AGM 2015

reunion · 13-10-2015 8:58am

RQ_ennis_chess wrote: »

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.

See the problem is you can't discipline an ICU member for free speech. That's just crazy.

You can discipline them if they say this on an official medium.

We also have an example this year of an executive abusing the disciplinary process, god knows how bad it would have been if they could have also started discipling everyone who criticised them.

reunion · 13-10-2015 9:46am

cdeb wrote: »

One thing I noted was that four 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) and the PRO.

...

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

Just to note, the FIDE officer isn't an executive officer. So that's understandable why there was no report (so the other non-executive positions would also not require a report). Though the delegate report is available online

It is not usual for a vice-chair to issue a report (I can't find any on the ICU site). The PRO not having a report is disgraceful - the PRO is essential to an organisation.

Ballynafeigh Chess · 13-10-2015 10:00am

sinbad68 wrote: »

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.

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

*snip*

Firstly I apologise for not being able to use the multi quote option either i'm using it wrong or my antiquated laptop won’t recognise it.

I’m not trying to take things out of context by shortening your actual sentence but some of your phrases are multi functional yet singularly directed. That is, read in a full sentence they can be explained several ways yet the explanation will never blunt the point of the phrase.

“being a virtual unknown” This clearly implies that he was undeserving of the position, that in your eyes he hadn’t served his apprenticeship in Irish chess otherwise why would you draw reference to it?

“busing people from all corners of the country” This is a complete nonsense and you should retract it straight away without delay! It implies heavily that the election was flawed and that skulduggery and election tricks won the day. That is not true!

There was no “BUS” this was a myth perpetuated by the previous board on other sites on the run up to the AGM. This myth was reinforced by the vice chair at the meeting not once but three times!

“People from all over the country” Of course the membership of the ICU come from all over the country the clue is in the name. ICU stands for wait for it ... take a deep breath the Irish Chess Union whose members come from Ireland. Do you think that only members from one geographical area should have a say in the running of the ICU?

*snip*

reunion · 13-10-2015 10:25am

Ballynafeigh Chess wrote: »

Do you think that only members from one geographical area should have a say in the running of the ICU?]

yes Ireland :pac:

*mod note* attack the post not the poster

mikhail · 13-10-2015 2:49pm

Yreval wrote: »

...

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.

That was Peter Scott, who ran the Leinster leagues until recently and developed the software and website used to manage them. I think he was also involved in certain tournaments (City of Dublin?). While I didn't agree with him on denying you folks a vote*, I just wanted to point out Peter's track record. He did a huge amount of work for the LCU over a long time.

* It was highlighted here at the time that the 2014/15 membership seemed to have closed strangely early, though perhaps it was simply not a contentious issue previously.

sinbad68 · 13-10-2015 2:59pm

Ballynafeigh Chess wrote: »

Firstly I apologise for not being able to use the multi quote option either i'm using it wrong or my antiquated laptop won’t recognise it.

Multi quote is simple , information available in boards.ie, search in forums , use HELP , or pm any of the moderators here

Ballynafeigh Chess wrote: »

I’m not trying to take things out of context by shortening your actual sentence but some of your phrases are multi functional yet singularly directed. That is, read in a full sentence they can be explained several ways yet the explanation will never blunt the point of the phrase.

I think you have a Negative mind & totally misunderstood my post which was calling for reconciliation & moving forward.

Ballynafeigh Chess wrote: »

“being a virtual unknown” This clearly implies that he was undeserving of the position, that in your eyes he hadn’t served his apprenticeship in Irish chess otherwise why would you draw reference to it?

I was praising John Mcmorrow and not berating as your false impression implies, His team believe in him and chose him to run as chairman despite lack of experience, so he must have some fine qualities.

Ballynafeigh Chess wrote: »

“busing people from all corners of the country” This is a complete nonsense and you should retract it straight away without delay! It implies heavily that the election was flawed and that skulduggery and election tricks won the day. That is not true!

There is NOTHING wrong to transport your supporters as a group to the ballot box and it also cuts down on green gas emissions.You are not making any sense here.

Ballynafeigh Chess wrote: »

“People from all over the country” Of course the membership of the ICU come from all over the country the clue is in the name. ICU stands for wait for it ... take a deep breath the Irish Chess Union whose members come from Ireland. Do you think that only members from one geographical area should have a say in the running of the ICU?

