Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

Options
2

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Treetopchess
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10 ✭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?


  • Options
    #33
    Sparks
    Registered Users Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #34
    zenobi
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 11 ✭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 .


  • Options
    #35
    Sparks
    Registered Users Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #36
    Zugszwang
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 39 ✭Zugszwang


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


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    phnompenhchess
    Registered Users Posts: 91 ✭✭phnompenhchess


    Zugszwang wrote: »
    @Treetopchess Wow, that's some trolling you're at!
    Yep, it's like Trollsville in here. Big yawn.


  • Options
    #38
    Treetopchess
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10 ✭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?


  • Options
    #39
    Treetopchess
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10 ✭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?


  • Options
    #40
    Treetopchess
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10 ✭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.


  • Options
    #41
    Sparks
    Registered Users Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Sparks
    Registered Users Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #43
    Treetopchess
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10 ✭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?


  • Options
    #44
    phnompenhchess
    Registered Users Posts: 91 ✭✭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.


  • Options
    #45
    Sparks
    Registered Users Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #46
    Treetopchess
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10 ✭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.


  • Options
    #47
    Sparks
    Registered Users Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #48
    Treetopchess
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10 ✭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.


  • Options
    #49
    Treetopchess
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10 ✭Treetopchess


    Sparks wrote: »
    Nope. That's not how the real world works.

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


  • Options
    #50
    Sparks
    Registered Users Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #51
    Zugszwang
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 39 ✭Zugszwang


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


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    Banrion Fichille
    Registered Users Posts: 18 ✭Banrion Fichille


    @T TROLL!
    Didn't you say: "what to expect from some of the type of people on that ghastly section of the eboards website which attracts a particularly nasty, ignorant, dishonest, duplicitous element. Well nothing could ever entice me into that viper’s nest."?
    And here you are. Ah well!
    Point of this thread is that, yet again @T TROLL!
    NUMPTIES SABOTAGE


  • Options
    #53
    caissa007
    Registered Users Posts: 60 ✭✭caissa007


    Well despite never being at an AGM or on any committee I am following the shenanigans with part horror and part amusement. As a purely non involved spectator I have to say the Banrion has won the debate in my eyes. Don't let the ahem "idiots" grind you down :-)

    PS Major own-goal for Treetopchess to engage in "objective" discussions under anonymous. Wouldn't take forensic analysis to see the similarities to chess cogitations post


  • Options
    #54
    reunion
    Registered Users Posts: 1,334 ✭✭✭reunion


    Non-mod note: All questions were answered at the AGM. This news item and this one; are looking for people to run the event; not the ICU. Additionally Colm Daly was given a provisional budget as he was on the selection sub-committee for the Irish Championships as mentioned by the secretary at the AGM. If you do think finances are that important, it would be Colm's massive blunder for not having it as a requirement, not UL's.

    Mod note: Treetopchess consider this your only and final warning. If you wish to make baseless accusations you are not welcome here at all.

    2nd Mod note: It might be time to end the AGM once and for all; and not drag it on forever. It was a low point in Irish chess from many individuals; and damage has been done to Irish chess. Lets start repairing the damage and not make the damage permanent. I will consult with the other mods but my opinion is to close this thread and other AGM related threads.


  • Options
    #55
    Myrddin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 33,733 ✭✭✭✭Myrddin


    Cmod note: Incase anyone hasn't read the Chess forum charter, please familiarize yourself with it now, specifically this part:
    Do not identify or speculate as to the identity of a poster, not only is this specific to the Chess forum, but it's a site-wide rule

    If you suspect a user has re-registered a new account in order to bypass a forum ban, by all means report the post & it will be looked at. Do not publicly speculate, part-identify, or identify any user on thread. The next occurrence of this will be met with a ban, consider this the warning.


  • Options
    #56
    brilliantboy
    Registered Users Posts: 444 ✭✭brilliantboy


    I don't see why people are so aghast at a figure of 2k for security. Seems entirely reasonable to me for 9 full days.
    And while the reception area wasn't continually manned, which may be a point of confusion for some people, I did on numerous occasions see security personnel performing their duties about the place.

