Progess (often) is ugly, a summary try

[BB+]

Quite why Bob didn't just say "it's Chris, no need for all this" is a question you should perhaps ask yourself.

The principal answer I derive is: because MarkL and HW were (essentially exclusively) in charge of identity verification, which was disjoint from the "suitability" criterion of being a games programmer (where Hyatt was indeed involved, and correspondingly HW was more likely to be dead-weight). Just to add another layer of obfuscation, Levy had the final oversight in all cases. [Exercise: draw the organisational chart of the ICGA Secretariat for the purposes of Panel Admission, using no less than 4 coloured markers. Bonus: Is this chart equivalent to the succession genealogies of any English monarchs, past or present?]

As icga should be perfectly well aware, I sold Oxford Softworks in 2000 and was no longer connected to the company, in 2003 the new company owners bankrupted the company and it no longer exists. Common sense would indicate that trying to contact on an email no longer in use for between 12 and 15 years is a bit daft.

Common sense is known to be singularly lacking in most bureaucratic matters. Especially when a given protocol is being applied while processing many applicants. Moreover, I don't see any particular reason for MarkL to know (offhandedly) the Oxford Softworks history. For instance, your CPW page is from Gerd, who gives a link that indicates it does still exist (or at least something with that name), and doesn't mention that you sold the company.

Verification would have been easy via Ed Schroeder who was in the loop during this application

The email correspondence that I received indicates that in Ed's first intervention, he only asked why you hadn't been accepted yet (there being the 3-day delay by that point) -- MarkL seems to have responded concerning the email address issue, but by the time Ed responded:

"Hi Mark, [Lefler]
Chris says he hasn't received mail from you.
Here is his email: [yahoo account]
Perhaps you can give it another try.
[...]

it seems to have been too late. As I've said, it seems to be a tragic collision of circumstances [though perhaps this is pre-destined with any CW-Bob interaction ].

My overall comment is this: you sent me the email correspondence back in early March, and I concluded that there was some problems on both sides, but was willing to intervene as I could. For better or worse, there was no subsequent attempt (after the 2week/1month ban expired) at either end for you to join Bob's Panel [oops, I mean the ICGA Panel ].

[mjlef]

Secondly, I received some assurance from Levy and the Secretariat that if Rajlich was going to join in the discussions of the Investigation Panel, then everyone (in particular CW) who was "known" to be favouring his side of things would be admitted. OTOH, if the Panel was going to proceed without input from VR [and so, he would speak directly Board, if at all], then I had to agree that there didn't seem any specific reason to admit CW under the immediate circumstances.

Seems sort of short-sighted to say "if he won't defend himself, he deserves no defense whatsoever", though. Again, I doubt it would have changed anything, but it conveys an impression that the ICGA would probably prefer to avoid.

jb

Anyone could apply to join the panel. Some who did apply to join were turned down since they did not have the background to analyze the information (they just wanted to see what was happening). A few could not verify identity (and so were probably fake). Chris was rude. That is it. Some seemed to be on Vas's side and argued for him in the private discussions. Some others joined we assume to pass on information to Vas. Why Vas did not join still confuses me. We know his email address and so would have verified him very quickly. Why he did not want to see all the evidence is odd to me. But we did send him most of the reports and summaries of important web pages once the Secretariat report was completed.

The point is any of you could probably have joined and added to the defense of Vas. But Vas certainly did not put up much of a defense. Maybe he thought ICGA was not important, or maybe because there was no defense to put up with. The few complaints I have see on these boards are about process. I see nothing that really defends Vas here at all. (But I have not read all the postings on all the boards, since time is limited and I am traveling now).

[Rebel]

Verification would have been easy via Ed Schroeder who was in the loop during this application or by Bob Hyatt with whom I had communicated via email relatively recently. Quite why Bob didn't just say "it's Chris, no need for all this" is a question you should perhaps ask yourself.

And was done. Bob knew. Mark L. knew because I told him twice including your email-address. One of the emails:

-------------------------------

Hi Mark,

Chris says he hasn't received mail from you. Here is his email:

chriswxxxxx@yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy.com

Perhaps you can give it another try.