It is good that people from all over took interest and came to the AGM. I think it would be better if ICU introduced internet/postal voting, so members don't have to travel long distances to come & vote and a lot more votes would be casted in an election. Names of those who voted & the way they voted should be published to avoid fraud.

Mr ballynafeigh . What I meant in regards to "busing" people and "all over the country " I was simply referring to "all the efforts" made by anti-Pat group. You took my innocent post which was calling for reconciliation & peace between parties & moving forward and not getting stuck in the past and made it look like a Post full of vitriol !. Perhaps you spent battling "Harry the horse" for so long. that now you can't stop fighting ?. he is not around, so you decided to pick on Sinbad ? ( bad habits die hard ). I hope you retract your post and I don't need your apology.:cool:

pawntof4 · 13-10-2015 3:00pm

mikhail wrote: »

That was Peter Scott, who ran the Leinster leagues until recently and developed the software and website used to manage them. I think he was also involved in certain tournaments (City of Dublin?). While I didn't agree with him on denying you folks a vote*, I just wanted to point out Peter's track record. He did a huge amount of work for the LCU over a long time.

* It was highlighted here at the time that the 2014/15 membership seemed to have closed strangely early, though perhaps it was simply not a contentious issue previously.

Far too much criticism of the previous EC is being seen on here. They lost due to some poor decisions over the previous year but they shouldn't be hammered for eternity and to keep nit picking on a minor error a guy made due to nerves or whatever is completely uncalled for.

Especially for guy like Peter who's name has been a consistantly associated with the good work in irish chess over the years

Tychoo · 13-10-2015 3:12pm

Next years AGM should be held outside Dublin, perhaps Athlone then we all can take the bus.
Just as an aside when was the last AGM held outside Dublin?

cdeb · 13-10-2015 3:32pm

sinbad68 wrote: »

Names of those who voted & the way they voted should be published to avoid fraud.

Is that constitutional?

I don't mind saying which I voted - you can guess, I'm sure - but to change from a secret ballot to an open ballot would be a big change, and one which many members may be uncomfortable with.

Nothing wrong with postal voting in theory - except of course for the potential element of fraud that you note. Hard to know which way to go with that. The first time Barry Boswell has his vote published will be the last time postal voting is allowed!

RQ_ennis_chess · 13-10-2015 5:55pm

reunion wrote: »

See the problem is you can't discipline an ICU member for free speech. That's just crazy.

Maybe you can explain hows its crazy then cos I am not quite following you?

We all know that, thankfully, we live in a country where there is freedom of speech. Thats obviously a good thing as it lends itself to healthy debate. Freedom of speech does not mean that a person can post whatever they like and expect that there will be no consequences for them. Anytime a person publishes something there are potential consequences. These might include wanting to join an organisation that doesnt want you as a member.

sinbad68 · 13-10-2015 8:32pm

cdeb wrote: »

Is that constitutional?

I don't mind saying which I voted - you can guess, I'm sure - but to change from a secret ballot to an open ballot would be a big change, and one which many members may be uncomfortable with.

Nothing wrong with postal voting in theory - except of course for the potential element of fraud that you note. Hard to know which way to go with that. The first time Barry Boswell has his vote published will be the last time postal voting is allowed!

As I said before, the constitution was written by gray haired men sipping ethanol and can be changed/amended. Internet voting will allow a lot more people to take part in election and will make it much more difficult for a small radical group to take over the ICU .If you don't want to vote online then come to the AGM and vote in secret.If you wanted to , you could broadcast the AGM LIVE like a webinar and you could vote online which is available as option on webinars. I don't understand why anyone should be scared of people finding which way they voted ? No one will be tied to a tree and given 30 lashes for their candidate preference. It might effect the executive that work together and they can vote in secret in agm.

Some distasteful material written on ballynafeigh site, targeting our only GM.There is No need for this ........

wrote:

I must admit I was pleasantly surprised to know that the current ICU chairman irrespective of his boyish charms and youthful good looks has a good grasp of modern Belfast diplomacy and he knew how to get heavy; not as heavy as big Alex but then again who could. I thought that in the spirit of generosity and goodwill that I would yield to his wish. Well that and also the fact that nobody in their right mind wants Big Alex Baburin sitting on them!

cdeb · 13-10-2015 9:22pm

All well and good - and in general, I'm agreeing with you - but you still haven't addressed the issue of dodgy voting.

Not being scared of which way you voted doesn't mean you should be forced to reveal who you voted for in a secret ballot. General Elections are secret ballots, but you don't see a website listing who everyone voted for.

