LCU Delegete

Toscaire

In addition to being the LCU delegate to the ICU, I am also the LCU leagues controller. The same fairness and impartiality that I use every day as the league’s controller I use on the ICU executive.

To be accused, and have my name tarnished as it has been on this site on what seems recently a daily basis is beyond unacceptable and to be honest, offensive.

I never voted for anything I didn’t agree with while on the ICU (or on the LCU for that matter), and I based all my decisions on facts as I have no biased opinion towards anyone.

To have people suggest otherwise (and question my competence) on this site is reprehensible and I will expect an apology to that effect.

I became the LCU delegate after a vacancy, and as my father is the ICU treasurer (he having previously been the LCU treasurer) it seemed like it would be an interesting experience.

To have the work he has done as treasurer dismissed as incompetent, and his name also tarnished is something I take very seriously and personally.

I know that the release of the minutes of the ICU executive minutes included the removal of certain people’s names. I will be requesting that they be released again without redactions, as those names are some of the very people who are posting on this forum in such an false and derogatory manor. (In some cases about the very events they have had their names redacted from in the minutes, in order to protect their anonymity). I will also be seeking the publication of some emails to the ratings officer.

I will no longer even view this forum let alone post on it, such are my feelings on the use of this forum to propagate one sided versions of events from those who instigated many of those events.

Anyone wishing to contact me can find my details on the ICU/LCU websites.

ComDubh

I wonder if there is anyone involved in the ICU who is willing to justify their actions on this forum? Or anywhere else for that matter? Specific allegations have been made, and instead of any competent response from the ICU we get a posting like the above which provides no information whatsoever, contains unveiled threats and generally asks the ICU membership to stop thinking and just realise what a wonderful job the ICU exec are doing.

To the OP, if you feel this forum is presenting a one-sided views of affairs, it is open to you the present the other side and I would welcome your taking the opportunity.

Ficheall

To be fair, I have no doubt that there are members of the ICU exec towards whom no ill-will is born, and that it is just a majority who are giving the rest a bad name.

I don't recall anyone specifying any failings of the LCU delegate or the treasurer - they may well have just been swept up in the general maelstrom of farce and incompetence which the ICU has become.

rob51

Toscaire wrote: »

In addition to being the LCU delegate to the ICU, I am also the LCU leagues controller. The same fairness and impartiality that I use every day as the league’s controller I use on the ICU executive.

Anyone wishing to contact me can find my details on the ICU/LCU websites.

I haven't seen anyone question the Treasurer or LCU Delegate. But are you really suggesting that we are not entitled to question the actions of the ICU in relation to Galway, Ennis and the NCC. Also are you saying that the dismissal of the MCU Delegate and Mark Orr (both long time respected members of the ICU who have made considerable personal contributions to Irish Chess) by committee decisions without any advance notification of the allegations or any disciplinary process is fair? How can you make an impartial decision without any evidence except what has been put forward by the prosecutor / chairman?

In Mark Orr's case the minutes state that he was suspended by a committee vote based on responses to an unseen report? Are we wrong to question that?

mikhail

rob51 wrote: »

I haven't seen anyone question the Treasurer or LCU Delegate.

I don't recall anything specific to them either.

A search for his surname turns up two posts, one noting the election of the committee including his father, the other someone passing on a clarification regarding a points deduction. Neither post is critical of them. Searches for "LCU delegate" and "Leinster delegate" bring up nothing relevant.

He says "on a daily basis". Could he mean the criticisms of the committee? If that's what he's talking about, it seems a remarkable overreaction.

cdeb

Ficheall wrote: »

To be fair, I have no doubt that there are members of the ICU exec towards whom no ill-will is born, and that it is just a majority who are giving the rest a bad name.

I don't recall anyone specifying any failings of the LCU delegate or the treasurer - they may well have just been swept up in the general maelstrom of farce and incompetence which the ICU has become.

For the record, as one of the mods here, that's how I see it as well.

