What's been going on from Mark Orr's perspective

HaraldSchmidt

pawnpusher wrote: »

pawnpusher note: you don't see your master and mentor Herr Schmitt jumping in to Mark Orr's defence unlike you who have done so blindly then again Herr Schmitt has read the Aontas report!

I haven't read the Aontas report. What I have read is a summary of the report with comments from the former webmaster to some of the points. From what I read, it was full of inaccuracies and misunderstandings about how software and websites work.

amdublin

Is it planned to make this report public?

(I note posterpawn pusher says "yet")

Either it will be accepted as an accurate record of events. Or it will give the accused the opportunity to defend himself.

From an outsider perspective seems like a lot of inuendo and backroom deals and nothing out in the open.

reunion

pawnpusher wrote: »

*snip*

pawnpusher note: I see on another blog an explanation as to a possible reason the Aontas report is not yet in the public domain...to avoid publically humiliating the offender?....(it is very detailed, factual, lengthy and damning)(I think would be there would be a huge public outcry for such a misuse of trust...that's just my opinion).

*mod note* Don't try to identify a user. And keep your posts on topic (i.e don't argue with a mod ruling. If you are against it, report the post and other mods will review it. As this report is a secret report (i.e. not public) to have read the report you are either on the executive or are Mark Orr. As Mark Orr has been verified here - his personal account is acceptable. If someone claims to have read the report and says it's says X, they need proof or a method of having read the report. Otherwise it is defamation.

FortKnox

The contents of the report are one thing the second is the use of a fair disciplinary procedure. The use of fair procedure seems to be the justification for a lot of ICU decisions (e.g. Galway rapid) this year but it does not seem to have been used in this case. Can the ICU simply outline the procedure used so we can be sure a full impartial assessment of the report was conducted? Can the ICU outline who created the report and their impartiality?
It seems for this thread that on one hand the report is too sensitive to publish and on the other it seems a lot of people have read it so why has it been selectively given to a number of members?
Assuming the report is as damming as alleged and that it justifies the severe punishment why did the ICU consider that the committee could produce the report, be judge and jury? Surely the severity of the allegation and penalty (and a report
is just as set of allegations that need to be defended and examined) warrant an impartial disciplinary committee.
I have not seen the report and I'm not sure I'm interested in seeing it but I would like to see evidence of a fair procedure.
On the other hand if the accused felt the report and process was not accurate he could appeal and there is no indication he has, that seems to be the clearest indication there is some validity to it. Regardless the question for the ICU rather than just the contents is can they stand by the process followed both to create the report and dispense “justice”?

pawnpusher

FortKnox wrote: »

On the other hand if the accused felt the report and process was not accurate he could appeal and there is no indication he has, that seems to be the clearest indication there is some validity to it.

nail on the head

cdeb

FortKnox wrote: »

On the other hand if the accused felt the report and process was not accurate he could appeal and there is no indication he has, that seems to be the clearest indication there is some validity to it.

I guess who do you appeal to if, as you say, the ICU are going to be both judge and jury?

Do you appeal to the ICU again?

reunion

FortKnox wrote: »

On the other hand if the accused felt the report and process was not accurate he could appeal and there is no indication he has, that seems to be the clearest indication there is some validity to it.

Who does he appeal to? I note the minutes didn't give an option for him to appeal. Was the option given to him?

The evidence so far states he was not given a fair trial (no record of establishing a committee to investigate an incident at the executive meeting before he was removed - some members of the executive should not have had a vote).

This is not an indication of validity as this could also indicate enormous bias and an unfair procedure.

As the membership weren't notified about this ban (horribly secretive) - this was done quickly and quietly. You can't indicate any validity to anything - even the published minutes are the draft version!

FortKnox

I don’t know how you appeal or to whom but if I was in the situation I might start by using my initiative e.g. mail the arbitration officer, secretary and chairman and demand an appeal. I could come on here and wax lyrical about the injustice and demand and appeal. No sure what the procedure would be but if I wanted to be heard I would be.
Point is we don’t know maybe the report was so damming and uncontested that there the procedure followed was correct, my ask is for the process to be outlined so that we can determine rather than speculate if it was fair.

