Page 2 of 12 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 173

Thread: Bill Gletsos is behaving like a dictator!

  1. | #16
    Senior Membaaaaaa HydraTED's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    1,019

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Firegoat7 View Post
    In my younger days I worked as a shunter, the sort of job where grown adults were smashed to pieces by trains and every second word started with F. It was great entertainment watching union members telling management to ???????????? off when we were having a safety meeting. Now I know some weak pseudo intellectuals out there think that swearing is an emotional response, but these tend to be the same type of people who don't like getting their hands dirty, some might even call this type of prejudice class bias.
    Load of nonsense again. In your case you don't usually swear on here, you just tend to do it a few rounds of debate in with me specifically in cases where you are obviously losing what little composure you are capable of. I've been on forums where swearing was completely normal and there was no good reason not to do it, so it was obviously not usually an emotional response. But in your case here it generally is.

    Therefore the only logical conclusion to be drawn from your statement is that the ACF did not obtain Mr Sandler or Mr Kenmures version of events.
    This is not a logical conclusion, and in fact is not true. You then go on with a massive rant on the basis of your false assumption, and don't even bother correcting it when later in the post I point out that it is false. You are pathetic here, not us.

    Normally, in these type of conflicts a third party mediates a bridge between the two groups before going public in announcing a decision.
    Unsubstantiated nonsense. There is not a dispute between the ACF and the organisers. There are reports of unsatisfactory incidents in a tournament and the ACF has an obligation to engage directly with the situation.

    What normally doesn't happen when resolving a conflict within a professional organisation is a person like Gletsos demanding an answer from Mr Sandler and Mr Kenmure.
    So firstly you say that Bill should contact the organisers but didn't. You continue saying this in replying to the same post where I point out he did. Then because he did you switch to saying he should have done it differently. All in the same post!

    It is obvious to anyone with a brain that you are just a festering blob of incoherent hate, who will attack the ACF whatever the facts of the situation and no matter how much you contradict yourself in the process. You utterly lack consistency and are exactly the same narcissistic ethical void you accuse others of being.
    Last edited by HydraTED; 24-12-16 at 02:52 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.

  2. | #17
    Senior Membaaaaaa HydraTED's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    1,019

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Firegoat7 View Post
    It is really quite simple are Mr Sandler and Mr Kenmure answerable to the demands of Gletsos and Bonham?

    The answer is No
    What "demands" are you referring to?

    The ACF FIDE Ratings Officer and ACF Ratings Officer has discretion to not rate tournaments that are unacceptably run. It doesn't matter who runs them. Furthermore the FIDE rating rules prohibit events being rated that were not run according to the Laws of Chess. Again, it doesn't matter who runs them.

    Why has the ACF leadership not stepped in and told Gletsos and Bonham that they cannot treat Internationally rated arbiters this way?
    Because in fact ACF officebearers do have discretion in their areas of responsibility.
    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.

  3. | #18
    Senior Membaaaaaa HydraTED's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    1,019

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Firegoat7 View Post
    Have Bonham and Gletsos breached Fides code of Ethics?
    Well you big coward, why don't you make a complaint to FIDE and find out?

    To run through your checklist quickly:

    Office bearers who through their behavior no longer inspire the necessary confidence or have in other ways become unworthy of trust.
    There will be a test of whether we still inspire confidence on January 7. It is called an election. You have been ranting about us in the same way for many years in which time we have always been returned, in all cases unopposed save one in which I was elected on the first ballot with an outright majority out of three candidates.

    Organizers, tournament directors, arbiters or other officials who fail to perform their functions in an impartial and responsible manner.
    Bill's performance is entirely impartial. It is you who is implying that we should behave partially because of the titles and positions of those concerned. We also have responsibilities under the FIDE rating regulations and others to not rate incorrectly run events.

    Failure to comply with normally accepted standards of courtesy and chess etiquette. Misbehavior of a personal nature which is generally unacceptable by normal social standards.
    You are a person who engaged in a fight at a chess tournament and has never apologised, who threatens people with violence over the internet, who calls state chess champions clowns for no reason, and who regularly launches angry error-laden rants against chess officials on a bulletin board. You would not know normal standards, courtesy or etiquette if you yet again fell over them. An attack from you is a sure sign we are doing the right thing.