Sparks · 13-10-2015 10:00pm

sinbad68 wrote: »

Internet voting will allow a lot more people to take part in election

Possibly even more than join the ICU, which is the problem.
Incidentally, you won't find a single professional anywhere who will tell you that setting up an internet voting system is an easy thing to do, because it isn't.
That's why nobody does it for anything important enough to take votes on.

Postal voting is a different kettle of fish, as is proxy voting; both are extensively used in other sports, no reason why they couldn't work for chess.

I don't understand why anyone should be scared of people finding which way they voted?

If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear?
Seriously? That notion is still going around in this day and age?

sinbad68 · 13-10-2015 10:28pm

cdeb wrote: »

All well and good - and in general, I'm agreeing with you - but you still haven't addressed the issue of dodgy voting.

I don't really know what you mean by dodgy voting ?!.
Those who vote online have their names published, Obviously you don't release that until you've added the secret votes and have a total tally and election results.

As for internet voting, I have attended many WEBINARS, and have to vote for variety of options several times (usually about 3-4 times) during the hour long webinar and poll result is instant, I think they are doing the poll not just for my opinion but also to make sure I am watching the bloody thing.There are many webinar sites and you don't need a professional IT guy to come to you , The method of voting doesn't matter, you can e-mail your preferences or log into ICU site and vote there or post your vote, it doesn't matter which way you vote, as long as names and voting preference is published and people can check the result site to see if their name is there or not and in which column .

Sparks · 13-10-2015 10:53pm

sinbad68 wrote: »

As for internet voting, I have attended many WEBINARS, and have to vote for variety of options several times (usually about 3-4 times) during the hour long webinar and poll result is instant, I think they are doing the poll not just for my opinion but also to make sure I am watching the bloody thing.There are many webinar sites and you don't need a professional IT guy to come to you , The method of voting doesn't matter, you can e-mail your preferences or log into ICU site and vote there or post your vote, it doesn't matter which way you vote, as long as names and voting preference is published and people can check the result site to see if their name is there or not and in which column .

Yeah, that's just wrong.
First off, those sites are for people who are paying to go to them and aren't doing it in bad faith. Voting security is not a design requirement. They're quick polls, not designed to collate votes accurately in the presence of people who'd try to compromise the vote.

There is a reason that you don't see countries using internet voting. Electronic voting in some places, yes; but not over the internet. And the reason is kindof simple - we don't know how to do it securely and verifiably yet. It's an unsolved problem (even plain electronic voting has had major issues, both here and in places like the US where diebold have been the center of many serious questions like "why could we access the vote totals during a live election via wifi from the car park with nobody knowing about it?")

Postal votes however, would be workable. Even things like people faking votes to rig the polls would be preventable to a large extent. For example;

the members who want a postal vote contact the ICU;
the ICU prints the ballots and posts them to the members who want to vote by post;
the ICU prints a code on each ballot for verifying authenticity - it would be relatively easy to produce such a code; for example, pick a random number for every person who wants to vote by post and get the MD5 hash of that number and use that as the code. Only the ICU knows the random numbers; anyone looking to fake a vote can't produce a valid MD5 hash. If someone copies a ballot and sends it in with a different vote, the ICU contacts the voter directly to sort it out (so all votes have to be in by a deadline a little ahead of the AGM to let things like that get sorted);
the ICU tallies the votes once the postal deadline is passed and adds the later AGM votes to them.

Not rocket science; quite easy to do. Your main issue is going to be data protection really, as you'll have ballots with names on them.

sinbad68 · 13-10-2015 11:29pm

Sparks wrote: »

Yeah, that's just wrong.
First off, those sites are for people who are paying to go to them and aren't doing it in bad faith. Voting security is not a design requirement. They're quick polls, not designed to collate votes accurately in the presence of people who'd try to compromise the vote.

I'm sure by"in bad faith" you meant" in good faith ". I suggested webinar as a way of Live broadcasting AGM and in webinar you can ask live questions and I asked a guy giving the talk, if he could see which way I voted and he said "YES" and told me what my vote was, Perhaps you are not aware of advances in webinar?.As I said, The method of voting is NOT important , if fraud is committed " IT WILL BE DETECTED" once names are published and everyone can see who voted for who, except for those who voted in the AGM , Those in the AGM have the option of secret ballot or vote in open. Anyway I am not interested in another pointless argument with you.

Sparks · 13-10-2015 11:42pm

sinbad68 wrote: »

I'm sure by"in bad faith" you meant" in good faith ".

Why would anyone pay to go to a web course in bad faith?
I mean, it would take a special brand of person to deliberately try to disrupt something - and pay for the privilege - just for jollies.

As I said, The method of voting is NOT important

Oh. Well in that case let's save the trouble of a stamp and just roll dice. It'll be just as free from stuffed ballot boxes and far faster and cheaper to boot.

if fraud is committed " IT WILL BE DETECTED" once names are published and everyone can see who voted for who, except for those who voted in the AGM , Those in the AGM have the option of secret ballot or vote in open.

So, apart from you wanting to use internet voting because Reasons, is there any particular advantage to changing from a closed to an open ballot, given that peer pressure affects open ballots so much that we don't use them for anything of any importance in this country or any other?

Tychoo · 14-10-2015 12:38pm

I see the link to irishchessunion.net has been removed from the home page of the ICU website, now only the ICU.ie and the ratings are accredited.

sinbad68 · 15-10-2015 4:32pm

Analysis of voting in agm, While Pat's votes were all solidly Pro-Pat, John's votes were mostly Anti-Pat rather being Pro-John which makes much of John's support, soft . I hope the new executive does not rest on it's laurels and acts wisely, or in the next agm, they could have a real fight on their hand.

brilliantboy · 15-10-2015 4:37pm

sinbad68 wrote: »

Analysis of voting in agm, While Pat's votes were all solidly Pro-Pat, John's votes were mostly Anti-Pat rather being Pro-John which makes much of John's support, soft . I hope the new executive does not rest on it's laurels and acts wisely, or in the next agm, they could have a real fight on their hand.

Another way of looking at it is that the members who voted for John were taking the facts of the previous year into account and deciding that a change of executive was in the best interests of Irish chess, while those who voted for Pat were voting for their boy.

Sparks · 15-10-2015 5:47pm

sinbad68 wrote: »

Analysis of voting in agm...

...would require data you do not have, namely who voted for whom.
So what you actually should have said was "Speculation about the voting in the agm..."

Ballynafeigh Chess · 15-10-2015 8:29pm

sinbad68 wrote: »

Analysis of voting in agm..... and so on

Can you not move on.... there is no accurate analysis without full discovery which you don't have!
The only thing you have now is "best guesstimation" which is never enough to be definitive about any subject.

It's abundantly clear that the new make up of the ICU board is sticking in your craw with some considerable pain, would you not consider talking to John or another board member to see if they can ease you fears

sinbad68 · 15-10-2015 10:18pm

brilliantboy wrote: »

Another way of looking at it is that the members who voted for John were taking the facts of the previous year into account and deciding that a change of executive was in the best interests of Irish chess, while those who voted for Pat were voting for their boy.

Exactly!. As for the election result, Irish chess needed a change and it happened, If there was no change , there would have been continuation of fighting, stress and grief for all the parties involved for another year.

uck51js9zml2yt · 16-10-2015 4:31pm

sinbad68 wrote: »

Exactly!. As for the election result, Irish chess needed a change and it happened, If there was no change , there would have been continuation of fighting, stress and grief for all the parties involved for another year.

On the other side, we are potentially missing out on some humdingers of threads because of the change

/Gets coat !

HaraldSchmidt · 19-10-2015 5:02pm

Sparks wrote: »

Yeah, that's just wrong.
First off, those sites are for people who are paying to go to them and aren't doing it in bad faith. Voting security is not a design requirement. They're quick polls, not designed to collate votes accurately in the presence of people who'd try to compromise the vote.

All voting schemes, as far as I can tell require trusted people. Voting online would require that the webmaster was trustworthy, as anybody with access to the server could rig the vote.

The same for postal votes. If a machine records the MD5 hashes of the vote ids, then the machine can be altered with new votes.

There are probably similar arguments for voting in person at the AGM, but so far nobody has raised any objections, and appointing 3 people to count them appears to make it very difficult to cheat. No doubt a Keith Barry or Derren Brown could fix the vote, but as they are not likely to have skin in the game, we can discount this for now.

Sparks · 19-10-2015 5:29pm

HaraldSchmidt wrote: »

All voting schemes, as far as I can tell require trusted people. Voting online would require that the webmaster was trustworthy, as anybody with access to the server could rig the vote.