ComDubh

I think the simplest policy is simply to await the AGM and hope that a more fair-minded set of people are elected who deal with this, and the other issues, in a calm and balanced way.

BTW, the ban on Mark Orr came up in discussions with two lawyers who said that it would a be simple case to win in court -- preventing somebody from pursuing their pastime without due process being followed would be rejected out of hand as unfair. However they also intoned ominously "the law brings no joy."

Roll on the AGM.

Sparks

ComDubh wrote: »

BTW, the ban on Mark Orr came up in discussions with two lawyers who said that it would a be simple case to win in court -- preventing somebody from pursuing their pastime without due process being followed would be rejected out of hand as unfair. However they also intoned ominously "the law brings no joy."

The ban would be the least of my worries; the ICU appear to have made some very serious charges of professional misconduct against Orr. That's potentially a defamation case with large damages due to loss of earnings unless they can prove their case.

I get the impression that they're not taking that risk seriously enough.

FortKnox wrote: »

I might start by using my initiative e.g. mail the arbitration officer, secretary and chairman and demand an appeal.

You might; I certainly wouldn't if I was in his place. The officers of the ICU are members of an unincorporated association, in other words, there's no legal structure there. Which is why they can overturn previous disciplinary hearings - even in cases known about on a national level - without so much as blinking, because any finding they come to has the same legal status as text on a chalkboard. So you wouldn't go to them as a legal remedy for something this serious, you'd go to a courtroom. The fact that he hasn't done so yet says more about his unwillingness to destroy the ICU and damage Irish Chess than it says about the report.

pawnpusher

Sparks wrote: »

The fact that he hasn't done so yet says more about his unwillingness to destroy the ICU and damage Irish Chess than it says about the report.

So he is a true hero of Irish chess in your eyes...very brave of you to jump to such a bizarre conclusion.

Anyone can go to court..all sorts of appeals are in place..we live in a fair democratic society....

a few points to consider..1) not many offenders who are proven to be guilty contest or challenge obvious decisions.

The decision was unanimous by the whole of the executive.

(I don't recall that ever happening before and there have been a few cases...perhaps the more mature posters here such as HaraldSchmidt can testify to that).

reunion

pawnpusher wrote: »

a few points to consider..1) not many offenders who are proven to be guilty contest or challenge obvious decisions.

The decision was unanimous by the whole of the executive.

(I don't recall that ever happening before and there have been a few cases...perhaps the more mature posters here such as HaraldSchmidt can testify to that).

I note you counted to 1. Well done! Doesn't constitute points (plural) though...

On your 1) point - we have no proof he was proven guilty. We do however have record (in draft minutes I might add) that the webmaster didn't address the concerns of the Aontas report. At no point does it mention he was found guilty of anything (code of conduct violation? bye-laws? what?)

On your (I guess) second point. The decision (in the draft minutes) was unanimous of those present. Not of the entire executive. There is a big difference there. If the executive were all present AND they all voted in favour, then you could say the entire executive voted unanimously of the ban. All we can conclude is that those that voted, voted to ban Mark Orr. Some could have abstained (and it wasn't noted). The minutes are not clear on what unanimously means (or if it records abstentions).

(note: unanimously for the UN means everyone no abstains - but for the EU means people can abstain)

I will also note that Mark Orr's version he says no actual vote took place!!!

As the minutes on the website are draft (so can't be taken into consideration as accurate), we do have Mark Orr's word which at the moment hold more weight then draft minutes.

sanichi wrote: »

On quizzing the secretary for further details I found out that:

* When the secretary suggested an independent committee might be the proper way to go he "was told 'No' in a rather forceful manner".
* Two members of the committee were absent, one of whom had asked for the meeting to be delayed because he was anxious to attend.
* No actual vote took place. The secretary said "the basis of which is that there was no demurring so no vote was required".
* On a request to clarify what that meant, the secretary informed me that an explanation from the chairperson himself would be forthcoming (it never arrived).

Sparks

pawnpusher wrote: »

So he is a true hero of Irish chess in your eyes...very brave of you to jump to such a bizarre conclusion.

That's not actually the conclusion I came to, nor did I jump.

Anyone can go to court..all sorts of appeals are in place..we live in a fair democratic society....

I think you need to remember how much it costs to go to court.
Even if you win, you're still out of pocket for the total amount in your section 68 letter. And for the High Court you're looking at a five-figure sum per day.

The decision was unanimous by the whole of the executive.

That doesn't appear to be supported by all the statements made so far, which seem to indicate several people were not present when the decision was made.

LorcanOToole

reunion wrote: »

I will also note that Mark Orr's version he says no actual vote took place!!!

In fairness to Pawnpusher he never said a "vote" took place either! He talks about a "unanimous decision".
Makes me wonder about article 10.3 of the constitution...

pawnpusher

reunion wrote: »

I note you counted to 1. Well done! Doesn't constitute points (plural) though...

On your 1) point - we have no proof he was proven guilty. We do however have record (in draft minutes I might add) that the webmaster didn't address the concerns of the Aontas report. At no point does it mention he was found guilty of anything (code of conduct violation? bye-laws? what?)

On your (I guess) second point. The decision (in the draft minutes) was unanimous of those present. Not of the entire executive. There is a big difference there. If the executive were all present AND they all voted in favour, then you could say the entire executive voted unanimously of the ban. All we can conclude is that those that voted, voted to ban Mark Orr. Some could have abstained (and it wasn't noted). The minutes are not clear on what unanimously means (or if it records abstentions).

(note: unanimously for the UN means everyone no abstains - but for the EU means people can abstain)

I will also note that Mark Orr's version he says no actual vote took place!!!

As the minutes on the website are draft (so can't be taken into consideration as accurate), we do have Mark Orr's word which at the moment hold more weight then draft minutes.

congratulations reunion...you managed to let a whole post up without snipping it...I notice you are trying to inflame that other unmentionable blog too...I thought you came to a peace agreement of sorts with CD? (he called you a name) not derailing...its the exact same thread over on the dark side blog as this one....irishchesscogitations.com/blog/
this thread will fizzle out soon enough... might be an idea (God forbid I get snipped for giving people ideas?) to canvass who will be voting for who at the AGM? Reading this blog it looks like the exec will be completely blown away. I am undecided on which way I will vote by the way

cdeb

Mod note - attack the post, not the poster.

You can address points made without petty sniping

HaraldSchmidt

pawnpusher wrote: »

The decision was unanimous by the whole of the executive.

(I don't recall that ever happening before and there have been a few cases...perhaps the more mature posters here such as HaraldSchmidt can testify to that).

In the three other cases of disciplinary action, separate disciplinary committees were set up. In none of them were the executive investigator, prosecutor, judge and jury.

reunion

HaraldSchmidt wrote: »

In the three other cases of disciplinary action, separate disciplinary committees were set up. In none of them were the executive investigator, prosecutor, judge and jury.

To put into context (and to take from someone else)

Mark's punishment is worth 6 acts of cheating or 4 assaults on a minor.

Hard time to defend relaxing the punishment for an individual found guilty by the ICU of using force on a minor and someone using a password that was considered vulgar. The punishment is just stupidity on the highest order...

Lecale

That's fair enough, but we still don't know what is in the Aontas report, and thus we do not know what Mark Orr was really accused of. For all we know, he could have been convicted of being in league with the Devil for using Ruby on Rails. Seems to me to be continuous speculation until those who claim that they are for transparency actually demonstrate that with some transparency on this very point. It's all very well creating a new account, saying you've read it, and making insuations but that doesn't tell us what happened.

reunion

Lecale wrote: »

That's fair enough, but we still don't know what is in the Aontas report, and thus we do not know what Mark Orr was really accused of. For all we know, he could have been convicted of being in league with the Devil for using Ruby on Rails. Seems to me to be continuous speculation until those who claim that they are for transparency actually demonstrate that with some transparency on this very point. It's all very well creating a new account, saying you've read it, and making insuations but that doesn't tell us what happened.

Every ICU member is waiting for the transparency promised by the current chair (publication of minutes (not draft version) were mandated by a motion passed at last year's AGM).

According to Mark these were the allegations:

sanichi wrote: »

In early June I received a copy of a report written by the
"ICU website's administrator" (whom I understand to be Kildea)
making a number of wild allegations against me including such things as:

* I was sending viruses in emails (I wouldn't even know how to do that),
* I had "almost certainly" copied the ICU database outside the executive (nonsense),
* I had kept data outside Ireland (the web server is physically in London, so what?),
* I had made a non-executive member an editor (perfectly normal),
* and so on and son on with stuff just being made up on the spot.