    Any conduct likely to injure or discredit the reputation of FIDE, its events, organizers, participants, sponsors or that will enhance the goodwill which attaches to the same.
    On the contrary, we are upholding the reputation of FIDE by ensuring a contentious incorrectly run tournament is not rated. Moreover a FIDE-rated event is not the same as a FIDE event so the rest of the sentence would be irrelevant even if you had a point, which you do 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.

  4. | #19
    Senior Membaaaaaa HydraTED's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    1,019

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Axiom View Post
    And in that light we may also look to the sanctioning without warning of a decorated State Treasurer
    What sanction do you allege was applied "without warning" by whom?

    , and the online life banning of feisty enthusiastic chess lovers.
    All of whom had ample warnings and most of whom could easily have those bans reversed if they wanted to. Moreover that is irrelevant to ACF so stay on the topic or just go post some more crappy music videos that nobody will ever watch.

    The subject of forgiveness in the case of the Vic Blitz is separate to the question of whether we should rate the tournament.
    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.

  5. | #20
    Senior Member Firegoat7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Currently playing online chess at different locations.
    Posts
    3,488

    Default

    Why is Kevin Bonham lying?


    Quote Originally Posted by Firegoat7
    Have Mr Sandler and Mr Kenmure been allowed to present their side of the story, in an official capacity, to the ACF before Bill Gletsos decided it wouldn't be rated?
    Quote Originally Posted by HydraTED View Post
    Nothing stopped either presenting their story at any time and they are still able to do so should they wish - if they appealled the ACF could still overturn the decision, though I think this is highly unlikely. (Ed Note=Bonham continues official pre-determination without fact)
    Quote Originally Posted by HydraTED View Post
    Bill was in contact with the Chief Organiser before posting the decision so the CO had an opportunity to put his case. (Ed Note-Gletsos shot first and its not even clear he had any question answered)
    Quote Originally Posted by Firegoat7
    Normally, in these type of conflicts a third party mediates a bridge between the two groups before going public in announcing a decision. But that of course would require some strong leadership from the ACF President, who doesn't seem even involved. What normally doesn't happen when resolving a conflict within a professional organisation is a person like Gletsos demanding an answer from Mr Sandler and Mr Kenmure. It is beyond ridiculous for anybody to believe that Gletsos' behaviour here is acceptable.
    Quote Originally Posted by HydraTED View Post
    This is not a logical conclusion, and in fact is not true. You then go on with a massive rant on the basis of your false assumption, and don't even bother correcting it when later in the post I point out that it is false. You are pathetic here, not us.
    So firstly you say that Bill should contact the organisers but didn't. You continue saying this in replying to the same post where I point out he did. Then because he did you switch to saying he should have done it differently. All in the same post!
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos
    If I find that this was indeed the case then the tournament was not played according to the FIDE Laws of Chess and as such cannot legitimately be FIDE rated and therefore in my capacity as the ACF FIDE Ratings Officer I will not submit it for FIDE rating. (19-12-2016, 11:58 PM)
    Quote Originally Posted by Tournbament flyer
    Schedule: Monday 19 December 2016 starting at 6:30 pm
    Clearly Gletsos has pre-determined judgement before any official correspondence with the arbiters.

    Any suggestion by Bonham that Gletsos behaved appropriately over the matter is just an old fashioned cover up. The facts, as based on time and date are that Gletsos has pre-determined from BB gossip his impeding decision on the matter. Bonham of course is basically lying when he claims ...I point out he did.. Gletsos may have tried to contact Mr Sandler, but from Bonhams own information it is obvioius Gletsos did not get a reply. It is also very clear that Gletsos had already drawn his own conclusions on the subject without any input from Mr Sandler and Mr Kenmure.

    Furthermore, Bonham is again lying when he claims Gletsos has autonomy to behave in such a manner. There is no possible way the ACF has legislated for the pre-determination of tournament results without an arbiters report being produced on the subject. It is even less likely when an arbiters report is in conflict with either the data or the laws of chess for Gletsos to have autonomy given and legislated by the ACF. If Bonham is telling the truth (which is highly unlikely), then the ACF has absolutely no credibility as a professional democratic institution. Bonham should be publicly rebuked by the ACF on Chesschat and a public apology offered to Mr Sandler and Mr Kenmure over the matter.
    AC: 20-6-20-> ...I did tell them how chess improves people in many aspects. I had better start buying their paper.



