AGM 2015

Sparks

I wonder what argument he'd use if accused of that.
:rolleyes:

More seriously, it does depend on who paid the bill. Since it's not a .ie domain, appealing to the registrar would be more difficult. The ISP *might* agree to disable it or redirect it, but depending on the fine details, it might not be hassle-free.

Another argument for incorporation really (you have the company itself own the website, and this particular sort of handover hassle never arises).

pawntof4

reunion wrote: »

It is owned by Colm Daly but the icu have ownership. If the icu do not get control of the website to do what they please with (my suggestion is they make it a redirect to icu.ie with the view of discontinuing it's usage), then we have an individual taking icu property and website hostage.

Let's give Colm a bit of time to get things in order and hand over the site. I wonder has a request even been made yet

Sparks

pawntof4 wrote: »

Let's give Colm a bit of time to get things in order and hand over the site. I wonder has a request even been made yet

Well, that's fair enough. This isn't anyone's day job.

Tychoo

Rafael Green Violist wrote: »

I checked who.is . it looks like its owned by Colm Daly.

http://who.is/whois/irishchessunion.net

Time to remove it from being associated with the ICU website.

Sparks

Well, all the comments have been deleted off it, so that's a good start.

pawntof4

Are they censoring poor Barry? Time to get the pitch forks out lads. a regime change is needed!

uck51js9zml2yt

Guys - just an aside. I figure I should really become an ICU member to be able comment and maybe even get out my chess board( not played in years)
I'm in Cabra, so assume phibsboro is the nearest club to me.
Where do they meet (and when)?
Is anyone here a member?

cdeb

The ICU site has some good info, including a map showing all the more active chess clubs.

Phibsboro meet on Mondays and Thursdays.

uck51js9zml2yt

cdeb wrote: »

The ICU site has some good info, including a map showing all the more active chess clubs.

Phibsboro meet on Mondays and Thursdays.

Thanks. So phibsboro don't actually meet in phibsboro:) why am I surprised!
Anyone here a member?

zug_zwang

Elm Mount dont play in elm mount!
I think the Curragh now play in Kildare Town,
Celbridge played in a GAA club outside Celbridge
Phibsboro have moved about a bit but are fairly close to Phibsboro.

uck51js9zml2yt

Sparks wrote: »

Well, all the comments have been deleted off it, so that's a good start.

Sadly comments of the cogitations site remain in place.

pawntof4

in fairness it's his own personal blog and he can write what he wants. A social media policy for ICU members was suggested at the AGM and I think when that comes in it should help put a stop to some of the more obnoxious posts.

cdeb

I don't if he can - or certainly I know he shouldn't.

There's some fairly nasty stuff up there, much of it lies.

I think the stuff on the facebook page was worse - and that appeared to be an official page, so that would be the priority to change alright. But I don't think we should just accept that Colm has the right to make the kind of comments he makes carte blanche.

Arguably some of the comments could be the subject of an ICU disciplinary investigation.

Sparks

Well, he can even though most people learn enough manners in kindergarden not to come out with the kind of stuff he posts ... and he can be sued under the Defamation Act, sanctioned by the ICU and a few other things besides by those directly impacted by some of the things he's posted.

cdeb

pawntof4 wrote: »

A social media policy for ICU members was suggested at the AGM and I think when that comes in it should help put a stop to some of the more obnoxious posts.

A social media policy for exec members was proposed, not for general members.

sinbad68

cdeb wrote: »

Arguably some of the comments could be the subject of an ICU disciplinary investigation.

The last thing we all need is a witch hunt.

uck51js9zml2yt

Hes opening himself to a world of pain should any of the people named proceed with defamation cases.
I'm not even sure taking them down at this stage would do anything to prevent legal action in the event screen shots have been taken as evidence.

A social media policy could include the publishing of accusations against members by other members and require due process etc.

Sparks

sinbad68 wrote: »

The last thing we all need is a witch hunt.

From at least the 1930s, the term "witch-hunt" has been used figuratively to describe activities by governments (and, occasionally, by business entities) to seek out and expose perceived enemies, often apparently as a means of directing public opinion by fostering a degree of moral panic.

Yeah, I think you've used the wrong term there sinbad.
The whole point of the term is to suggest that innocents are being hounded without cause...

sinbad68

Sparks wrote: »

Yeah, I think you've used the wrong term there sinbad.
The whole point of the term is to suggest that innocents are being hounded without cause...

No I didn't use the wrong term here, I refer you to the much respected and beloved Oxford English dictionary . I used the word in it's informal meaning in the setting of boards.ie and Not in a historical sense which I would have used had I been in a formal setting .Click on the link below to see informal definition of "witch hunt"

" informal : A campaign directed against a person or group holding unorthodox or unpopular views."

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/witch-hunt

BTW, I couldn't find anyone to understand your opening lines from another comment

Sparks wrote: »

By which you mean that there are only two moderators and neither of them ban people so if you're banned, as they don't ban people it was Mark Zuckerberg who did it because Reasons; and of course they believe in free speech

,,,Then, I remembered that you have posted several clips from Star Trek and likely to be a trekkie, so I sent your quote to a Trekkies website to see if they could translate and reply came ,

"It's English J̶I̶M̶ .. Sinbad, But Not as we know it ! "

pawntof4

I think we need to move forward in a positive manner from both the EGM and the AGM. We shouldnt look at this as a black and white campaign of us vs them. Settling old scores shouldn't be and I don't believe will be on the new EC's agenda.

Sparks

sinbad68 wrote: »

No I didn't use the wrong term here, I refer you to the much respected and beloved Oxford English dictionary . I used the word in it's informal meaning in the setting of boards.ie and Not in a historical sense which I would have used had I been in a formal setting .Click on the link below to see informal definition of "witch hunt"

" informal : A campaign directed against a person or group holding unorthodox or unpopular views."

Yeah, that still says you used the wrong term, because in order for it to apply, Colm would have to be posting unpopular views, rather than complete nonsense. Random gibberish doesn't count as an "unpopular view" and neither does out-and-out defamation.

BTW, I couldn't find anyone to understand your opening lines from another comment

,,,Then, I remembered that you have posted several clips from Star Trek and likely to be a trekkie, so I sent your quote to a Trekkies website to see if they could translate and reply came ,

"It's English J̶I̶M̶ .. Sinbad, But Not as we know it ! "

Oh my word, how funny. Truly you are wasting your formidable talents here sinbad, talents like yours deserve to be on the stage, for all to see. You should enter the kilkenny comedy festival next year, you'd be a riot. Surely the likes of Dara O'Briain and Ed Byrne must be hoping their pensions are fully paid up because once the cameras get pointed at you, you'll put them out of work in under three minutes. Billy Connolly himself would just take any plans he had to come out of retirement and set them aside out of respect for the depth of your skill and insightfulness in the comic arena. Were he still alive, I have no doubt that the great George Carlin would fight tooth and nail with Bill Hicks to be your warm-up act. Joan Rivers would throw herself at you out of sheer awe of your incredible level of skill and dexterity with language, and Jon Stewart will personally fire Trevor Noah just to try to hire you to take over the Daily Show, but he'll have stiff competition in the bidding war from Steven Colbert. Honestly, you're doing wrong by putting this off even one minute longer, you're denying the world a truly spiritual epiphany in the comedic form by staying here, go now young man, go forth and take to the stage and give the world what it so desperately needs!

L1m1tless

Lads let's not make things personal and keep on topic.

Tim Harding

cdeb wrote: »

45 v 78 - Alex is vice chair
59 v 65 - Gerry is tournament officer
66v 57 - Chris Sheridan is treasurer
77 v 44 - Rory is development officer
56 v 64 - Andrew kildea is ratings officer

From my notes: John Delaney said 126 ballot papers were issued.
In a few of the elections, one or more votes were spoiled. (Four in the ballot for ratings officer.)
Two people apparently left without voting as 124 was the total recorded (including spoils) in each case.