I don't have a problem with people being criticised for specific things, or specific actions being questioned - the NCC, Mark Orr's ban, the spat with Galway, etc. I do have a problem with unsubstantiated allegations, and stuff like "You're a liar and you will be shown up when everything comes out"

It's been busy enough in here the past few days (!), and there's been a fair bit of work behind the scenes not just in terms of deleting/editing posts, but discussion amongst the mods as to what line we should take here. It's always possible though that a post can slip between the gaps. If there is something which any poster thinks is objectionable, they should report it - the mods get an e-mail notification and can take things from there.

I know my aim as a mod is to try keep things on this forum civil and fair - so not to favour either side in the upcoming election, for example. (That's separate to my aim as an individual poster, of course, where I'm entirely entitled to favour one side over another). Members of the ICU exec are more than welcome to join the debate on here. To do so (not just now, but in future as well) would make here a very valuable resource for the game.

Sparks

For those who don't know how to report a post, you click on the little icon you can see on the left margin of the post - this one : - fill in why you think the post breaks the site's rules and hit submit.

sinbad68

Sparks wrote: »

For those who don't know how to report a post, you click on the little icon you can see on the left margin of the post - this one : - fill in why you think the post breaks the site's rules and hit submit.

Does clicking on that button actually works ? I tried it so many times in the past without success , But in my case it could be due to an old Persian proverb which says " A knife doesn't cut it's own handle "

Ficheall

sinbad68 wrote: »

Does clicking on that button actually works ? I tried it so many times in the past without success , But in my case it could be due to an old Persian proverb which says " A knife doesn't cut it's own handle "

Your Persian proverb is absolutely correct, sinbad - no matter how much they may warrant it, you cannot report your own posts.

Sparks

sinbad68 wrote: »

Does clicking on that button actually works?

Yes, it works.

Please note sinbad, the "fill in why you think the post breaks the site's rules" part and that "I personally don't like this" does not count as breaking the site's rules.

Also, "five times" doesn't qualify as "so many times". Especially not when you're reporting one post several times to say you think someone is gay and that that's a bad thing (that kind of crap isn't something grownups do by the way).

Sparks

Ficheall wrote: »

Your Persian proverb is absolutely correct, sinbad - no matter how much they may warrant it, you cannot report your own posts.

Actually, you can. Unless you're pinging the mods for a judgement call check, I'm not sure why you'd ever want to, but the system does allow for it.

Ficheall

Sparks wrote: »

Actually, you can. Unless you're pinging the mods for a judgement call check, I'm not sure why you'd ever want to, but the system does allow for it.

Really? You can't on the phone - the flag is replaced by the edit button - but thank you for spoiling my monthly witticism :P

Sparks

Ficheall wrote: »

Really? You can't on the phone - the flag is replaced by the edit button - but thank you for spoiling my monthly witticism :P

That just means you get a second try this month :P

sinbad68

Ficheall wrote: »

Really? You can't on the phone - the flag is replaced by the edit button - but thank you for spoiling my monthly witticism :P

@Ficheall, As you were were responding to my witticism

sinbad68 wrote: »

Does clicking on that button actually works ? I tried it so many times in the past without success , But in my case it could be due to an old Persian proverb which says " A knife doesn't cut it's own handle "

Then your reponse is technically a "witticism counter gambit", and it failed because you miscalculated and used Bad info

---

> you haven't used up your monthly allowance yet.:P

LorcanOToole

Yet more narcissism from another Executive member. The thought of posting some facts or an objective defense on the divisive issues never crossed this guys mind (as with the others we have heard from).

So far they have all reasoned that they should be re-elected based on experience and hard work (but not track record). Stalin was experienced and hardworking and I think he would have liked the cut of their jib.

If you vote for the personal humiliation of legends of Irish chess (Mark and Gerry) how can you be surprised to have triggered some emotive personal comment about it? Most members pay ICU fees for only one reason - to get their games rated. And regardless of fault wont there be angry participants when the ICU is not doing all in its power to get them rated? Honestly did they really expect angry members to be dead silent? Stalin would have.