  6. | #21
    Senior Member Firegoat7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Currently playing online chess at different locations.
    Posts
    3,488

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fide ethics
    Organizers, tournament directors, arbiters or other officials who fail to perform their functions in an impartial and responsible manner.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bonham
    Bill's performance is entirely impartial. It is you who is implying that we should behave partially because of the titles and positions of those concerned. We also have responsibilities under the FIDE rating regulations and others to not rate incorrectly run events.
    Is Bonham seriously trying to suggest to everybody that pre-determining outcomes without collecting factual evidence from qualified arbiters is not impartial behaviour?

    Quote Originally Posted by Fide Ethics
    Failure to comply with normally accepted standards of courtesy and chess etiquette. Misbehavior of a personal nature which is generally unacceptable by normal social standards.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bonham
    You are a person who engaged in a fight at a chess tournament and has never apologised, who threatens people with violence over the internet, who calls state chess champions clowns for no reason, and who regularly launches angry error-laden rants against chess officials on a bulletin board. You would not know normal standards, courtesy or etiquette if you yet again fell over them. An attack from you is a sure sign we are doing the right thing.
    Is Bonham really saying that his own personal opinion about me prevents judgement about his and Gletsos behaviour towards Mr Sandler and Mr Kenmure? If he is being serious he should take it up in a different thread. But in the context of this thread the only people behaving unethically are Bonham and Gletsos.
    AC: 20-6-20-> ...I did tell them how chess improves people in many aspects. I had better start buying their paper.



  7. | #22
    Senior Membaaaaaa HydraTED's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    1,019

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Firegoat7 View Post
    Why is Kevin Bonham lying?
    I am not. You are just too brain-damaged and biased to follow the birdie, and because you are a contemptible excuse for a human being you would rather accuse an official of lying than even try to think it through.

    When you write "Gletsos shot first" you are referring to his provisional statement that if he found such-and-such to be the case he wouldn't rate it. But that is not the point at which he made his decision not to rate it, since it was still possible he would find the reports to be false. Are you still following this? I am aware that you are a very, very stupid person and the idea of a conditional decision is beyond you.

    Before making his decision not to rate it Bill spoke to the CO who confirmed that the reports of how the event were run were accurate, so your claim "It is also very clear that Gletsos had already drawn his own conclusions on the subject without any input from Mr Sandler and Mr Kenmure" is simply wrong. Contrary to your feebleminded and dimwitted speculation, it was the CO not the CA Bill used as the point of primary contact, because the CO is responsible for the tournament registration. But Bill has been in contact with the CA as well.

    Furthermore, Bonham is again lying when he claims Gletsos has autonomy to behave in such a manner. There is no possible way the ACF has legislated for the pre-determination of tournament results without an arbiters report being produced on the subject.
    You being too stupid to comprehend how something would be true does not make it false let alone a lie.

    Indeed this is not even the first case recently where Bill has decided an event has not been rated, and given your amount of insane frothing on here lately you should be well aware of the other one.
    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.

  8. | #23
    Senior Membaaaaaa HydraTED's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    1,019

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Firegoat7 View Post
    Is Bonham seriously trying to suggest to everybody that pre-determining outcomes without collecting factual evidence from qualified arbiters is not impartial behaviour?
    No outcomes were pre-determined so your logically mangled question is irrelevant.

    Is Bonham really saying that his own personal opinion about me prevents judgement about his and Gletsos behaviour towards Mr Sandler and Mr Kenmure?
    I am saying that known facts about you show you, David Beaumont, to be a person of no credibility where matters like courtesy, etiquette, behaviour and normally accepted standards are concerned. Your record of condemning good behaviour while acting in, praising or excusing poor behaviour shows that, prima facie, if you condemn behaviour then all else being equal it is probably laudable.

    If he is being serious he should take it up in a different thread.
    Done. You forgot to specify which forum.
    Last edited by HydraTED; 24-12-16 at 07:15 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.

  9. | #24
    Senior Member Firegoat7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Currently playing online chess at different locations.
    Posts
    3,488

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HydraTED View Post
    When you write "Gletsos shot first" you are referring to his provisional statement that if he found such-and-such to be the case he wouldn't rate it.
    It is unprofessional for Gletsos to comment on the matter. He has no authority to undermine the integrity of the arbiter based on here say. The ACF rating officer should not speculate on a public bulletin board about an event when he is not in possession of the true facts.
    Quote Originally Posted by HydraTED View Post
    But that is not the point at which he made his decision not to rate it,
    It makes no difference. But, even if it did make a difference, which it doesn't , the onus is on you to prove the exact time when he made that decision for your argument to be even discussed. Noting that discussion of this point is for all intensive purposes meaningless anyway.
    Quote Originally Posted by HydraTED View Post
    since it was still possible he would find the reports to be false.
    What report? here say on a bulletin board or an official factual record ?
    Quote Originally Posted by HydraTED View Post
    Before making his decision not to rate it Bill spoke to the CO who confirmed that the reports of how the event were run were accurate
    Who is CO? When is the time and date Gletsos spoke with CO? What did CO confirm?
    Quote Originally Posted by HydraTED View Post
    , so your claim "It is also very clear that Gletsos had already drawn his own conclusions on the subject without any input from Mr Sandler and Mr Kenmure" is simply wrong.
    My claim is not wrong without you providing documented proof. You have already been caught lying and have still failed to understand the implication of pre-determination of evidence based on here say. Don't you think it is surprising that Gletsos is even contacting CO based on here say?
    Quote Originally Posted by HydraTED View Post
    it was the CO not the CA Bill used as the point of primary contact, because the CO is responsible for the tournament registration.
    At the moment you have failed to justify why CO is even being contacted over the dispute let alone who they are and why they have authority to discuss the matter with Gletsos. At some point you need to take responsibilty for understanding what due process should really be in these type of situations.
    Quote Originally Posted by HydraTED View Post
    But Bill has been in contact with the CA as well.
    Is it even possible for you to say directly the identity of CA? The key point is that you provide no dates or evidence that this even occurred except for your word on the matter, which quite frankly is
    questionable at best. Therefore without evidence on the matter your word cannot be accepted as proof just yet. Also, I believe the wording "..been in contact" does not eqaute to the same meaning as "..had a discussion with"
    Quote Originally Posted by HydraTED View Post
    Indeed this is not even the first case recently where Bill has decided an event has not been rated,
    I seriously doubt anybody believes that Gletsos decision making process is currently worlds best practice! Why would he not rate the event without an official explanation as to why 6.2 is not correct. And of course Worlds best practice does not mean here say on a public BB
    AC: 20-6-20-> ...I did tell them how chess improves people in many aspects. I had better start buying their paper.



  10. | #25
    Senior Member Firegoat7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Currently playing online chess at different locations.
    Posts
    3,488

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HydraTED View Post
    No outcomes were pre-determined so your logically mangled question is irrelevant.
    As things currently stand. You have provided no factual evidence , apart from your questionable word, that Gletsos' decision making has not pre-determined the case. I, on the other hand have shown that Gletsos' ACTIONS dated and documented prove pre-determination. We all can see the dates he responded to here say on a public BB. Furthermore, You have also confirmed that he has sought to contact people based on BB here say. I doubt anybody would believe that Gletsos motivation is based on impartiality. And The ACFs probability that your autonomy defence is Worlds best practice as an organisation with you continuing to publicly misrepresent them is virtually zero.
    AC: 20-6-20-> ...I did tell them how chess improves people in many aspects. I had better start buying their paper.



  11. | #26
    Senior Membaaaaaa HydraTED's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    1,019

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Firegoat7 View Post
    It is unprofessional for Gletsos to comment on the matter. He has no authority to undermine the integrity of the arbiter based on here say.
    Your grotesquely mangled attempt to spell "hearsay" aside, again, you just don't get it. The announcement was conditional, then after becoming satisfied the claims were true, the decision not to rate the event was made. Go on ignoring that, you will just look even dumber.

    It makes no difference.
    It makes all the difference to your false claims that the decision was prejudged without hearing from those involved and this is obvious to anyone who is not a total idiot and fool.

    As you are a total idiot and fool, I guess that doesn't help us much.

    But, even if it did make a difference, which it doesn't , the onus is on you to prove the exact time when he made that decision for your argument to be even discussed.
    So, you think that you can assert false claims without presenting any confirming evidence at all, but when someone else disputes it they should produce evidence complete with "exact time". You can shove your ridiculous double standard right up your so-called onus.

    What report? here say on a bulletin board or an official factual record ?
    Let the audience note that firegoat7 (David Beaumont) is too stupid to distinguish between hearsay (which he is multiply unable to spell) and direct eyewitness evidence of a situation. Hearsay is a claim that someone else said something happened. In this case we have multiple trusted people who were there say that they saw something happen or were involved in incidents. That isn't hearsay.

    Who is CO?
    You are being so sloppy that you do not even notice I said "the CO". If you had a clue you would know that CO means Chief Organiser.

    When is the time and date Gletsos spoke with CO? What did CO confirm?
    Already answered the second, the first is irrelevant save that it was before the final decision was announced.

    My claim is not wrong without you providing documented proof.
    No, as it happens I know the facts and your claim is wrong even if I say nothing.

    You have already been caught lying
    No, as it happens this is another of your lunatic fibs that proves you should self-incarcerate in an appropritate psychiatic facility.

    At the moment you have failed to justify why CO is even being contacted over the dispute
    You said the arbiters should be contacted. The CO was also a Deputy Arbiter. Now you question that they should be contacted because you are an idiot and the word "the" is too long for you to read.

    At some point you need to take responsibilty for understanding what due process should really be in these type of situations.
    Once again you are not only clueless on the subject of due process but also on the facts of the matter.

    Is it even possible for you to say directly the identity of CA?
    Again the word "the" was too long for your attention span. "The CA" equals the Chief Arbiter. You really are spectacularly thick.

    The key point is that you provide no dates or evidence that this even occurred except for your word on the matter, which quite frankly is
    questionable at best.
    You have made a complete hash of questioning it so far so your view that it is questionable is strong evidence otherwise.

    Therefore without evidence on the matter your word cannot be accepted as proof just yet.
    What a hate-twisted fool with extremely serious comprehension problems accepts as proof is irrelevant.

    Also, I believe the wording "..been in contact" does not eqaute to the same meaning as "..had a discussion with"
    Too bad for you then; in this case it does. BG and the CO discussed the matter.

    I seriously doubt anybody believes that Gletsos decision making process is currently worlds best practice!
    What you doubt is irrelevant. Most things that you doubt where chess politics is concerned turn out to be true.

    Why would he not rate the event without an official explanation as to why 6.2 is not correct.
    6.2 is correct, dummy. It is the arbiters' made-up extra rule that isn't.

    As things currently stand. You have provided no factual evidence , apart from your questionable word, that Gletsos' decision making has not pre-determined the case. I, on the other hand have shown that Gletsos' ACTIONS dated and documented prove pre-determination.
    Delusional drivel. You have absolutely no way of showing he did not speak to anyone between (i) the provisional decision and (ii) the final decision, and so you cannot possibly "show" anything.

    We all can see the dates he responded to here say on a public BB.
    You still don't get it. Please try not to be so repetitively thick as your stupidity is wasting my time, which is far more important than yours. The chronology is:

    1. Bill sees multiple reports of unacceptable arbiting
    2. Bill posts that if these are true, the event will not be rated
    3. The reports are confirmed by further reports
    4. The CO contacts Bill and confirms the reports
    5. Bill advises the CO (with CC - I suppose you will now ask who CC is - to the ACF Executive including the CA) that the event will not be rated
    6. Bill posts that the event will not be rated.

    And The ACFs probability that your autonomy defence is Worlds best practice as an organisation with you continuing to publicly misrepresent them is virtually zero.
    Your claim to understand probability is even less credible than your spelling.

    Should I throw you a banana when you actually work out what hearsay is?
    Last edited by HydraTED; 24-12-16 at 09:44 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.

  12. | #27
    Senior Member Firegoat7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Currently playing online chess at different locations.
    Posts
    3,488

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HydraTED View Post
    The announcement was conditional, then after becoming satisfied the claims were true, the decision not to rate the event was made. Go on ignoring that, you will just look even dumber.
    I think you are the one not getting it. He should have never even made his so called conditional response, that in and of itself is unprofessional conduct that shows pre-determined judgement based on hearsay.
    Quote Originally Posted by HydraTED View Post
    It makes all the difference to your false claims that the decision was prejudged without hearing from those involved and this is obvious to anyone who is not a total idiot and fool.
    Again you are wrong to claim this as correct. He prejudges by publishing an opinion without the true facts based on hearsay.
    Quote Originally Posted by HydraTED View Post
    So, you think that you can assert false claims without presenting any confirming evidence at all, but when someone else disputes it they should produce evidence complete with "exact time". You can shove your ridiculous double standard right up your so-called onus.
    The evidence is black and white and has been shown to exist, regardless of whether you accept its validity or not. This is juxtaposed against your inability to provide any factual evidence that can be witnessed by 3rd parties.

    Quote Originally Posted by HydraTED View Post
    Let the audience note that firegoat7 (David Beaumont) is too stupid to distinguish between hearsay (which he is multiply unable to spell) and direct eyewitness evidence of a situation. Hearsay is a claim that someone else said something happened. In this case we have multiple trusted people who were there say that they saw something happen or were involved in incidents. That isn't hearsay.
    It is definitely hearsay when you trust non Internet BB sources who are hostile to a witness who hasn't been able to prove any innocence and is made on a public bulletin board. It is pretty silly for the ACF to be relying on bulletin board gossip as a stimulus for action as opposed to any official reports
    Quote Originally Posted by Bonham
    You are being so sloppy that you do not even notice I said "the CO". If you had a clue you would know that CO means Chief Organiser.
    I try not to presume the obvious, but again who is the chief organiser?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bonham
    Already answered the second, the first is irrelevant save that it was before the final decision was announced.
    You cannot make such a claim without evidence. if you have no proof of date and time then you are not to be believed on the subject.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bonham
    No, as it happens I know the facts and your claim is wrong even if I say nothing.
    Well your claim won't be accepted until you provide some real evidence that supports your claim. This is a public bulletin board on the Internet, nobody has to believe anything you say without real evidence.
    Quote Originally Posted by Hydrated
    No, as it happens this is another of your lunatic fibs that proves you should self-incarcerate in an appropritate psychiatic facility.
    You provide no evidence to counter any claim and then say you should be believed on the matter? That is not a very good way to have a discussion.
    Quote Originally Posted by Hydrated
    You said the arbiters should be contacted. The CO was also a Deputy Arbiter. Now you question that they should be contacted because you are an idiot and the word "the" is too long for you to read.
    What part of due process don't you understand? Is it the part where the regulatory body has a process in place to internally investigate these claims before making them public?
    Quote Originally Posted by Hydrated
    Once again you are not only clueless on the subject of due process but also on the facts of the matter.
    Once again you provide no facts on the discussion and resort to personal attacks
    Quote Originally Posted by Hydrated
    Again the word "the" was too long for your attention span. "The CA" equals the Chief Arbiter. You really are spectacularly thick.
    Like I said before i am not going to presume who you are talking about without you clarifying things. But as a side note, are you scared of saying who the CA actually is because of legal reasons? Why are you afraid of mentioning names? Who is this CA person you talk about?
    Quote Originally Posted by Hydrated
    You have made a complete hash of questioning it so far so your view that it is questionable is strong evidence otherwise.
    of course you are entitled to your hostile opinion on the matter, but again it should be noted you have provided no evidence.
    Quote Originally Posted by hydrated
    Too bad for you then; in this case it does. BG and the CO discussed the matter.
    Where is the proof of the dates and times then? Who is the CA again? and what rules were discussed?
    Quote Originally Posted by Bonham
    What you doubt is irrelevant. Most things that you doubt where chess politics is concerned turn out to be true.
    Gletsos handling of this is worlds best practice...sure it is and the tooth fairy is real.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bonham
    6.2 is correct, dummy. It is the arbiters' made-up extra rule that isn't.
    Again you miss the point. It does not matter what you claim on a public bulletin board. What matters is that the rule and objections to its interpretations are clearly documented for Fide. And that the ACF and Fide have a dialogue in place to confirm any ruling. It matters very little what you and Gletsos think about the subject. It matters much more how the arbiters came to their conclusions and who is responsible for judging their performance on the matter. That judgement most certainly shouldn't be Stojic,Atecman, Bonham, Garvinator or Gletsos on a public BB
    Quote Originally Posted by Bonham
    Delusional drivel. You have absolutely no way of showing he did not speak to anyone between (i) the provisional decision and (ii) the final decision, and so you cannot possibly "show" anything.
    You can deliberately choose to ignore and contest the validity of the claim the Gletsos pre-determined the case, but it is dated record that he posted on the BB and in doing so followed up on BB discourse about the subject.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hydrated

    You still don't get it. Please try not to be so repetitively thick as your stupidity is wasting my time, which is far more important than yours. The chronology is:

    1. Bill sees multiple reports of unacceptable arbiting
    2. Bill posts that if these are true, the event will not be rated
    3. The reports are confirmed by further reports
    4. The CO contacts Bill and confirms the reports
    5. Bill advises the CO (with CC - I suppose you will now ask who CC is - to the ACF Executive including the CA) that the event will not be rated
    6. Bill posts that the event will not be rated.
    None of this refutes any claim. In fact it is proof that Gletsos' actions were predetermined. You need to provide names and dates for any of these assertions to be taken seriously. You ought to clarify why the CO even bothered to contact Gletsos, if that is what even really occurred. I don't see why it is so difficult for you to name people?
    Quote Originally Posted by Bonham
    Your claim to understand probability is even less credible than your spelling.
    There is zero possibility that Worlds best practice should be initiated and resolved via BB gossip, yet this is what Gletsos and you have done!
    AC: 20-6-20-> ...I did tell them how chess improves people in many aspects. I had better start buying their paper.



  13. | #28
    Senior Membaaaaaa HydraTED's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    1,019

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Firegoat7 View Post
    I think
    No you don't. You just flame away without thinking.

    you are the one not getting it. He should have never even made his so called conditional response, that in and of itself is unprofessional conduct that shows pre-determined judgement based on hearsay.
    So again, your original claim being demolished, you are shifting the goalposts then claiming I don't get it because I demolished your claim. It is nice to see you can now spell "hearsay" but you clearly still have no idea what it is.

    If you are saying there was pre-determined judgement that the claims were true then this is obviously false since if there was the conditional response would have been unconditional.

    If you are saying there was pre-determined judgement about what to do if the claims were true then this is clearly a non-issue, since the claims being true means the event is not eligible for FIDE rating under the FIDE ratings regulations.

    So all you are left with is an ambit claim of unprofessionalism which you cannot substantiate and which is an irrelevant slur anyway since the ACF is a voluntary body.

    The evidence is black and white and has been shown to exist, regardless of whether you accept its validity or not.
    No, this is just you doing your normal thing of repeating discredited claims.

    It is definitely hearsay when you trust non Internet BB sources who are hostile to a witness who hasn't been able to prove any innocence and is made on a public bulletin board.
    What on earth are you babbling about? A bulletin board is on the internet. Who are you saying is hostile to what witness and on what grounds? What witness are you saying is accused of anything that they might have to prove innocence of? You are just dribbling random idiocy and hand-waving. And you still don't know what hearsay is. I suggest you look it up.

    It is pretty silly for the ACF to be relying on bulletin board gossip as a stimulus for action as opposed to any official reports
    This is a false dichotomy. At the time the final decision was taken the CO had confirmed the issue was genuine.

    I try not to presume the obvious
    Quite correct for once, as you only presume things that are false.

    , but again who is the chief organiser?
    On the FIDE website there are details of registrations of tournaments. You can see who the Chief Organiser was there for yourself. He was also a Deputy Arbiter of this event and is a Class A International Arbiter. Want to buy a vowel?

    You cannot make such a claim without evidence. if you have no proof of date and time then you are not to be believed on the subject.
    Whether I am believed by a biased idiot like you is irrelevant and whether I convince any of your fellow biased idiots is irrelevant. I am simply stating the facts. Of course, I have discussed the matter with Bill.

    Well your claim won't be accepted until you provide some real evidence that supports your claim. This is a public bulletin board on the Internet, nobody has to believe anything you say without real evidence.
    You will not believe what I say whatever the evidence so there would be no point posting it anyway.

    You provide no evidence to counter any claim and then say you should be believed on the matter? That is not a very good way to have a discussion.
    You accuse people of lying because you are too thick to understand the point they are making then think you should judge how the discussion should be had? Get real.

    What part of due process don't you understand? Is it the part where the regulatory body has a process in place to internally investigate these claims before making them public?
    The claims were made public by others. Due process is relevant to cases where a person faces a serious penalty - not to cases where a snap decision must be made on whether to rate a tournament.

    Once again you provide no facts on the discussion and resort to personal attacks
    I have provided many facts. You choose to be suspicious about them because you are a paranoid fruitcake. That's your problem. Perhaps if you were not such a frothing loon I would be more expansive.

    as a side note, are you scared of saying who the CA actually is because of legal reasons? Why are you afraid of mentioning names? Who is this CA person you talk about?
    Again, you can go look up who the CA was. He is a high-ranking CV and ACF official. Unlike you I appreciate that the CA was under stress because of the poor behaviour of a couple of players surrounding a previous tournament. I am not at all concerned about legal reasons but unlike you I prefer to keep the discussion to whether the event should have been rated and avoid damaging these people's online reputations. You are harming them by naming them and I doubt they will thank you for it.

    Where is the proof of the dates and times then?
    I know when certain emails were sent but I am not going to post these details. Bear in mind that when I made reference to the content of what may have been a PM conversation with the unelected former ostensible nonmoderator MOZ on this site I was threatened with having my shout deleted. So I am unconvinced that it would be safe to post metadata on this site.

    and what rules were discussed?
    I do not have permission to post the exact details here but the CO was aware of the BB discussion and understood if the event was not rated in light of this. It was not disputed that the made-up "rule" against touching a piece before the opponent pressed the clock had been imposed on the players.

    Gletsos handling of this is worlds best practice...sure it is and the tooth fairy is real.
    Well here you go prejudging an individual while complaining about alleged prejudgement. Again you are a total hypocrite with no consistent standards.

    What matters is that the rule and objections to its interpretations are clearly documented for Fide.
    FIDE will be sent a deletion request with the reason that the event was not played according to the Laws of Chess. (This may have already happened.) If FIDE ask for more information I am sure the situation will be explained.

    And that the ACF and Fide have a dialogue in place to confirm any ruling.
    This is again up to FIDE.

    It matters much more how the arbiters came to their conclusions
    This indeed matters and the arbiters should provide a full explanation of where their erroneous judgement came from, including any sources of pressure to concoct or misread into the Laws such a rule. I will be pursuing this matter.

    You can deliberately choose to ignore and contest the validity of the claim the Gletsos pre-determined the case, but it is dated record that he posted on the BB and in doing so followed up on BB discourse about the subject.
    So? Claims made on a BB are public comment as are any other sources of public comment. There is now no realistic doubt that the false rule in question was imposed as it has been confirmed by many players and the CO and nobody present has disputed the general picture of what happened.

    You need to provide names and dates for any of these assertions to be taken seriously.
    No I don't. You will pretend not to take me seriously whatever I say so this is just an exercise in data-drift by you in the hope that I will provide further details you can then make up new whinges about it. Anyone who actually matters will either not care about the line you are pursuing or else will take me seriously anyway.

    You ought to clarify why the CO even bothered to contact Gletsos, if that is what even really occurred.
    The CO had to contact Bill to submit the files. In the process he commented on the issues that were already being discussed on the BB.

    There is zero possibility that Worlds best practice
    No one cares what you think world's best practice in these cases should be as there is no evidence you have any understanding of the subject. An argument from incredulity is not an argument, especially not when the incredulity is yours.
    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.

  14. | #29
    Senior Member Firegoat7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Currently playing online chess at different locations.
    Posts
    3,488

    Default

    There is nothing new in the wall of text above- here are the proof notes

    1-abuse
    2- self delusion
    3- deflection
    4- ignorance
    5- denial
    6- non disclosure
    7-personal attacks
    8- delusional judgements
    9-denial
    10- non-disclosure

    Points to be made
    KB is of the opinion that the ACF did nothing wrong and handled the case perfectly.

    Lessons learnt

    1-All Fide registered arbiters within Australia are now under the authority of the Chesschat BB
    2-All Fide registered arbiters within Australia should understand they have no voice on the subject.
    3-The ACF acts very professionally at all times

    Readers can draw their own conclusions as to whether Bonham is a suitable public representative for the ACF
    AC: 20-6-20-> ...I did tell them how chess improves people in many aspects. I had better start buying their paper.



  15. | #30
    Tin Cup Champ 2004 Just2Good's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Cairns
    Posts
    7,117

    Thumbs down Lack of Consultation

    Quote Originally Posted by HydraTED View Post
    Actually, it is also "not unreasonable" for a chess punter to expect that if they show up to a tournament advertised as a FIDE-rated chess tournament then it will be run according to the FIDE Laws of Chess.
    That's not the point! The point is that Bill Gletsos is acting very arbitrarily.

    What he should have done is raised the matter with the entire ACF council, and got their feedback and input. Once he had that, he should then have made an informed decision.
    .
    "The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing."

    ~ Isaiah Berlin ~

Page 2 of 12 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •