Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 31 to 40 of 40

Thread: 4c) Motion 2013-U Olympic Regulations (Zeromskis/Mallon) - discussion only

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Charlottetown, PE
    Posts
    2,158
    Blog Entries
    11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Barron View Post
    Vlad,


    Vlad, do you realize:
    If we have 10 players like Eric Hansen, half of them inevitably will be "excluded"?
    And it doesn't matter if they all had someone from their province on the selection committee strongly advocating for them...



    Well, we could agree to disagree...

    Just a few questions to make your position clear:
    Do you believe that the selection process was perfect and we selected the best possible team that achieved the best possible result at the Olympiad?
    If so, why do you want to change the rules? Why do we have all these Motions?
    And do you support all those defamatory comments by the selected 5th player with less than stellar Olympiad performance which he published in the newsletter and on this board?

    I realize this was directed at Vlad, but lets try and recap:

    These are my opinions:

    1) All members on the selection committee should be considered equal
    2) The selection committee could have been easily replaced right now, but it seems the vote is not going that way
    3) Having a third person should avoid any future ties, but not necessarily controversy
    4) Of the two committee members, one has spoken publicly about their negotiations, the other has not
    5) Love it or hate it, Edward wears his heart on his sleeve, so to say. It's not clear that his over the board performance at the Olympiad makes his selection to the team good or bad. He bared his soul to the country explaining his performance. This, too has led to a motion concerning selection of the captain, which appears to being passed by the governors.

    Michael, certainly you are willing to mix it up with anybody, and certainly that is your right - but in this case let's finish the voting and move on from this, with lessons learned.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Tecumseh, ON
    Posts
    3,268
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Barron View Post
    Vlad,
    Thank you for improving my reading comprehension!
    You are welcome.

    Could you please clarify:
    Who was trying to exclude Eric Hansen from the Olympiad team?
    From what I have seen posted here Eric Hansen was not considered a suitable candidate by at least one of the committee members. My own opinion was that once Mark Bluvshtein and Kevin Spraggett declined inclusion of Eric Hansen was a no brainer given his results in the previous year (notably tying for first in the Canadian Closed) and his rating.

    Mark Bluvstein and Kevin Spraggett?
    Or do you believe that Eric Hansen should have been selected ahead of Mark Bluvstein and Kevin Spraggett?
    No but once they declined Eric Hansen and Nikolay Noritsyn should have been selected without the need for a committee based on their rating.

    Vlad, do you realize:
    If we have 10 players like Eric Hansen, half of them inevitably will be "excluded"?
    If we had ten players like Eric Hansen we would have a pretty good Olympiad team.

    Well, we could agree to disagree...

    Just a few questions to make your position clear:
    Do you believe that the selection process was perfect and we selected the best possible team that achieved the best possible result at the Olympiad?
    I don't believe that the selection process was perfect. When have we ever fielded the best possible team that achieved the best possible result at the Olympiad? The process followed this year showed itself to be flawed. If the reports are correct, and I have heard the same reports from more than one source then Eric would have been excluded based on arbitrary bias regarding his playing style and ability and we would have been deprived of one of the good things that came from this year's team, a new Canadian grandmaster.

    With regard to the other controversies surrounding the team captain situation and playing assignments I believe that we have two fundamentally decent individuals who had very different rules about the roles of players and team captain. These rules clashed and led to the acrimony. This is an area of psychological study which has seen many studies and books authored.

    If so, why do you want to change the rules?
    I want a fair and transparent process where players know the rules going in, the results can be determined with mathematical precision and we don't have an opportunity for petty and officious individuals making decisions in an arbitrary way to compensate for unresolved conflicts in their own personality. A very tall order on my part but we can all dream.

    Why do we have all these Motions?
    I presume we have these motions because the authors are not enamored of the current process.