The webmaster, the sysadmin, the ISP and their entire staff, every ISP of every ICU member and the sysadmins of all the machines between them and the ICU website. And that's a lot of machines - traceroute puts at least twenty machines and four companies between me and it right now for example.

Basically, lots of people have tried this; it's been an active research area for decades; and nobody's managed it yet. I don't think the ICU volunteers will manage it in their spare time, and that's not me being condescending because I've seen the code that runs the ICU website and I think it's top-notch work; it's just really that big and difficult a problem.

The same for postal votes. If a machine records the MD5 hashes of the vote ids, then the machine can be altered with new votes.

Indeed; but the files there are all local and only the person with access to that machine can adjust them; the MD5 hashes can be printed out for storage by other people for cross-checks (edit: you'd probably just print out the random numbers, not the MD5s); and the committee has physical access to the ballot papers anyway. In terms of attack surface, it's much smaller than internet voting; and trying to defend the remaining attack surface would be meaningless anyway -- if the counters are committed to subverting the vote through nefarious perfidy, then there's nothing any system - including showing up in person can do to be perfect (and if you think showing up in person can't be influenced, try assaulting a few people outside the AGMs and see if that drops your voting numbers to the point where the majority never ever show up).

Not to mention there's the small matter of those who have lives, families, jobs and so on, not having nine hours spare on a Saturday to travel to Dublin and sit through an AGM to vote. Some people aren't that time-rich or money-rich, and they're essentially being disenfranchised by the current system. If you have a thousand people on your books as members and less than a hundred show up to the most contentious AGM in years... well, I'd say you had one of two problems. Either your voting system doesn't work, or none of your members care what you do. Neither of those two is good.

Tim Harding · 19-10-2015 9:15pm

Very strange goings on in the English Chess Federation which had its agm last Saturday. They don't have one member one vote but some very complicated system where some attending had one vote, some had numerous proxies and others were just observing.

They also have a "not this candidate" option (like students' unions' "reopen nominations" option) where there is only one candidate, so (s)he is not automatically elected.

Their CEO faced no opponent but was heavily defeated, so they don't have one now. One of their former board was also kicked out despite nobody standing against him.

The funniest thing was the vote for International Director where the incumbent (David Openshaw) was announced to have won by two votes (141-139) against Malcolm Pein (of Chess & Bridge, London Chess Classic etc).

Malcolm, who was returned unopposed as their FIDE delegate (a non-executive position), had to leave before the count was completed.

The counts were announced just before the meeting had to end at 6.30pm (kicked out of the building I suppose).

On Sunday somebody noticed those figures implied a very high number of abstentions or else missing votes so there was a recount today with an extra teller who knew nothing about chess or the people involved.
They found one more vote for Openshaw and lots more for Malcolm.

The outcome is the third news item at http://www.englishchess.org.uk/ (it was top but they are trying to bury the gaffe, it seems).

It couldn't happen here, could it?

uck51js9zml2yt · 19-10-2015 10:57pm

Tim Harding wrote: »

It couldn't happen here, could it?

No....Maybe...Possibly....I dont know :cool:

Ballynafeigh Chess · 20-10-2015 9:37am

Well there is a member of the ICU board who thinks that individual members shouldn't have a right to vote that his/her club should elect a delegate who should vote on their behalf, let's remember the phrase he used for individuals having a vote, oh yes "mob rule"

Delegates sound very efficient except when you think that a club with 200 members would have the same clout as a club with 8 members and would be heavily defeated in any vote where four or five tiny clubs banded together even though they could be supplying the I.C.U with five times the income of the other five clubs combined. It is an undemocratic recipe for enticing corruption and fostering animosity.

HaraldSchmidt · 20-10-2015 9:51am

The one vote per club works quite well in the LCU. It's actually two votes per club, if two delegates attend the AGM. It also works in the GAA, but there are so many clubs, that the big clubs against the small clubs is probably not a factor.

But getting the members of the ICU to relinquish their votes in favour of clubs is not going to happen.

cdeb · 20-10-2015 10:01am

I think this has been brought up before, and the general consensus is that clubs aren't members of the ICU, whereas they are members of the LCU. So clubs can vote at the LCU AGM, but not at the ICU AGM.

Seems logical anyway. Which isn't to say it shouldn't be changed if there was a better system.

brilliantboy · 20-10-2015 3:15pm

It's a silly idea. Not every ICU member is a member of a club and even those who are can have different opinions to the majority of their clubmates. Every player who pays their membership fee should be entitled to their say in the running of their union.

AGM 2015

Comments