IMO, you can't pre-ban a person. Especially not if that is the first "deed" of the tribunal.

Regards,

Ed

[Chris Whittington]

Quite why Bob didn't just say "it's Chris, no need for all this" is a question you should perhaps ask yourself.

The principal answer I derive is: because MarkL and HW were (essentially exclusively) in charge of identity verification, which was disjoint from the "suitability" criterion of being a games programmer (where Hyatt was indeed involved, and correspondingly HW was more likely to be dead-weight). Just to add another layer of obfuscation, Levy had the final oversight in all cases. [Exercise: draw the organisational chart of the ICGA Secretariat for the purposes of Panel Admission, using no less than 4 coloured markers. Bonus: Is this chart equivalent to the succession genealogies of any English monarchs, past or present?]

As icga should be perfectly well aware, I sold Oxford Softworks in 2000 and was no longer connected to the company, in 2003 the new company owners bankrupted the company and it no longer exists. Common sense would indicate that trying to contact on an email no longer in use for between 12 and 15 years is a bit daft.

Common sense is known to be singularly lacking in most bureaucratic matters. Especially when a given protocol is being applied while processing many applicants. Moreover, I don't see any particular reason for MarkL to know (offhandedly) the Oxford Softworks history. For instance, your CPW page is from Gerd, who gives a link that indicates it does still exist (or at least something with that name), and doesn't mention that you sold the company.

Verification would have been easy via Ed Schroeder who was in the loop during this application

The email correspondence that I received indicates that in Ed's first intervention, he only asked why you hadn't been accepted yet (there being the 3-day delay by that point) -- MarkL seems to have responded concerning the email address issue, but by the time Ed responded:

"Hi Mark, [Lefler]
Chris says he hasn't received mail from you.
Here is his email: [yahoo account]
Perhaps you can give it another try.
[...]

it seems to have been too late. As I've said, it seems to be a tragic collision of circumstances [though perhaps this is pre-destined with any CW-Bob interaction ].

My overall comment is this: you sent me the email correspondence back in early March, and I concluded that there was some problems on both sides, but was willing to intervene as I could. For better or worse, there was no subsequent attempt (after the 2week/1month ban expired) at either end for you to join Bob's Panel [oops, I mean the ICGA Panel ].

It seems people recently try to use the name or the website. Nevertheless the history and sale of OS in 2000 and subsequent bankruptcy in 2003 is well known in industry circles.

Nobody said anything to me about a ban duration. If I remember correct, you said "try applying again in a week or so after they've all calmed down", but you're not them and had no powers, so it was merely suggestive and I am hardly likely to go grovelling when the situation had been made so clear (made even clearer by Hyatt recent comments on Rybka forum). Kept out for political reasons.

[Chris Whittington]

Secondly, I received some assurance from Levy and the Secretariat that if Rajlich was going to join in the discussions of the Investigation Panel, then everyone (in particular CW) who was "known" to be favouring his side of things would be admitted. OTOH, if the Panel was going to proceed without input from VR [and so, he would speak directly Board, if at all], then I had to agree that there didn't seem any specific reason to admit CW under the immediate circumstances.

Seems sort of short-sighted to say "if he won't defend himself, he deserves no defense whatsoever", though. Again, I doubt it would have changed anything, but it conveys an impression that the ICGA would probably prefer to avoid.

jb

Anyone could apply to join the panel. Some who did apply to join were turned down since they did not have the background to analyze the information (they just wanted to see what was happening). A few could not verify identity (and so were probably fake). Chris was rude. That is it. Some seemed to be on Vas's side and argued for him in the private discussions. Some others joined we assume to pass on information to Vas. Why Vas did not join still confuses me. We know his email address and so would have verified him very quickly. Why he did not want to see all the evidence is odd to me. But we did send him most of the reports and summaries of important web pages once the Secretariat report was completed.

The point is any of you could probably have joined and added to the defense of Vas. But Vas certainly did not put up much of a defense. Maybe he thought ICGA was not important, or maybe because there was no defense to put up with. The few complaints I have see on these boards are about process. I see nothing that really defends Vas here at all. (But I have not read all the postings on all the boards, since time is limited and I am traveling now).

You and Hyatt were rude, patronising and provocative. Me not. I showed great forbearance in the face of obvious hostility (confirmed recently by Hyatt on Rybka forum). Bob Hyatt could very easily have said "it's Chris, let's stop messing him around", but he didn't.

And Bob is so so sure he can identify me that he tilts at windmills on CCC (last week) accusing some crazy guy of being me when I've not posted at talkchess for over three years and have no intention of ever doing so. Good at making false identifications but not good at making true ones, it seems.

Conclusion? Political, political, political.

[BB+]

Nobody said anything to me about a ban duration. If I remember correct, you said "try applying again in a week or so after they've all calmed down", but you're not them and had no powers, so it was merely suggestive and I am hardly likely to go grovelling when the situation had been made so clear (made even clearer by Hyatt recent comments on Rybka forum).

Just in case this becomes a matter of record [haha], here was my actual phrasing -- as CW said, I had no "real" powers, other than to "assure", as it were:

In any event, I got some assurance that if Rajlich shows up for a defence, so that there's more to do than just twiddle thumbs, then you will be admitted (subject to all the "politeness" rules, of course). If he doesn't, they have suggested some amount of "cooling off" time, might be a week, maybe a month.

Kept out for political reasons.

Likely a wise decision, IMO.

[hyatt]

Secondly, I received some assurance from Levy and the Secretariat that if Rajlich was going to join in the discussions of the Investigation Panel, then everyone (in particular CW) who was "known" to be favouring his side of things would be admitted. OTOH, if the Panel was going to proceed without input from VR [and so, he would speak directly Board, if at all], then I had to agree that there didn't seem any specific reason to admit CW under the immediate circumstances.

Seems sort of short-sighted to say "if he won't defend himself, he deserves no defense whatsoever", though. Again, I doubt it would have changed anything, but it conveys an impression that the ICGA would probably prefer to avoid.

jb

Anyone could apply to join the panel. Some who did apply to join were turned down since they did not have the background to analyze the information (they just wanted to see what was happening). A few could not verify identity (and so were probably fake). Chris was rude. That is it. Some seemed to be on Vas's side and argued for him in the private discussions. Some others joined we assume to pass on information to Vas. Why Vas did not join still confuses me. We know his email address and so would have verified him very quickly. Why he did not want to see all the evidence is odd to me. But we did send him most of the reports and summaries of important web pages once the Secretariat report was completed.

The point is any of you could probably have joined and added to the defense of Vas. But Vas certainly did not put up much of a defense. Maybe he thought ICGA was not important, or maybe because there was no defense to put up with. The few complaints I have see on these boards are about process. I see nothing that really defends Vas here at all. (But I have not read all the postings on all the boards, since time is limited and I am traveling now).

You and Hyatt were rude, patronising and provocative. Me not. I showed great forbearance in the face of obvious hostility (confirmed recently by Hyatt on Rybka forum). Bob Hyatt could very easily have said "it's Chris, let's stop messing him around", but he didn't.

And Bob is so so sure he can identify me that he tilts at windmills on CCC (last week) accusing some crazy guy of being me when I've not posted at talkchess for over three years and have no intention of ever doing so. Good at making false identifications but not good at making true ones, it seems.

Conclusion? Political, political, political.

Yeah, you have never used any posting handle but "Chris Whittington" correct, "trotsky"?

I _do_ post under my real name _every_ time I post. How many aliases have you used on CCC over the past 15 years or so? I have only had one account since CCC was created.

[hyatt]

Your stock just went up in my book.

[mjlef]

Secondly, I received some assurance from Levy and the Secretariat that if Rajlich was going to join in the discussions of the Investigation Panel, then everyone (in particular CW) who was "known" to be favouring his side of things would be admitted. OTOH, if the Panel was going to proceed without input from VR [and so, he would speak directly Board, if at all], then I had to agree that there didn't seem any specific reason to admit CW under the immediate circumstances.