    And do you support all those defamatory comments by the selected 5th player with less than stellar Olympiad performance which he published in the newsletter and on this board?
    A rules upset is a very powerful and emotional situation. It can have very profound and dangerous consequences. In everything I have observed Victor Plotkin has shown himself to be a kind, thoughtful and fundamentally decent man over several years of meeting him at chess tournaments where either he or his son, or both were playing. In this situation he had different rules of how a team captain should operate than Edward Porper had. I fear that it would take the intervention of someone with the people skills of Tony Robbins to unravel this Gordian knot of conflicting rules and hurts based on perceived violations of the proper rules. Unlike you, I prefer not to inflame the situation. I see no profit in fighting and dissension. It is wasted energy that could be used to build chess instead of tearing each other down. A house divided against itself cannot stand.
    Last edited by Vladimir Drkulec; 01-30-2013 at 01:17 PM.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Kanata, Ottawa, Ontario
    Posts
    1,227

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vladimir Drkulec View Post
    ... A rules upset is a very powerful and emotional situation. It can have very profound and dangerous consequences. In everything I have observed Victor Plotkin has shown himself to be a kind, thoughtful and fundamentally decent man over several years of meeting him at chess tournaments where either he or his son, or both were playing. In this situation he had different rules of how a team captain should operate than Edward Porper had. I fear that it would take the intervention of someone with the people skills of Tony Robbins to unravel this Gordian knot of conflicting rules and hurts based on perceived violations of the proper rules. Unlike you, I prefer not to inflame the situation. I see no profit in fighting and dissension. It is wasted energy that could be used to build chess instead of tearing each other down. A house divided against itself cannot stand.
    In my humble opinion, it is not fair to imply something to the effect that Mr.Plotkin and Mr.Porper simply had differing approaches. Nor is it fair to excuse inappropriate behaviour with cute lines like "he wears his heart on his sleeve". Every one of us is responsible for his level of professionalism, ESPECIALLY in challenging situations. Every one of us is responsible for how much grace we do or do not show under fire. Mr.Plotkin was the Team Captain, period. He had "his hands full", and again in my humble opinion, he performed admirably under the conditions. But regardless of anyone's opinion regarding his performance, I have a tremendous problem with people not respecting position. And maybe I missed it, but I never had the feeling Mr.Plotkin ever "put out fire with gasoline". Even under incredibly public criticism FOR DOING THE JOB HE WAS ASKED TO DO, he maintained his dignity. Mr.Plotkin is one of those timelessly experienced people that we should be trying to keep associated with our programs. I regret not having spoken sooner, but I can no longer take the imbalanced unwillingness of many of us to tell it like it is. I agree with Vlad that it is no longer worth keeping this dissent going, but please, surely Mr.Plotkin deserves clearly more respect from us?!

  4. #34

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aris Marghetis View Post
    In my humble opinion, it is not fair to imply something to the effect that Mr.Plotkin and Mr.Porper simply had differing approaches. Nor is it fair to excuse inappropriate behaviour with cute lines like "he wears his heart on his sleeve". Every one of us is responsible for his level of professionalism, ESPECIALLY in challenging situations. Every one of us is responsible for how much grace we do or do not show under fire. Mr.Plotkin was the Team Captain, period. He had "his hands full", and again in my humble opinion, he performed admirably under the conditions. But regardless of anyone's opinion regarding his performance, I have a tremendous problem with people not respecting position. And maybe I missed it, but I never had the feeling Mr.Plotkin ever "put out fire with gasoline". Even under incredibly public criticism FOR DOING THE JOB HE WAS ASKED TO DO, he maintained his dignity. Mr.Plotkin is one of those timelessly experienced people that we should be trying to keep associated with our programs. I regret not having spoken sooner, but I can no longer take the imbalanced unwillingness of many of us to tell it like it is. I agree with Vlad that it is no longer worth keeping this dissent going, but please, surely Mr.Plotkin deserves clearly more respect from us?!
    Aris, would you mind to specify, what you mean by saying "Mr.Plotkin had his hands full"?
    Full of _what_?

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Kitchener, ON
    Posts
    2,235
    Blog Entries
    37

    Default

    Seriously guys, what does this conversation have to do with the actual motion in question here? It's bad enough we have to read about it in one thread, we don't need more.
    Christopher Mallon
    FIDE Arbiter

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    1,361

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fred McKim View Post
    I realize this was directed at Vlad, but lets try and recap:

    These are my opinions:

    1) All members on the selection committee should be considered equal
    2) The selection committee could have been easily replaced right now, but it seems the vote is not going that way
    3) Having a third person should avoid any future ties, but not necessarily controversy
    4) Of the two committee members, one has spoken publicly about their negotiations, the other has not
    5) Love it or hate it, Edward wears his heart on his sleeve, so to say. It's not clear that his over the board performance at the Olympiad makes his selection to the team good or bad. He bared his soul to the country explaining his performance. This, too has led to a motion concerning selection of the captain, which appears to being passed by the governors.

    Michael, certainly you are willing to mix it up with anybody, and certainly that is your right - but in this case let's finish the voting and move on from this, with lessons learned.
    Fred,
    Thank you for sharing your opinions!

    Here are mine:
    1) We can't learn any lesson until we assess selection committee's decision and understand why it was made.
    2) It is clear that Edward's performance at the Olympiad - coupled with his behavior during Olympiad, his newsletter article and comments on this board - demonstrates that committee's decision was a mistake.
    3) What is not clear - how this decision was made? What other candidates were considered? What information was collected? Which arguments presented? The formal report of the selection committee could answer these questions. If it contains sensitive personal information, such report should be presented on the private Governors Forum.
    4) If the selection committee 2012 failed to perform its job properly, it doesn't mean we should abolish selection committee. It only means that we need to select committee's members more carefully.
    5) The main change that could be easily implemented - the Captain should be a part of selection committee and select reserve player after consultation with base players selected by rating and Canadian Championship.
    Thanks,
    Michael Barron

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    1,361

    Thumbs up well said!

    Quote Originally Posted by Vladimir Drkulec View Post
    In everything I have observed Victor Plotkin has shown himself to be a kind, thoughtful and fundamentally decent man over several years of meeting him at chess tournaments where either he or his son, or both were playing. In this situation he had different rules of how a team captain should operate than Edward Porper had. I fear that it would take the intervention of someone with the people skills of Tony Robbins to unravel this Gordian knot of conflicting rules and hurts based on perceived violations of the proper rules. Unlike you, I prefer not to inflame the situation. I see no profit in fighting and dissension. It is wasted energy that could be used to build chess instead of tearing each other down. A house divided against itself cannot stand.
    Well said, Vlad!
    I agree with you - there is no profit in fighting and dissension.

    Unfortunately, your previous posts did exactly that - inflamed the situation.
    I will try to follow your advice not to inflame the situation and ask you - please, don't repeat one-sided defamatory comments, especially when other party doesn't have access to this forum to refute them.
    Thanks,
    Michael Barron

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Tecumseh, ON
    Posts
    3,268
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Barron View Post
    Well said, Vlad!
    I agree with you - there is no profit in fighting and dissension.

    Unfortunately, your previous posts did exactly that - inflamed the situation.
    You said that I made false statements which is equivalent of accusing me of lying. I responded by showing that you were mistaken in your understanding and reading of the evidence that you yourself provided which clearly showed that I was correct in my interpretation.

    I will try to follow your advice not to inflame the situation and ask you - please, don't repeat one-sided defamatory comments, especially when other party doesn't have access to this forum to refute them.
    Exactly what one-sided defamatory comments are you now claiming that I have repeated?
    Last edited by Vladimir Drkulec; 01-31-2013 at 12:11 PM.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Tecumseh, ON
    Posts
    3,268
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Christopher Mallon View Post
    Seriously guys, what does this conversation have to do with the actual motion in question here? It's bad enough we have to read about it in one thread, we don't need more.
    This has definitely gone off the rails. Are we following Robert's Rules?
    Last edited by Vladimir Drkulec; 01-31-2013 at 12:39 PM.

  10. #40

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vladimir Drkulec View Post
    This has definitely gone off the rails. Are we following Robert's Rules?
    I have seen no violations.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234

Posting Permissions

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