    As for the finger-food at the prize-giving, I wouldn't doubt the explanation given for no finger-food appearing.
    An absurd amount of water was consumed during the week, more than anyone would have expected, so I don't doubt that the UL Chess Club would have had to redistribute some funds to keep all us sautéing chess players appeased.

    Some people want to see corruption and conspiracy in everything. Be sensible folks.


  • Options
    #57
    Chess_Coach
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 182 ✭✭Chess_Coach


    reunion wrote: »
    Non-mod note: All questions were answered at the AGM. This news item and this one; are looking for people to run the event; not the ICU. Additionally Colm Daly was given a provisional budget as he was on the selection sub-committee for the Irish Championships as mentioned by the secretary at the AGM. If you do think finances are that important, it would be Colm's massive blunder for not having it as a requirement, not UL's.

    Mod note: Treetopchess consider this your only and final warning. If you wish to make baseless accusations you are not welcome here at all.

    2nd Mod note: It might be time to end the AGM once and for all; and not drag it on forever. It was a low point in Irish chess from many individuals; and damage has been done to Irish chess. Lets start repairing the damage and not make the damage permanent. I will consult with the other mods but my opinion is to close this thread and other AGM related threads.

    @Reunion

    I would kindly ask you to do that before things go further. Naming any of the people here is just not correct . Some members are giving 100 h of free work per year for ICU and they do not deserve to be treated like this . It is time for new beginning.


  • Options
    #58
    hewhowatches
    Registered Users Posts: 8 ✭hewhowatches


    Myrddin wrote: »
    Cmod note: Incase anyone hasn't read the Chess forum charter, please familiarize yourself with it now, specifically this part:



    If you suspect a user has re-registered a new account in order to bypass a forum ban, by all means report the post & it will be looked at. Do not publicly speculate, part-identify, or identify any user on thread. The next occurrence of this will be met with a ban, consider this the warning.

    is it just me or do others notice that the chess mods here seem to be abusing their position and even their own rules on anonymity? seems they are getting all too personal with their postings. I thought the idea of being a mod was to passively monitor other contributors postings and not get drawn into debates with posters?


  • Options
    #59
    Sparks
    Registered Users Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    hewhowatches wrote: »
    I thought the idea of being a mod was to passively monitor other contributors postings and not get drawn into debates with posters?
    Nope. They're expected to be even-handed and to have a level head on their shoulders. Passivity is not a requirement (and not even a desirable attribute).


  • Options
    #60
    Myrddin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 33,733 ✭✭✭✭Myrddin


    hewhowatches wrote: »
    is it just me or do others notice that the chess mods here seem to be abusing their position and even their own rules on anonymity? seems they are getting all too personal with their postings. I thought the idea of being a mod was to passively monitor other contributors postings and not get drawn into debates with posters?

    For the second time I'll post this, if you have a problem with the mods, or myself, report posts or take it to pm. You've ignored my previous on thread warnings to posters to stay on topic & not to derail threads, so as such, you've been infracted. Do it again, & we'll try a ban out to see if that gets the message across.

    As for passive monitoring, that's exactly what I'm doing. I know nothing about Chess, what I do know though, are this site rules. Please have another go at reading the forum charter to familiarize yourself with how to post within the rules here.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    zenobi
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 11 ✭zenobi


    brilliantboy wrote: »
    I don't see why people are so aghast at a figure of 2k for security. Seems entirely reasonable to me for 9 full days.

    Speaking about being reasonable , is it reasonable to ask for invoice or proof of payment of 2000 euro for security ?, imagine if taxman came to my business and I claimed 2k for security of business but could show no proof what he would say ?. Has there ever been a case in a chess competition money was given for security ? , alot of money was spent by players for accommodation in the UL campus for rooms that otherwise would have been empty in the summer .


Advertisement