Saturday, June 30, 2007

ACF and CV Confused!

We have an update on yesterday's post about the Australian Chess Championships 2007-08. In the ACF's latest newsletter we can read the following line: "There have also been other indications of some interest in the event but none of these has yet led to a formal bid."

Yet Victorian inside man, Trevor Stanning (treasurer of the Box Hill CC), assures me that Chess Victoria did submit such a bid - that is, a formal bid. You can read some postings on the Australian Chess Club Forum about this here.

That just kinda leaves me with a big, "Huh?"

10 comments:

Kevin Bonham said...

The explanation is very simple and could well have been apparent to those who have read Denis Jessop's recent comments on chesschat instead of sniffing around on ACCF.

There was a substantial delay between the finalising of the text for the Newsletter edition and the newsletter being actually mailed out - tasks that are presently performed by different people. The bid referred to was received after the wording of the fresh call for bids had been finalised.

DeNovoMeme said...

What sought of Monty Python skit outfit cannot even get a newsletter out containing the correct info on something as important as the looming non-event 2008 Aust Camps bids. I will tell you. The same outfit that rejoices in having its Vice President Kevin Bonham spend 20 hours a week TALKING about how good HE is on bulletin boards, but spends 0 minutes on an ACF newsletter.

The ACF newsletter went "missing" for two months. I offered to put out an ACF newsletter together and distribute it, and I did so for 3 editions. In responce and all of a sudden the ACF started spasmotic newsletters. They are always late, lame and self serving drivel.

The ACF is at the pinicle of incompetence and that is where people like Kevin Bonham will keep it.

Anonymous said...

The explanation is "very simple"???
More like very convenient.

MOZ said...

Chess Victoria have made a formal bid.
The bid is still available on the table.
The ACF newsletter says to the contrary "There have also been other indications of some interest in the event but none of these has yet led to a formal bid. "
Chesschat posts are not the formal mechanism for communication of ACF tournaments on offer.
How hard is it for the newsletter editor to send an e-mail to the President of Chess Victoria; saying
> your bid received
>> under consideration, or not.

Kevin Bonham said...

Matt, the info was correct - it was just that by the time it was released the comment about no bids having yet been received had become outdated. Of course, bidding is very much open for other prospective bidders despite that.

I am baffled that Moz thinks it should be the role of the newsletter editor to acknowledge a bid, and even more baffled that Matt thinks I should have had any role related to this newsletter when the newsletter jobs were already filled by other people.

As noted in my reply to Libby, the fact that I sometimes spend a lot of time posting on various forums is not negotiable as I view it largely as a separate recreational interest.

Furthermore Matt is once again misrepresenting the hiatus in the Newsletter following Paul Broekhuyse's retirement. The correct chronology is as follows:

11 Oct 2006: following unexpected complications in the appointment of a new Editor, Denis Jessop temporarily appointed to the position.

13 Oct: Matthew Sweeney makes first call for contributions to a replacement newsletter

16 Oct: Matthew issues ACCF newsletter #1

17 Oct: Initial release of ACF newsletter 385 to a limited audience as there were technical problems with distribution

19 Oct: ACF newsletter 385 more widely mailed out

22 Oct: Matthew releases ACCF newsletter #2

So Matthew's claim that "I offered to put out an ACF newsletter together and distribute it, and I did so for 3 editions. In responce and all of a sudden the ACF started spasmotic newsletters." is more or less total nonsense - in fact the ACF had already commenced resurrecting the Newsletter before Matthew started his pirate version, and had issued the Newsletter again before Matthew's second edition came out.

As for the timeliness of the Newsletter, during his tenure as the person wholly responsible for the Newsletter, Denis issued it reliably at intervals of seven days. There was then another hiatus during the transition to the two-person arrangement. Since the first edition under that arrangement appeared on 16 March 2007, the newsletter has been intended to appear fortnightly. The most recent issue was very late for a number of reasons (some were to ensure certain material would be included, but there are some I'm unaware of); a couple of others have been a few days late.

Anonymous said...

Good Post Sir!
DeNovoMeme seems to be winning a lot of the arguments v Bonham in my opinion.

Anonymous said...

"Chess Victoria has made a bid..."

Is that code for Boxhill has made a bid?

Kevin Bonham said...

Anonymous (6:05) - who cares less about your gutless anonymous, clueless and unsubstantiated opinion, especially when we have no way of knowing you are not just another of Matt's silly little band of fellow trolls?

As Matt would say you are a "gutless anon" - we don't agree on much but that is one thing we do agree on! :)

DeNovoMeme said...

Bonham, you are pathetic. Why don't you simply admit that the ACF is making ad hoc rule changes to the bidding system suit particular individuals. Why don't you admit that the newsletter situation Amateur Hour at the local RSL. Why don't you admit that you are only seat warming at the ACF.

And *why* aren't you defending the ACF at Chat Chat? Answer: you are a secretive little rat trying desperately to keep a lid on yet another ACF fiasco. Well, Bozo, even though you are whining to EzBoard legal, to try and shut down ACCForum, we are still here. ACCF is the only place where you cannot control the spin, where the chess players of Australia can learn the truth about the magical mysterious ways the ACF has for neglecting Australian chess.

http://p067.ezboard.com/faustralianchessclubfrm10.showMessageRange?topicID=20.topic&start=21&stop=39

Kevin Bonham said...

Matthew Sweeney (denovomeme) asks me: "Why don't you simply admit that the ACF is making ad hoc rule changes to the bidding system suit particular individuals." Answer: because it is absolute nonsense. I am willing to take a lie detector test on this, at Mr Sweeney's expense of course.

"Why don't you admit that the newsletter situation Amateur Hour at the local RSL." Answer: because I would prefer to simply state the facts and people can draw whatever conclusions they wish from those. It has been difficult for the ACF to find a stable and perfect new arrangement for the Newsletter since the resignation of Paul Broekhuyse but such things will happen now and then in any voluntary organisation. It does not mean we should farm it out to those who are unsuitable by reason of conflict of interest or known inability to stick at tasks.

"Why don't you admit that you are only seat warming at the ACF." Answer: because I have no reason to believe that this is so.

"And *why* aren't you defending the ACF at Chat Chat?" Answer: usually my posts on contentious ACF issues on chesschat are made only in response to incorrect assertions there by others. The "others" who make such assertions have been quiet or banned lately so there has been little need to do so!

Indeed I cannot control the spin on ACCF - the spin put on by the posters there is so heavy that as soon as the ball hits the pitch it bounces backwards, knocks out the bowler and trickles slowly all the way to the boundary. The only relevant truths to be learnt there concern the personalities of certain inhabitants.

As for me trying to shut down ACCF, firstly I cannot actually do that (only the site owners can) and secondly my comment to that effect was actually:

"...if unfactual personal trolling of non-members continues to be frequent on that site, it is my long-term intention to encourage EZB to shut it down."

It has been quite entertaining to watch ACCFers froth and panic in response to this statement, which they have generally taken waaaaaay out of context by ignoring the clause "if unfactual personal trolling continues to be frequent".

Perhaps it is a given that it will be.