The final count is either 5 to 1 or 4 to 1 with one abstention. Consensus achieved
Emails lower down are earlier in the thread.
Lyle Craver
Fri 2021-01-22 11:35 AM
To: CFC Board; CFC office
I certainly do not object to literary references and do get most of them.
If the caveat was up front then all right. I'll let this slide but I say again to me this whole affair seems to be 'gaming the system' and I am quite uncomfortable when this sort of thing happens.
So I gather the consensus is that we let this one go and let FIDE deal with it. With regret I tend to agree.
I can see there are multiple agendas going on here particularly above the CFC level though I don't pretend to fully understand the ins and outs of this. Haven't decided whether to hold my nose and vote for this or abstain (am leaning to the latter)
All my best, LC
On 1/22/2021 12:23 AM, Vladimir Drkulec wrote:
The caveat was right at the beginning in the title of the application. It was there from the very beginning in both versions of the application that were sent to me at the same time they were sent to Hal.
Hal is not an idiot but he is not acting in a fully rational way. Anger is very taxing on the individual feeling that anger. There are layers of agendas being served here.
People on the FIDE arbiters commission wanted Canada to expose itself to possibly dire consequences to spare them the embarrassment of denying this petition. ( Lets you and them fight.) Any decent lawyer would rip us to shreds because of the animus exhibited in certain emails. We do not have a problem in Canada.
There is no reason that we should create a problem of many different levels in Canada when there is no need. This will be decided on the merits by people higher up the ladder.
In investigating the backstory, I am somewhat annoyed at the perception of Canada as a troublemaker who is always splashing around in the FIDE pool. Their feeling is that the Anton Kovalyov situation was all our fault. My feeling is that they owe us a future 2700 player to make up for the one we lost in Anton. Mind you this occurred under the last FIDE administration but most of the same people are in place on the arbiter commission side. The current administration did try to fix it.
I will take the hit for this if there is a hit for it.
There is always the opportunity for self-destruction. See the fictional outcome for Javert in Les Miserables and Captain Ahab in Moby Dick.
There is no way anyone could have seen the sudden turn over a cliff in this situation. Hal is not destroyed. He is not going to disappear from the chess scene. He simply decided that he did not want to deal with our decision not to rubber stamp his previous decision. He greatly over-reacted in the exchange with Mark.
XXXXXXX is not an all seeing Moriarity. I'm really piling on with the literary villains and anti-heroes but in fiction is truth that real life often obscures.
Vlad
From: Lyle Craver
Sent: January 22, 2021 1:30 AM
To: CFC Board of directors and CFC Office
Subject: Re: Arbiter category update application
The single reason I am not at this time ADAMANTLY opposed to this is the part about not taking effect till her 5th IA anniversary.
The whole thing seems too sketchy by half and I'm uncomfortable with it.
In particular (and yes I'm shouting here) WHEN WAS THE CAVEAT MADE?
Because I don't think Hal is an idiot and it would be idiotic to have resigned had that clause been IN THE OPEN FROM THE BEGINNING!
What I think is a far more credible explanation is that a certain member of the applicant's household saw this as an opportunity to destroy Hal and slipped that clause in AFTER Hal resigned due to his perceived lack of support from the board. Maybe I'm being paranoid here but given past dealings between them to me that's a _very_ credible explanation. So PLEASE Mr President - when was that specific clause inserted - when did YOU first become aware of this. To me this is critical information as a highly respected member of the chess community has taken a very strong action based on the application and whatever else I am a happy camper I am NOT.
I trust I make myself sufficiently clear to all of you.
At this point I am extremely angry with how this matter has been pursued. LC
On 1/21/2021 2:40 PM, Christina Tao wrote:
I agree we should put this application forward.
Thanks
Christina
On Thu, 21 Jan 2021 at 17:33, Fred McKim wrote:
I am willing to let it go forward.
From: Vladimir Drkulec
Sent: January 21, 2021 5:53 PM
To: CFC Board of Directors and CFC Office
Subject: Re: Arbiter category update application
It should be noted that she is not asking to jump the queue as the application is pending on serving the requisite time so it would not take effect until she had served five years. Apparently, FIDE is doing this in lots of situations like with the arbiters under the age of 21 as they changed the age requirement from 18 to 21 with some young arbiters having already achieved norms. There would be a decision saying that the upgrade would be awarded upon having served the requisite five years time as an IA without going inactive.
Someone on the arbiters commission would like this squelched according to XXXX but apparently the arbiters commission are not the ones that decide whether this application succeeds or not. They only recommend one way or another. The decision is made at a higher pay grade.
Mark's observation that we should not be the gatekeeper that prevents Canadians from proceeding with upgrading their credentials coincides with my belief. If we ever want to host a larger tournament or world event, like an olympiad, it would be a good idea to have more higher category arbiters.
On a separate note, I really need to register some level of opposition to the proposed new arbiter guidelines which could remove every one of our arbiters off the table for inactivity by the end of this year if Covid drags out. Tomorrow is the deadline for submissions.
Right now it seems to me that sentiment is 3 (Mark, Fred and myself) to 2 (Lyle and Egis) to move this application forward. I may be misreading the room a bit as at first I thought Lyle might be trending to approve it. Am I correct in my assessment.
From: Fred McKim
Sent: January 19, 2021 7:29 PM
To: CFC board of directors
Subject: Re: Arbiter category update application
Thanks for the detailed rationale Vlad. While I think we all know that Hal won't be happy with this, it would seem that our best move is to let it go forward and see how things play out.
From: Vladimir Drkulec
Sent: January 19, 2021 7:27 PM
To: CFC Board of Directors
Subject: Re: Arbiter category update application
There is no implication that Hal has done anything incorrectly or that he has even come to the wrong conclusion.
The only thing we are doing is avoiding unnecessary litigation and political embarrassment with the COC and the media.
It is XXXXXX making this application.
Aris is a very good friend of mine who I very much respect as an arbiter and was head arbiter in all of the large tournaments which I have been involved in organizing and probably all large tournaments which I will organize in the future but this is not really something where he can shed additional light on the situation unless you are trying to support a pre-determined outcome.
Aris really doesn't want to get involved in this.
The problem with both Hal and Aris is that in the event this application is passed on and is successful this results in more competition for arbiting gigs.
There is at least the appearance of a conflict of interest. If this should wind up in a court, that would probably play a role.
If we involve Aris at this point then we recuse him from the NAC if this is somehow moved to that body.
According to XXXX's email she argues that it is not our job to act as the gatekeeper for such requests but rather to move them forward. If we move this forward, the AC says no and this leads to litigation then the litigation will take place in a Swiss court and won't involve the CFC because we pushed it forward as much as we could. The rule is poorly written, and I recently read an article about lawsuits that went on for many years for want of a comma. There is even a story told by XXXXXXXXX about why he stopped being a lawyer because of a comma. XXXXXX's interpretation is at the very least plausible. If you want, you can blame it on me for any loss of face at the FIDE Arbiter Commission.
Vlad
From: Egis Zeromskis
Sent: January 19, 2021 2:01 PM
To:Board of Directors
Subject: Re: Arbiter category update application
Yes, we can ask Aris opinion too.