Note at no point is he found guilty of anything, rather he is given a ban.

Lecale

Those are just a few of the alleged allegations, we don't either what all the alleged allegations were or what the actual allegations were.

Sparks

Lecale wrote: »

Those are just a few of the alleged allegations, we don't either what all the alleged allegations were or what the actual allegations were.

And that level of meta in itself summarises a lot about this whole mess...

rob51

To be honest I'm not sure it really matters what the Aontas report says unless it was actually prepared by someone outside the Executive.

It is somewhat interesting who is writing it and when they will be finished. If it was finished and all these people in the know want it published I don't know why we keep seeing the seven veils act over and over.

The key issue is whether the ICU Executive complied with Article 13 of the ICU Constitution in dealing with Mark Orr. The final two sentences of that article say " In exercising these and other functions, The Executive shall ensure that the requirements of natural justice are observed before exercising its powers."

There is no doubt according to the published minutes that a severe ban was imposed on a Life Member based on a written (email ?) response to some report prepared by the Executive themselves by a decision at a committee. There is no mention of any independent disciplinary process as outlined in the relevant document on the ICU website. Perhaps the disciplinary procedure is only applied to people who violate the touched piece rule.

Of course I suppose Mark could now appeal to the Executive who I believe are very strong on members rights. Of course it is claimed they agreed unanimously without a vote and doing the same thing while expecting a different result is supposedly a definition of madness.

Maybe one or more of those executive members who frequently post here or their supporters can explain where I am wrong here. Preferably without reference to the 'Aontas report' or "I'll explain fully soon .... "

pawntof4

have you tried emailing them?

rob51

pawntof4 wrote: »

have you tried emailing them?

No since it's not a personal issue and I don't really want a private reply.

But since members of the Executive have taken the time here and on the ICU website to declare their fairness and objectivity in general I thought they would like the opportunity to explain how they were fair and objective in this specific case here or on the ICU website. And also explain how their disciplinary action against Mark met the requirements of the ICU Constitution.

Surely a simple public question for them to answer.:)

pawntof4

rob51 wrote: »

No since it's not a personal issue and I don't really want a private reply.

But since members of the Executive have taken the time here and on the ICU website to declare their fairness and objectivity in general I thought they would like the opportunity to explain how they were fair and objective in this specific case here or on the ICU website. And also explain how their disciplinary action against Mark met the requirements of the ICU Constitution.

Surely a simple public question for them to answer.:)

Maybe you should post your question on the 'very active' Facebook group

Sparks

I don't think you could publish the response you'd be likely to receive!

must have a jest

I've been following this thread with interest. The dispute is quite similar to an investigation into a website I recently conducted myself (I am an expert in digital forensics). For legal reasons, I obviously cannot give details here, just a vague idea of what happened. Unfortunately, the findings were quite disturbing and could be verified by anyone familiar with the site in question.

Basically, a former webmaster created a database of all the known enemies of (name redacted) so they could be contacted whenever necessary. Moreover, this list of names was brazenly published on the site for all to see (by clicking on "subscribed members").

What he did next was particularly petty. He duplicated this data on a separate website and was ranking the individuals in order of how likely they were to beat (name redacted) at chess. It showed just how obsessed with (name redacted) he must have been.

A special committee controlled by (name redacted) has since had some success in disabling these two sites, despite the technical difficulties involved.

I shall ultimately be releasing my findings in what I call "The Cumann Report". The title conveys gravitas and Irishness, therefore I believe its contents to be accurate.

RQ_ennis_chess

In all seriousness though, one thing I dont get about this from Marks account is when CP went to America and JOC was ready and able to take over the site, CQ found himself in the role? According to Mark, CQ wasnt even that motivated to do it so why not just let JOC do it? Maybe someone from the executive can explain cos it seems a strange decision?

ComDubh

This is a central question. JOC was eminently suitable for the Webmaster role as this is what he does professionally, he was keen to do it and Irish Chess would have been well served by letting him do it. However, the ICU exec decided against this. Why??