A new twist on mobile Phones.

[Louise Sinclair]

As any appeal will now only consider decisions, it would be interesting to see how the LMC would handle this newly introduced obscurantism.

As a member of the LMC referred to by Bill Porter I will state that business will continue as normal. Any decision made by the League Secretary which is subsequently challenged by a club will result in a meeting where the initial decision will be discussed and both sides of the argument examined.
The LMC retains the power to over rule the secretary.
Previously it was impractical and time consuming for the secretary to have to run small unimportant decisions past the comittee. Hiring a room costs money and calling the comittee together for trivial matters which are not disputed is officious and recalls the behaviour of the previous Labour Government.
Would Mr Porter like to see a Quango installed to oversee the behaviour of the secretary and LMC?
Surely he isn't suggesting that views of LMC members are not independent of those of the League Secretary.
Louise

[Bill Porter]

business will continue as normal

which presumably means according to the new rules. I don't know how appeals were normally conducted since no one has seen fit to fulfil the commitment made on 25th November 2009 to provide minutes of the last appeal I know of.

The LMC retains the power to over rule the secretary.

I am pleased to read this, but I see nothing on the website to support that view (procedural errors excepted).

Previously it was impractical and time consuming for the secretary to have to run small unimportant decisions past the comittee.

If you're referring to the Enfield matter, I find it interesting that you consider docking points from league matches without providing either any complaint or evidence for doing so unimportant.
Not all league chessplayers subscribe to the Olympian view that the result doesn't matter, it's the taking part that counts.
A definition of "unimportant" in the rules, eg not more than three match points deducted in one season, would be helpful.

Hiring a room costs money and calling the comittee together for trivial matters which are not disputed is officious and recalls the behaviour of the previous Labour Government.

This is the first time I've seen the NCCL compared to the previous Labour Government. When did the NCCL do this and why?

Surely he isn't suggesting that views of LMC members are not independent of those of the League Secretary.

I've certainly not suggesting this and I don't know why you're so obsessed by the idea.
The NCCL rules do not require the Secretary to provide any complaint or evidence on which he has based his ruling to the appeal committee.
In their absence, the only legitimate reason for the committee to overrule the Secretary is procedural error.
The Secretary's modified powers are such that any such error is now very unlikely.


I do however consider the NCCL committee and Secretary collectively guilty of negligence in failing to fulfil their commitment to provide the minutes of the 25th November 2009 meeting.
In the absence of even this minimal information I will not in future respond directly to posts from the Secretary or members of the LMC.

[Gary Cook]

It is so interesting to see the comments of one who was not there ...

Not happy with having a go at me as Secretary he now decides to insult all of the other clubs, via their representatives at the AGM. The changes to the rules were debated at length and all the clubs agreed that the changes made sense. Had Mr Porter any problems with the changes he only had to attend the AGM and makes he views available to all, but alas he didn't take the sensible route but relies again on campaign of misinformation.

For his information one of the main changes was to introduce an appeals process that was sadly missing in the previous rules. Now any decision that the Secretary makes can be appealled against - no doubt he will find something wrong with this, but the clubs within the NCCL have voted in this change and they are the only ones that matter.

If, as he tries to appear to be, Mr Porter is so concerned by my mismanagement of the NCCL (as he perceives it) why didn't he stand against me and make his views known to those who are relevant?

But of course he has stated he will not answer this email - and you know what I couldn't care less

Gary

[Louise Sinclair]

The comments from Bill Porter are convoluted, twisted and pathetic. He talks of obsession but he is the person suffering from obsessive paranioa. The changes voted in at the AGM were witnessed by Enfield Chess Club and as far as I'm aware nobody chained Bill Porter in a dungeon and prevented him attending the meeting and overthrowing the secretary and regime.
However I expect he was suffering the male version of PMS and decided to boycott the AGM just as he has decided not to speak to members of the LMC.
Gee Bill - I never knew what a talent for sulking you have
Louise

[Joey Stewart]

How do we know who is the right person to believe here? In chess politics most issues fall into the grey areas where either side could present a plausable arguement for their case.

[Gary Cook]

Joey
You are quite correct, though in this case it is one person against the rest of the League, so weight of numbers might hold a clue. I have had notification from this person's previous club and they say that his comments do not reflect their views.

Gary

[Joey Stewart]

Well from what I could discern from this topic was that there was a mobile phone dispute, the league ruled that a penalty point be given against the team itself as nobody could identify the culprit, but then would not reveal the minutes of the meeting where this ruling was made and this has been a bone of contention for some time.

It seems that to have just given those minutes would have been the easiest solution to the problem, which leads me to believe that there were either none taken or they have been lost - wouldnt it be easier to just have the minute taker confess this so we can move on?

[Bill Porter]

How do we know who is the right person to believe here? In chess politics most issues fall into the grey areas where either side could present a plausable arguement for their case.

On http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~cernu ... agm10.html dated 2 September 2010

Stephen Banks asked if the LMC minutes were available to confirm the agreement over the Enfield/Barking dispute had been minuted. The minutes for this meeting were not present but the Secretary agreed to send him a copy.

.

Steve had still not received them last Tuesday.

There was an agreement to provide the minutes at the 25th November 2009 meeting. An appeal committee which does not implement inconvenient aspects of its own decisions is pointless.

After this delay, I doubt there will be agreement on exactly what was said.

It is a matter of record that the Secretary has refused to provide me with copies of either the complaint or the evidence against Enfield. He has only provided his view of the evidence.

While I believe the ruling against Enfield was unjustified, I can never be sure as it just possible the Secretary has strong evidence known only by himself.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Well from what I could discern from this topic was that there was a mobile phone dispute, the league ruled that a penalty point be given against the team itself as nobody could identify the culprit, but then would not reveal the minutes of the meeting where this ruling was made and this has been a bone of contention for some time.

It seems that to have just given those minutes would have been the easiest solution to the problem, which leads me to believe that there were either none taken or they have been lost - wouldnt it be easier to just have the minute taker confess this so we can move on?

I've just read through the whole 6 pages of this thread, and that seems a fair summary. There was an interesting bit of discussion about the mobile phone rule and I also learnt that using descriptive notation can be problematic if you wish to make certain claims, but then the thread went back to being boring again. I suggest that those still upset by what happened or didn't happen here, try and get the dispute mediated somewhere else, or move on.

[Bill Porter]

try and get the dispute mediated somewhere else

There is no mechanism to appeal against the NCCL's refusal to implement the rulings of its appeal committee.
I am however not willing to ignore reiterated commitments by the NCCL which are not implemented as any casual reader might suppose that they have been implemented.

[Gary Cook]

Mr Porter - the NCCL have an appeals process which Enfield CC used - so I am not sure what you are talking about us having no process. At the recent AGM the clubs agreed to refine this process even further.

If you had bothered to attend the meeting you would have known what happened but you decided instead that it would be better to bring the situation to the attention of this forum.

Why would I be hiding the minutes of the meeting as if it is some great secret rather than a simple meeting of the LMC for the League - what do you expect it to say? Oh yes, I forgot it does mention that we know the real assassin in 1963 and that the moon shot in 1969 was a hoax, but other than that there is nothing of any interest other than to those that attended. The only reason that is hasn't been sent is a case of procrastination on my part and will be remedied forthwith.

Christopher - I would be interested in knowing what methods other leagues have of mediating matters dealing purely within that league, that is surely what the LMC within the league is there to do - I personally know of any no other method, I can hardly see the ECF wanting to get involved and acting as some kind of supreme court. In addition Mr Porter is no longer registered as a player within the league (his choice).

Within the NCCL we have moved on and I am only responding because of the misinformation that Mr Porter has brought to this forum (again).

Gary

[Gary Cook]

try and get the dispute mediated somewhere else

There is no mechanism to appeal against the NCCL's refusal to implement the rulings of its appeal committee.
I am however not willing to ignore reiterated commitments by the NCCL which are not implemented as any casual reader might suppose that they have been implemented.

What is it exactly that the NCCL has refused to implement?

Gary

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Christopher - I would be interested in knowing what methods other leagues have of mediating matters dealing purely within that league, that is surely what the LMC within the league is there to do - I personally know of any no other method, I can hardly see the ECF wanting to get involved and acting as some kind of supreme court. In addition Mr Porter is no longer registered as a player within the league (his choice).

Within the NCCL we have moved on and I am only responding because of the misinformation that Mr Porter has brought to this forum (again).

Oh, I quite agree that everyone should be moving on from this. And I agree that this forum is not the place for people to complain about things like this. I'm certainly not offering to mediate, it was just a suggestion!

[Alex Holowczak]

For what it's worth, I think the penalty was a good one. If someone's mobile phone goes off, you know for certain it's from Team A, but they won't admit to whose, then it seems a perfectly reasonable penalty.

Perhaps it could be used as a rule anyway, even if you know whose phone it is which went off? E.g. if Team A board 2's phone rings, then rather than lose by default, the game carries on regardless as if it never happened, and Team A is just docked 1 gamepoint from its match total? That seems to give the penalty the Laws of Chess wants to award (the loss of a game), while also allowing people to play a game of chess.

[David Pardoe]

Firstly, it does seem to me that confirmation of `evidence provided` & content should be subject to independant scrutiny, on request.....otherwise no such `ruling` should be allowed to stand.
Secondly, it appears that no clear confirmation that it was actually someones mobile that went off..from what I`ve read.
Thirdly...you cant just doc points arbitrarily....ie, suppose it was someones mobile that had gone off. Now suppose that person actually lost there game anyway..you cant make double punishments.
But I agree with others who quite rightly say these penalties should not be applied to league chess. They are simply too draconian. I prefer the standard 5-minute time penalty, or at the very least..a warning.
I`ve heard of a case (at this years `British`..), where a phone went off and the players opponent only had 12 seconds left on there clock...got into a paddy and by the time they finished arguing, his flag had fallen. One question you might ask there is.... did they have enough time left to actually win by normal means anyway..?
Its for these sorts of reasons that I think a simple 5-min clock penalty should suffice.
One things for certain..we really dont want disputes like this going on in our ordinary league chess, which most players play for enjoyment.