people who have worked hard to bring chess in Ireland to a better place. At the AGM I saw broken spirits and I found it too difficult to stay in the room. I wandered in and out and on each occasion the injustice grew. I saw the Vice Chairperson sitting smugly with his perfectly worded complacency in a setting he single-handedly created with his blogs that incited this hatred. Complacency on my part would have been another injustice.

In 2010 I was elected Women’s Officer at an AGM where I was not present, nor did I know my name was put forward. I enthusiastically took up the position and although it took a while for me to get to grips with what I needed to do, I wanted to make a difference. In 2012 I was asked to become Public Relations Officer. After two years as Women’s Officer I was certainly understanding what it meant to be on the executive of the ICU. I don’t pretend to be any good at the political aspects of the ICU but Public Relations is definitely what I love to do.

On the whole, chess players are a noble and extremely kind bunch. Of course I was deeply heartened by the enormous supporting response by many but the horrific threatening personal mails received and despicable online comments have taken their toll. It seems that my name is bandied around on the internet like some demonised football.

As an aside, I was hoping to submit an article to the Late Late Toy Show so that our junior ambassadors can have their well deserved spot in the sun. This present antagonism may have jeopardised this as the deadline is Wednesday; again, our juniors paying for the behaviour of adults. If anyone can help in this I would deeply appreciate it. I am finding it difficult to concentrate these days with the continuing harassment and only wish it to end.

I deeply regret Jonathan leaving the fold, knowing the enormous work he has contributed. However I am heartened by the presence of Peter, who has also contributed enormously, taking over the Chair. I promise to do everything I can to bring chess to the fore in Ireland over the coming year in my role as ICU Public Relations Officer and to work to the best of my ability with the ICU committee.
Le dea-mhéin
Úna

Treetopchess

Hi Banrion

I don't wish to get into an argument or take sides and I want to understand your perspective here as much as I can, but if I might be forgiven for saying so, your account of the AGM seems to be a bit at odds with the way things actually happened, at least from what I observed. You also seem to be blaming one person for a whole series of things that would appear to have nothing to do with him? By which I mean that I assume the Chairman has all the power, so to speak, within the ICU executive and the Vice Chairman has next to nothing to do, off his own bat?

So how then could the Vice Chairman be to blame for the various multiple cock ups that have happened in the course of the year? I assume it was the Chairperson who was responsible for various choices made and actions undertaken? Or maybe the Chairperson delegated some tasks?

One thing I would be very interested to understand from your point of view also is: that when you say that you were “deeply disturbed with the writings of our previous Vice chairperson in the weeks prior to the AGM on his irishchesscogitations.com website, which have now been removed ” Could you explain if you ever communicated that view to the Vice Chairman, and if so, what form did that take or what response did you get?

It just seems odd that if you were so unhappy about this situation wouldn't it have made sense to make the Vice Chairperson aware of any such concerns you had? Also I think, if I have read and correctly understood his response to your initial post here, then those comments you object to so much have not been removed at all. But rather are apparently only made available to members of the site. Those who have registered only,so I assume there is a lot of stuff being published there which many of us will never get to see. A good thing too perhaps?

Also as regards the AGM itself I rather thought that the Vice Chairman looked anything but smug, especially after he lost the election, after which, he seem to be very quite and even withdrawn for long periods? I frankly thought that knocked the wind out of him? For a while anyway I guess.

There are a lot of confusing things being said in your post that I can't seem to understand or see a consistent logic to. Forgive me if that sounds too critical. You say that you were elected in 2010 but you did not even know about this? But were you not required to confirm your acceptance of a position weeks before the AGM, as was the case this year. I mention this because this year didn't the other candidate for the Pro position neglect to do this and he was automatically seen to have not accepted his nomination, and so you got "elected" when there was no election, or need for such at all? We are surely all the better for that I have to say, as you do seem to really want the position.

You also mention that you wanted to “submit an article to the Late Late Toy Show so that our junior ambassadors can have their well deserved spot in the sun” and then go on to say “This present antagonism may have jeopardised this as the deadline is Wednesday; again, our juniors paying for the behaviour of adults”

This is even more confusing because I don't see why or how you can not just go ahead and do what you say you were intending to do anyway. What is the problem here? Exactly what kind of help is it that you are seeking too? Also, If you are being harassed can you not complain to any relevant authority. What is the nature of this anyway? That seems very bad form indeed. You should be protected from any such bad conduct. Please do not accept any such bad conduct, as you say there are many noble chess players who will be happy to offer support and help when needed.

However if I might play devils advocate here for a moment. If I am to understand the response to your initial post here which you have linked on your Facebook page, it was you who first made a public, how shall I put it, criticism of the former Vice Chairman? And could it not therefore be said that you ignited this exchange of bad words? By being the first to launch such a mini campaign of your own, and then followed this up later with more comments on Facebook and now here again on this website once more.

Where and how might this all end? Handbags at dawn? What would you like to see happen next? What is the solution, or is there any such solution? How do you envisage an exit strategy for you, now that you have started this war of words with someone you clearly have provoked into action?

What about the allegations and complaints you made about other members of the executive? In particular I was very alarmed by your comment:

“After I presented my report as PRO Officer I heard a mumbling of a sexist comment from Darko Polimac which was greeted with a giggling murmur. Darko’s harassment episodes are not new to me with many harassment complaints submitted to the ICU, and one complaint of abuse of power. These complaints are in the hands of our secretary Kevin O’Flaherty should he see fit to let members access this information.”

This is an utter disgrace if even half true. No woman should be subject to any such treatment. When will we hear about such allegations being investigated. Is there a disciplinary committee to be set up to deal with this? You have now claimed that there has been bad conduct from no less than three people either currently on or formerly on the ICU executive. That s very serious. What should be done about this?

I am frankly very confused about all this. I am trying to understand your point of view but there are many things which disturb me about your account of things.

Women are rare enough as active players within chess, so we need to make sure they feel comfortable and respected. At the same time we can not have a situation in which allegations are thrown around either. How do you think things should proceed from here?

Treetopchess

cdeb wrote: »

ICU demands accounts from UL Chess Club for an event it outsourced to UL Chess Club, but isn't that fussed about accounts from e2e4 for an event it outsourced to e2e4.

Makes no sense whatsoever.

I agree, too much senseless stuff. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Can't have their cake and eat them too.

Treetopchess

Zugszwang wrote: »

if someone else told us what the Junior Officer has achieved. Oh, the OP did just that already -- sexist comments at the AGM and several claims of harassment.

If these allegations are true then he should be stripped [bad choice of words maybe, sorry about that] of his office, but not hung drawn and quartered.

We need an explanation about this now! How can anybody be allowed to get away with this? Was it sexual harassment or just your common or garden sort? The usual, or something a bit more, shall we say, spicy or even kinky.

This is a chess Forum?

Sparks

Treetopchess wrote: »

We need an explanation about this now!

Why do so many people in Irish chess believe that they have legal authority to compel testimony in any forum they choose regardless of the law surrounding allegations of criminal activity?

I mean, do we have that many people who wish to don robes in their spare time?

zenobi

cdeb wrote: »

ICU demands accounts from UL Chess Club for an event it outsourced to UL Chess Club, but isn't that fussed about accounts from e2e4 for an event it outsourced to e2e4.

Makes no sense whatsoever.

ICU should demand accounts from everyone including e2e4 , to claim 2000 euro for security ( security of what ? ) and 400 euro for finger food ( where no one got anything to eat ) and after repeated requests for invoices for several months and not to be able provide one is not proper & questionable , I understand you are good friends with the organiser of the event .I am just being objective .

Sparks

zenobi wrote: »

ICU should demand accounts from everyone

On what grounds? And using what means of compulsion?
(Seriously on that last point, if UL Chess club told the ICU to get stuffed, what could the ICU do?)

And more to the point, what exactly is the ICU looking for in those accounts? We were repeatedly told at the AGM that the ICU provided €5k to UL for the prize fund and that was all the money handed over, and that it went out on prizes. Anything beyond that would be a matter for UL Chess club, who were running the event, not the ICU (is the ICU now supposed to act as oversight for any and all chess clubs spending their own money?). The entire question never made sense at the AGM and still makes no sense now.

Zugszwang

@Treetopchess Wow, that's some trolling you're at!

phnompenhchess

Zugszwang wrote: »

@Treetopchess Wow, that's some trolling you're at!

Yep, it's like Trollsville in here. Big yawn.

Treetopchess

I don't think that is quite accurate Sparks. Sorry if I have it wrong and I may well be mistaken but I understood that the big fuss being made was because that guy Kevin, the Secretary of the ICU, who actually ran and organized the event [I think that is right?] was actually awarded the option to run the event on the basis that he was bringing in 4k to the whole event or pot so to speak, with 2k specified as being reserved for security.

Now I am only repeating what I have seen and heard elsewhere so apologies if I have anything wrong there, but on second look there is something a bit odd about all this alright and I think zenobi has a valid point.

Also why is that bloke Kevin making things awkward for himself, why not just confirm the big items like that 2k chunk for security which seems to have attracted a lot of the attention. He acted a bit weird at the AGM in some of his answers, like as if he was trying to hide something, but really there was nothing to hide sort of thing. I just did not get it and thought it confusing. Should be a piece of cake to do produce whatever it is being asked of him?

As for what the ICU could do if the UL people refuse to give any info or receipts? Which is basically Kevin in terms of point of contact, I was wondering if the ICU could simply ring up the Dean or somebody high up and simply ask can they confirm a few things for the record? Here is a funny thought, the iCU secretary be mandated to make contact with the UL Chess crowd and the UL officials and ask can they confirm a few things for the record? Like Kevin sends an email to himself maybe? That would be gas.Or maybe just ring up Joe Duffy and they can do a feature on the whole thing?

If the UL bid was predicated on UL bringing in 4k or 2k then the ICU have a right to know that was honored and acted upon correctly. Or am I out of my depth here? There must be people with plenty of experience of this type of thing who would know and understand these things far more than the rest of us? Might be making a mountain out of a mole hill?

Treetopchess

phnompenhchess wrote: »

Yep, it's like Trollsville in here. Big yawn.

Why am I a troll? What way is that to welcome somebody trying to at least understand what is the key issues in this thread.

If I have said something wrong or incorrect then just explain that to me.I am not saying I have it all figured out or anything.

I am not here to offend anybody so why attack me?

Treetopchess

Sparks wrote: »

Why do so many people in Irish chess believe that they have legal authority to compel testimony in any forum they choose regardless of the law surrounding allegations of criminal activity?

I mean, do we have that many people who wish to don robes in their spare time?

Sorry Sparks I did not mean to be demanding an explanation in any sort of aggressive way so sorry if that was misunderstood. I am just saying that surely we can not have a situation in which certain things are tolerated. Either people misbehaving or people making false accusations. I do not know what is what and who is telling the truth but we have two people saying things that conflict and does that not mean that either one is making serious and false allegations or that those allegations are untrue, in which case then we have a whole other problem to confront?

You tell me, what is anyone supposed to think or make of this? Only asking.

Sparks

Again with the mention of 2k and 4k, but no mention of how that wasn't ICU money. Again with the mudslinging without reason or proof. Hmm.

Sparks

Treetopchess wrote: »

Now I am only repeating what I have seen and heard elsewhere

...

He acted a bit weird at the AGM

Oh dear, I am confused. Were you there or are you just repeating what others have said, or is this not so much "welcome!" as "welcome back!"?
:rolleyes:

But to answer a point that went right over heads at the AGM...

in some of his answers, like as if he was trying to hide something

No, what he was asking for was for the vice chair to have sent an email query to UL chess club.

Here we were, sitting through the second or third intermnible hour of nonsense questions and shoutiness about how the ICU needed to be transparent and how we needed paper trails... and the chap leading the shouting wouldn't add another email address to the CC list of an email so that the UL chess club could have that paper trail and know that the request for information had come in from the ICU and be able to respond correctly.

One email address in a CC list. Or another email, if he was feeling energetic and verbose. But no, instead we did the thing where we make an idiot of the ICU by passing a vote to demand something the ICU has no power to demand, because of an accusation that made no sense and had no evidence presented to back it up, and we got a goodly dose of defamation thrown in for good measure.

What a waste of everyone's time.

I was wondering if the ICU could simply ring up the Dean or somebody high up and simply ask can they confirm a few things for the record?

You're suggesting the ICU contact the Dean of UL and accuse a student of malfeasance, even indirectly?

What, is "get the ICU sued into oblivion" a game now as well?

If the UL bid was predicated on UL bringing in 4k or 2k then the ICU have a right to know that was honored and acted upon correctly.

No, they don't.
UL made a bid; the ICU accepted it; the ICU gave money to the prize fund which was duly distributed; that's it. The ICU has no rights past that unless they put it in the contract, which they didn't. Any issue any player has with the championships from that point until the point that the results land back in the ICU tournament director's inbox is between then and UL.

Or am I out of my depth here?
There must be people with plenty of experience of this type of thing who would know and understand these things far more than the rest of us?
Might be making a mountain out of a mole hill?

