So, do you support the ACF webmaster being made a paid position or not?Originally Posted by Firegoat7
So, do you support the ACF webmaster being made a paid position or not?
Note: I have poster antichrist on ignore. On no account should anyone assume that I agree with, or am unable to refute, any comment by poster antichrist, simply because I have not responded to it. Chances are I have not even seen it. I am also sometimes denied the ability of reply to false accusations in the shoutbox.
???????????? off you passive aggressive.
Last edited by george; 31-08-16 at 10:17 AM. Reason: Such language is unecessary.
AC: 20-6-20-> ...I did tell them how chess improves people in many aspects. I had better start buying their paper.
I believe these days a modern multi faceted approach to on-line presence is essential. To achieve an "effective" look/relevant content is an essential fact of life for any large organisation especially one which represents 10's of thousands of people albeit in a social/sporting aspect.
I believe a thorough discussion and an analysis of current ACF online presence needs to be undertaken and its adequacy/relevance to modern formats discussed.
This point of on-line presence by ACF may or may not have already been discussed by ACF Council but if it has I believe it needs to be revisited.
If changes/updates are required it is then up to ACF to determine a methodology for change. If the desired change has not been achieved by one method (volunteer webmaster) then perhaps it is time to make such a position "paid" in some form or other. With a "paid" position a more professional level of result would be expected and the position held accountable.
The ACF may decide that the current on-line presence of ACF Website , ACF Newsletter and Chesschat is sufficient and that "form" (relevancy of presentation) is not important to chessplayers. I think these are important issues that need to be discussed and acted on. I am not up with the latest trends in website presentation but expect the ACF Council will either have that knowledge or be able to seek an expert opinion.
Again I must point out I am NOT "having a go" at the current ACF Webmaster whom I believe is a volunteer but believe this point should be addressed/discussed by ACF Council.
This statement is a clear example of the pathetically paranoid authoritarianism that dominates elite levels of Australian chess officialdom. In this country there are multitudes of volunteers at the grass root levels of chess who volunteer countless hours to improve the game. Virtually none of them would even think about copyrighting their efforts to prevent people accessing chess resources. The ACF is a non profit organisation that ought to be building networks and extending support across the whole country towards the building of a national chess culture. They should not be wasting volunteer effort on protectionism, information control and legal coercion.
This paranoid insular viewpoint is out of line with the reality of online open source sharing of information that dominates the internet landscape. Virtually anybody should be encouraged to share chess ratings (hence information). In fact, most open source software companies grant people free licenses and more often then not encourage the spread of information. Instead of copyrighting the ACF rating system the ACF should have operated under the principle of 'Copyleft'. Yet another missed opportunity!
KB writes "...It is also not reasonable to object to the copyrighting of ratings data"
In fact the complete opposite is true.
It is completely reasonable to object to the copyrighting of ratings data.
Furthermore, it is simply undemocratic,unreasonable and intolerant to suggest that other people should not be allowed to express different articulated viewpoints on the subject of copyrighting ratings data.
KBs outdated viewpoint is symptomatic of paranoid authoritarianism, an elite controlled viewpoint, that seeks to dominate all discussion about chess from the top. It is just wrong
cheers,
Last edited by Firegoat7; 31-08-16 at 06:37 PM.
AC: 20-6-20-> ...I did tell them how chess improves people in many aspects. I had better start buying their paper.
Well here we have it. You're abusive, then you're asked a reasonable question in a reasonable tone and you respond with vulgar abuse (and there was worse in the shoutbox).
Of course you avoided the question. If you say you agree then you look silly because you have objected to other officebearers even having their expenses paid. If you say you disagree then you pull the rug out from under george's feet because it hardly demonstrates that this site is useful if a complaint leads to a suggestion that even the complainer doesn't agree with.
Note: I have poster antichrist on ignore. On no account should anyone assume that I agree with, or am unable to refute, any comment by poster antichrist, simply because I have not responded to it. Chances are I have not even seen it. I am also sometimes denied the ability of reply to false accusations in the shoutbox.
But it is not paranoid. I'm not quite sure what rock you were hiding under when a certain Guru was attempting to set up a rival commercial ratings product that sponged off the ACF's data but you clearly spent much too much time under it.
One of your many great weaknesses is a tendency to go into theoretical political rants that use big words like "authoritarianism" without bothering to investigate the facts.
Again, theoretical dribble. Very little effort has been involved in setting up the controls and since they were set up we have not needed to resort to any actual coercion to enforce them as people have complied.They should not be wasting volunteer effort on protectionism, information control and legal coercion.
Except when it doesn't. In the ACF's case there are strong reasons to retain control that do not apply to the open-source software situations you refer to in your analogy. Firstly the ratings system is in effect a source of ACF revenue; if we give away the data and let people set up parallel services using it then we lose money and cannot provide services. There is simply no way for us to make up the shortfall - we wouldn't have a donation stream and nor would anyone share anything useful with us in return. Secondly a situation in which there were multiple ratings systems with some states or clubs using one (for serious level tournaments) and some using another is clearly not in the interests of Australian chess - there should be a single national ratings system at least for classic rated adult tournaments. Theoretical piffle that ignores the empirical threat created by commercial companies wanting to set up their own ratings systems for profit (and without even a clue about how to run a good ratings system as the Tornelo shambles has often demonstrated) is useless.This paranoid insular viewpoint is out of line with the reality of online open source sharing of information that dominates the internet landscape.
No-one is suggesting you should not be allowed to express your clueless and ridiculous viewpoint. It is dishonest and idiotic to suggest anyone is suggesting this.Furthermore, it is simply undemocratic,unreasonable and intolerant to suggest that other people should not be allowed to express different articulated viewpoints on the subject of copyrighting ratings data.
Last edited by HydraTED; 31-08-16 at 01:18 PM.
Note: I have poster antichrist on ignore. On no account should anyone assume that I agree with, or am unable to refute, any comment by poster antichrist, simply because I have not responded to it. Chances are I have not even seen it. I am also sometimes denied the ability of reply to false accusations in the shoutbox.
Case 1: KB talks protectionist authoritarianism nonsense.
Case 2: KB gets called out on talking bullshit
Case 3: KB denies (as Axiom has already pointed out) , contradicting everything he previously said..He then tries to claim some imaginary moral high ground on the subject.
Conclusion: KB is a lying weasel who basically has no back bone or morality.
AC: 20-6-20-> ...I did tell them how chess improves people in many aspects. I had better start buying their paper.
*yawn* As usual when he has lost the debate sookgoat slings ambit unsubstantiated insults then talks to himself in the mirror at the end.
Note: I have poster antichrist on ignore. On no account should anyone assume that I agree with, or am unable to refute, any comment by poster antichrist, simply because I have not responded to it. Chances are I have not even seen it. I am also sometimes denied the ability of reply to false accusations in the shoutbox.
Yet again you are confused. The mention of goalpost-moving on this thread was by me and about Axiom. Get it now?
And yet again you are a hypocrite. I have answered all four questions I was asked on this thread, as well as others in the shoutbox. You were asked one very simple question - "So, do you support the ACF webmaster being made a paid position or not?" and responded by swearing to the point that you were moderated. You still have not answered the question!
Remaining unsubstantiated dribble ignored. Dishing out insults you have no hope of substantiating reflects poorly even on you.
(more of same idiocy in post below, evidence-free zone, not worth responding to)
Last edited by HydraTED; 01-09-16 at 12:05 PM.
Note: I have poster antichrist on ignore. On no account should anyone assume that I agree with, or am unable to refute, any comment by poster antichrist, simply because I have not responded to it. Chances are I have not even seen it. I am also sometimes denied the ability of reply to false accusations in the shoutbox.
Nothing to see here people, move along. Post 40 just confirms everything said in post 39 yada yada yada KB being KB defelction, abuse, goalpost shifting etc etc
AC: 20-6-20-> ...I did tell them how chess improves people in many aspects. I had better start buying their paper.
ACF Could Find The Money, If It Wanted To
No.
The ACF has a budget. They use the budget to send you and likely other individuals around the world. The suggestion is perhaps that money could be spent on a web development company in Sydney, and this company can spruce up the ACF website.
Doesn't sound like a bad idea to me.
.
"The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing."
~ Isaiah Berlin ~
That is not george's suggestion. He has not, so far, suggested the money come from any particular quarter and while I cannot speak for him, I would be surprised if he would support funding the website at the expense of our representation at FIDE Congresses.
It is also not firegoat's suggestion as he has repeatedly refused to say whether he supports spending money on the website at all.
So it is something silly you have made up having, as usual, blown into a debate that is over your head without paying the slightest attention.
Even if what you say was the suggestion, it would still be the case that those failing to volunteer were the direct cause of the idea of paying for the website even needing to be considered. It would follow that by whining while failing to volunteer, they were potentially costing the ACF money, and it would follow even more strongly that the whiners were a waste of space.
Perhaps web services could be funded by a fee-per-whine system. Monetarise whinging laziness so that firegoat donates $5 every time he complains with an extra $10 for every error of fact and $50 if he has to be moderated.
Note: I have poster antichrist on ignore. On no account should anyone assume that I agree with, or am unable to refute, any comment by poster antichrist, simply because I have not responded to it. Chances are I have not even seen it. I am also sometimes denied the ability of reply to false accusations in the shoutbox.
A possible solution as been offered numerous times from numerous individuals.
Could you please address the idea that the said position be incentivised?!
"Don't let the snow get down the back of your pants" ~ SCT
So far as discussion here goes, I am still waiting for firegoat to address it.
Time for a periodic reminder that this site is unfit for serious discussion of Australian chess issues. I just post here on them to take out the copious trash generated by the locals.
Note: I have poster antichrist on ignore. On no account should anyone assume that I agree with, or am unable to refute, any comment by poster antichrist, simply because I have not responded to it. Chances are I have not even seen it. I am also sometimes denied the ability of reply to false accusations in the shoutbox.
Attempted deflection noted.
Yet you have not even discussed this proposal at chesschat!
I think one of the locals just took you out
Last edited by Axiom; 14-09-16 at 11:08 PM.
"Don't let the snow get down the back of your pants" ~ SCT
Members who have read this thread : 26
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote