Tournament dispute from several years ago

[Christopher Kreuzer]

I made no derogatory comments about any deceased person and your insinuation that I did so is intolerable. It is an immediate requirement that you apologise for your false accusation and/or delete it.

Please just read again what I posted Kevin as I never suggested anything of the kind, I said I was uncomfortable with the raising of an old dispute

I am stepping back and asking Jack and Sean for their comments on the matter and am happy to be moderated myself if that is the case

Can other moderators see posts even after they are deleted? That would seem to be needed here to make any kind of judgement or ruling. I vaguely remember the post in question, and suspect the deceased person is one of those that was on the appeal panel, but I can't remember the names.

[Jon D'Souza-Eva]

Have a look at post 2.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Have a look at post 2.

D'oh!

EDIT (the following added after Carl's post below):

But I agree with Kevin. Why is Carl saying "you were also referring to someone who is sadly no longer with us and we felt uncomfortable with that element of your post" about the mention of Richard Furness? That seems irrelevant because Carl left the original post intact (as he has said). If Carl or someone felt uncomfortable about the mention of Richard Furness, they should have brought that up as a separate matter.

Anyway, two points:

(1) Who is the "we", the royal we, or Carl and someone else?

(2) It's been over 7 years now since Richard Furness died (I'm glad the obituaries are still readily available). Is there something I've missed here? There are many on the chess scene who have passed away over the years. Is there really an unwritten rule here to avoid certain types of criticism because the person in question is not present to respond? All I saw was a passing mention of him being part of a sub-committee of three, and implied criticism of the report from that committee. Maybe Roger's post didn't quote Kevin's original post in full?

FWIW, I agree the move to a new thread was needed. But I suspect Kevin wanted it left in the original thread because the point he was making was that Alec McFarlane was the common element (though quite why Kevin chose to drag up an ancient dispute, I'm not sure). What might have helped is to have a link at the top of this thread saying where the original post came from.

[Carl Hibbard]

There was no moderation beyond the comments being moved to an alternate thread but clearly Kevin as the author removed his post in protest, there was no direct censorship

I only suggested I was uncomfortable raising an old dispute related to a panel of people where one is sadly deceased, I passed no comment on the post and did not suggest it was derogatory

Did my comment come across that way is the question?

[Roger de Coverly]

Maybe Roger's post didn't quote Kevin's original post in full?

It was a selective extract. I cannot claim much knowledge about the affair other than to observe that I was at a meeting once where the subject wasn't discussed. This isn't as bizarre as it sounds, because the Welch report was awaited. The Welch report was supposed to close the issue.

I think it known that Kevin wasn't very happy with the report but lacked a formal means to challenge it. He was perhaps drawing a parallel between his inability to challenge the old report and Alex McF's difficulties with the Times Chess Correspondent.

[Carl Hibbard]

(1) Who is the "we", the royal we, or Carl and someone else?

I agree that was wrong just "me" so I will correct that

[Gary Cook]

The fact that much of Enfield's defense was based on the assumption that the evidence to which your husband referred actually existed and also that the appeal committee's final decision is taking years rather than days confirms the correctness of that decision.

As the person referred to as "your husband the NCCL Secretary" all I have say is that this matter is not still outstanding, the committee made their decision in the 2009-10 season which Enfield CC accepted it at that time. I am sure that if you asked him the Secretary of Enfield will confim this.

Gary

[Christopher Kreuzer]

I dub this the "two old disputes intertwined" thread. If a third is added, we may have a braid.

[Sean Hewitt]

I made no derogatory comments about any deceased person and your insinuation that I did so is intolerable. It is an immediate requirement that you apologise for your false accusation and/or delete it.

Please just read again what I posted Kevin as I never suggested anything of the kind, I said I was uncomfortable with the raising of an old dispute

I am stepping back and asking Jack and Sean for their comments on the matter and am happy to be moderated myself if that is the case

As far as I can see there has been no moderation (other than by the original poster editing his own comment) as I do not consider the moving of the post unedited to a new topic to be moderation. I'm therefore happy to leave things as they are.

[Paul Cooksey]

I'd bet on a blog post called "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?", if Steve hadn't just read this comment.

[Louise Sinclair]

The dispute referred to by Kevin made be an old one but I still recall being knocked unconscious to the floor - however I suppose that the "gallantry" displayed by many British chess players is conducive with modern politically correct censored society where nobody speaks ill or mentions unpleasant occurences provided all is neatly covered up and the pretence is that it was merely the fanciful story of a disgruntled official and a female player.

[Louise Sinclair]

I dub this the "two old disputes intertwined" thread. If a third is added, we may have a braid.

can you provide a third strand lol
Louise

[Christopher Kreuzer]

I dub this the "two old disputes intertwined" thread. If a third is added, we may have a braid.

can you provide a third strand lol
Louise

Well, I just resigned a game where the clocks behaved in a funny way (though that is no excuse for the moves I played on the board), but that's not a dispute. Um. Maybe a more general thread about fisticuffs in chess tournaments. There was some dispute over a woman at some Olympiad, wasn't there? And I recall someone being banned from an Irish tournament for something possibly involving fists. Clearly, chess players don't just do battle on the chess board.

BTW, I'm sorry if my post belittled your old dispute in any way. Being knocked out is a serious business. Really it shouldn't be a matter for chess authorities but dealt with externally. But most people, when reading something like that, will think "shouldn't it have been resolved by now?"

[Sean Hewitt]

Being knocked out is a serious business. Really it shouldn't be a matter for chess authorities but dealt with externally. But most people, when reading something like that, will think "shouldn't it have been resolved by now?"

I'd have called the police.

[Sean Hewitt]

I recall someone being banned from an Irish tournament for something possibly involving fists.

I wonder who that was?