Darko Polimac actually received 46 votes, 1 paper was spoiled there.

Analysing the voting, if we assume (maybe not with absolute certainty) that on each side there was bedrock support which always voted one ticket, there were 45 votes for the status quo, and 56 for change.

That leaves 23 "floating voters".
My impression (chiefly from analysing the counts) is that the floating voters were chiefly impressed by:

a) Eugene Donohue's very frank "resignation" speech; it sounded like we lost what might have been an excellent Hon. Sec. there but maybe he'll come back another year.

b) Andrew Kildea's quite convincing report on the work he had done on ratings and plans to develop them.

and were NOT impressed by the Vice-Chair's 15-minute speech.
Though the low vote he received may also of course have been because he was opposed by Alexander Baburin about whom there was of course nothing negative to say.

What we now all need is to rebuild Irish chess in a positive way (there were several calls for this from the floor, not least from the Lady Champion) but also to put a stop to personal attacks on social media and websites both official and unofficial. We should also recognise that some good things were achieved by the old executive.

Probably a new Constitution for the ICU is required but not precisely the one they proposed, and I understand professional advice will probably be taken about whether the limited company option should be adopted for the 21st century.

Also the two-year cycle for the executive that was proposed (originally by Kevin O'Connell, I think) is perhaps a good idea, though with the proviso that any officer co-opted to replace someone who resigns during year one should be required to seek election in the mid-term a.g.m.

In the meantime much clearer standing orders for agms/egms need to be drafted and posted online to avoid the kind of arguments that took up the first hour of the meeting about who's allowed to vote and what the order of business should be.

Also the not-quite-finished new disciplinary process needs to be re-examined and dealt with by an egm at an early date, so if there are still people who wish to pursue their allegations against Mark Orr (or anyone else) these can be dealt with in a structured process of natural justice and not by the kind of Star Chamber that operated last time around.

However such energies would be much better spent on developing the game. As Stephen Brady said at the meeting, we should follow the example of what Irish boxing did to reform their organisation and consequently achieve massively better results. Stephen was told by one of their committee: "We discuss things that are for the betterment of the sport." Anything else is hived off to a small sub-committee.

The new officers have a lot of work ahead of them and they need the support of everyone, not just those who voted for them.

RQ_ennis_chess

sinbad68 wrote: »

A campaign directed against a person or group holding unorthodox or unpopular views.

Its one thing to hold an unorthodox or unpopular view, its another to express it in a completely insulting, derogatory or offensive way. The ICU should have a basic code of conduct for members that would also cover comments on social media, I am surprised that we dont already have one.

rob51

Tim Harding wrote: »

What we now all need is to rebuild Irish chess in a positive way (there were several calls for this from the floor, not least from the Lady Champion) but also to put a stop to personal attacks on social media and websites both official and unofficial. We should also recognise that some good things were achieved by the old executive.

Probably a new Constitution for the ICU is required but not precisely the one they proposed, and I understand professional advice will probably be taken about whether the limited company option should be adopted for the 21st century.

Also the two-year cycle for the executive that was proposed (originally by Kevin O'Connell, I think) is perhaps a good idea, though with the proviso that any officer co-opted to replace someone who resigns during year one should be required to seek election in the mid-term a.g.m.

In the meantime much clearer standing orders for agms/egms need to be drafted and posted online to avoid the kind of arguments that took up the first hour of the meeting about who's allowed to vote and what the order of business should be.

Also the not-quite-finished new disciplinary process needs to be re-examined and dealt with by an egm at an early date, so if there are still people who wish to pursue their allegations against Mark Orr (or anyone else) these can be dealt with in a structured process of natural justice and not by the kind of Star Chamber that operated last time around.

The new officers have a lot of work ahead of them and they need the support of everyone, not just those who voted for them.

Interesting analysis though I found it quite surprising given the handling of the AGM etc. that most of the incumbent executive got so much support.

i don't think any constitution could cope with a situation where the Chair wilfully ignores it. The best point coming from the EGM (proposed by Darko) was that an independent disciplinary committee should be elected at the AGM to deal with any such issues.

Given the events of the last year I'd say a two year term is a non-runner. If people are doing a good job then hopefully the members will have enough good sense to re-elect them.

Tim Harding

As you say, "I found it quite surprising given the handling of the AGM etc. that most of the incumbent executive got so much support."

It seems that there was a hard core of guaranteed support for Fitzsimons and co. (and for the McMorrow team) who had decided before they arrived who they would vote for.

cdeb

One thing I noted was that five of the exec didn't present a report to the AGM - the vice chair, the development officer, the FIDE delegate (who wasn't in attendance), the tournament officer and the PRO.

The development officer was the only one of the five to at least have had a report on icu.ie - but it wasn't mentioned at all in the AGM.

The FIDE delegate lives out of the country and I think usually submits a report; my understanding is he's highly regarded in his position. I don't know why there was no report this year.

But is it not bad form for an exec officer to not account for his tenure at the AGM? The vice chair gave no report but was standing for re-election. The development officer was also standing for re-election. The PRO, we can but assume, did nothing all year. Did the tournament officer organise any tournaments?

I don't know is there - or should there be - a requirement that all officers give a report to the AGM?

sinbad68

Tim Harding wrote: »

As you say, "I found it quite surprising given the handling of the AGM etc. that most of the incumbent executive got so much support."

It seems that there was a hard core of guaranteed support for Fitzsimons and co. (and for the McMorrow team) who had decided before they arrived who they would vote for.

Pat & his team have been involved in chess for a long time and have build friendship with some members of ICU over time and would have contacted them to get them out to vote. Pat is a pleasant and gentle guy. I was contacted by phone by 2 different ICU members to come and vote and got a pm here as well.I said over phone that I expected John will win and if any of Pat's team survive it would be the rating officer which I posted earlier here shouldn't have been challenged in first place as he was doing a fine job, rating tournaments.

I am impressed by John Mcmorrow so far, to get yourself to be chosen as the head of a team running for executive, being a virtual unknown in irish chess is no easy task and so far he appears level-headed.

When it comes to diplomacy & politics, there is no one I respect more than Charles Maurice de Talleyrand-Périgord, If the new chairman was to take a leaf out of his book, he would call Pat and have a pint with him over a game of chess and mend fences, life is too short. Pat was heavily involved in glorney for the past couple of years and did an excellent job and perhaps he could be offered to do it next year again ?. If in other hand as one or two here have suggested, disciplinary meetings and settling scores, remember this , with all the trouble and upheaval in ICU & chess community in the past year and Pat's opponent busing people from all corners of the country, he was defeated by 9 votes only , do his opponents think, they can generate the same level of enthusiasm and turnout for vote next year as they did this year if they generate resentment and Pat's team decides to run for election again?

Yreval

(full disclosure: I was one of the four Ulster attendees who were denied ballot papers)

Indeed, this was a good day for Irish chess - hopefully we can now get back to playing chess instead of politics.

I just saw Damien's write-up of the meeting and was reminded of what had to be the most bizarre moment of the day. Damien has a well-earned reputation for exaggerating certain details, but the following actually happened:

Confused? We were! But not as confused as the member of the board who was trying to repeatedly tell us that we had to be members for the 1914/1915 membership year! Jesus I knew the sitting board were in the trenches I just didn’t realise that some of them were still back in Flanders.

He repeated it multiple times, too. Unbelievable.

RQ_ennis_chess

That guy was probably just nervous and got mixed up. I thought it was wrong that ye weren't allowed to vote. The exec seemed to be justifying their decision with reference to some bye laws but as someone else pointed out, think it was Gerry Graham, where constitution and bye laws conflict, constitution should take precedence