No, you're in a different pool altogether;
yes;
and yes.

Treetopchess

Yeah well I am not meaning to mud sling at all. The two figures of 4k and 2k have been mentioned so many times that I am sort of assuming that part is just a fact?

But if as you seem to hint or suggest that 4k and 2k is not and was not a correct figure then you are right. Things start to seem a bit silly then and there is nothing to explain at all. I am getting even more confused now.

But can we agree that we need to establish where this 4k figure and 2k figure come from? And what is the basis for hearing about the 2k to be spent on security? Why does that keep coming up over and over again. Surely the basic outline or facts can be agreed upon?

phnompenhchess

Treetopchess wrote: »

Why am I a troll? What way is that to welcome somebody trying to at least understand what is the key issues in this thread.

If I have said something wrong or incorrect then just explain that to me.I am not saying I have it all figured out or anything.

I am not here to offend anybody so why attack me?

The flawed logic in your argument gives the game away. There is only one person taking such a completely illogical stance. It is so unlikely anyone else could be moved to such a bazaar stance that I believe you are a troll.

Sparks

Treetopchess wrote: »

Yeah well I am not meaning to mud sling at all.

Oh, of course not. And the judge in any defamation case will always waive the need to adhere to the law if you haven't heard of it or don't know how it works. It's an old legal principle that ignorance is a perfectly valid defence, why do you ask?

The two figures of 4k and 2k have been mentioned so many times that I am sort of assuming that part is just a fact?

And hoping everyone else will as well?
The question was asked and answered directly at the AGM. Continuing after that point to suggest things is not just "oh, I didn't mean it", it's mudslinging, done deliberately, at a specific person, and damaging the ICU and UL Chess Club for no good reason and without any presented evidence, all for a completely unstated reason. And that's the kind of nonsense that needs to stop.

But can we agree that we need to establish where this 4k figure and 2k figure come from?

Why? And why raise this at the ICU AGM?
The ICU spent 5k on prize money that went into the prize fund and was duly distributed in the prizes. That was asked and answered directly at the AGM.
Beyond that, the ICU didn't spend a penny on the Championships. That was asked and answered directly at the AGM.
All the rest of the money came from the UL Chess Club and if someone has a yen to see their accounts, they're the ones to ask, either by email or at their AGM; not the ICU. That's basic logic and common sense.

Trying to imply - or to directly accuse - malfeasance from the publicly available evidence is just plain dumb.

Treetopchess

Sparks wrote: »

Again with the mention of 2k and 4k, but no mention of how that wasn't ICU money. Again with the mudslinging without reason or proof. Hmm.

I am not trying to offer proof of anything. I am just trying to understand this whole weird issue.

I agree you seem to know more about the key issues and facts alright. I can accept that, but one thing that I can not agree about is the idea that if the bid by UL included them saying they were bringing in 4k of their own to the overall pot that somehow they do not have to account for that 4k, especially when half of it was for a set purpose?

Surely they would have to account for that as a matter of course. Suppose for example there was another interested party that wanted to do the tournament and then further suppose that when they heard that UL had declared that they were bringing 4k into the pot this other interested party decided that they could not compete with that and that in light of the 4k being brought in that they withdrew their interest?

Then it seems to me that there is a real issue about accounting for the money that was declared as coming into the overall tournament expenditure. A few people at the meeting did seem adamant that all the accounts would have to be, well, accounted for, including 2k on security when some where asking if there even was security.

If finger food for a prize giving which had no reception or food can be turned into bottles of water then who knows what funny details might emerge. Next trick might be to turn that water into wine! I am keeping an open mind on all the matters before us. I suspect nothing and I suspect everybody.

Sparks

Treetopchess wrote: »

Surely they would have to account for that as a matter of course.

Nope. That's not how the real world works.

Treetopchess

phnompenhchess wrote: »

The flawed logic in your argument gives the game away. There is only one person taking such a completely illogical stance. It is so unlikely anyone else could be moved to such a bazaar stance that I believe you are a troll.

You are very hostile person.

Treetopchess

Sparks wrote: »

Nope. That's not how the real world works.

Well the real world stinks! Which is why I am in here.

Sparks

Treetopchess wrote: »

Well the real world stinks!

Generally yes, but not in this case. Put yourself in UL Chess club's shoes for a minute to understand why.

Zugszwang

@Treetopchess TROLL! And not very good at being anonymous either