Seems sort of short-sighted to say "if he won't defend himself, he deserves no defense whatsoever", though. Again, I doubt it would have changed anything, but it conveys an impression that the ICGA would probably prefer to avoid.

jb

Anyone could apply to join the panel. Some who did apply to join were turned down since they did not have the background to analyze the information (they just wanted to see what was happening). A few could not verify identity (and so were probably fake). Chris was rude. That is it. Some seemed to be on Vas's side and argued for him in the private discussions. Some others joined we assume to pass on information to Vas. Why Vas did not join still confuses me. We know his email address and so would have verified him very quickly. Why he did not want to see all the evidence is odd to me. But we did send him most of the reports and summaries of important web pages once the Secretariat report was completed.

The point is any of you could probably have joined and added to the defense of Vas. But Vas certainly did not put up much of a defense. Maybe he thought ICGA was not important, or maybe because there was no defense to put up with. The few complaints I have see on these boards are about process. I see nothing that really defends Vas here at all. (But I have not read all the postings on all the boards, since time is limited and I am traveling now).

You and Hyatt were rude, patronising and provocative. Me not. I showed great forbearance in the face of obvious hostility (confirmed recently by Hyatt on Rybka forum). Bob Hyatt could very easily have said "it's Chris, let's stop messing him around", but he didn't.

And Bob is so so sure he can identify me that he tilts at windmills on CCC (last week) accusing some crazy guy of being me when I've not posted at talkchess for over three years and have no intention of ever doing so. Good at making false identifications but not good at making true ones, it seems.

Conclusion? Political, political, political.

I am probably the least political person you will ever meet. You want to be on our board, you have to play by the rules. You did not. You were rude and we decided not to approve your application. Should you ever decide to be civil, I am sure whoever is on the Secretariat at that time will consider your application. But your continuing actions of not even acknowledging you behaved badly makes accepting you doubtful.

Look, anyone can contribute to these investigations even if they are not on the panel. Just post stuff on these boards and I am sure panel members will see them and if the information is useful, it will be included and discussed.

But I cannot have overly dramatic people on the panel. Our discussions would end up being a nightmare like this one is. Running round and round and getting nowhere.

Have you ever said sorry for anything?

[hyatt]

Quite why Bob didn't just say "it's Chris, no need for all this" is a question you should perhaps ask yourself.

The principal answer I derive is: because MarkL and HW were (essentially exclusively) in charge of identity verification, which was disjoint from the "suitability" criterion of being a games programmer (where Hyatt was indeed involved, and correspondingly HW was more likely to be dead-weight). Just to add another layer of obfuscation, Levy had the final oversight in all cases. [Exercise: draw the organisational chart of the ICGA Secretariat for the purposes of Panel Admission, using no less than 4 coloured markers. Bonus: Is this chart equivalent to the succession genealogies of any English monarchs, past or present?]

As icga should be perfectly well aware, I sold Oxford Softworks in 2000 and was no longer connected to the company, in 2003 the new company owners bankrupted the company and it no longer exists. Common sense would indicate that trying to contact on an email no longer in use for between 12 and 15 years is a bit daft.

Common sense is known to be singularly lacking in most bureaucratic matters. Especially when a given protocol is being applied while processing many applicants. Moreover, I don't see any particular reason for MarkL to know (offhandedly) the Oxford Softworks history. For instance, your CPW page is from Gerd, who gives a link that indicates it does still exist (or at least something with that name), and doesn't mention that you sold the company.

Verification would have been easy via Ed Schroeder who was in the loop during this application

The email correspondence that I received indicates that in Ed's first intervention, he only asked why you hadn't been accepted yet (there being the 3-day delay by that point) -- MarkL seems to have responded concerning the email address issue, but by the time Ed responded:

"Hi Mark, [Lefler]
Chris says he hasn't received mail from you.
Here is his email: [yahoo account]
Perhaps you can give it another try.
[...]

it seems to have been too late. As I've said, it seems to be a tragic collision of circumstances [though perhaps this is pre-destined with any CW-Bob interaction ].

My overall comment is this: you sent me the email correspondence back in early March, and I concluded that there was some problems on both sides, but was willing to intervene as I could. For better or worse, there was no subsequent attempt (after the 2week/1month ban expired) at either end for you to join Bob's Panel [oops, I mean the ICGA Panel ].

One more note to add. I tried to confirm the email address Mark Lefler asked about. I could not find any old emails from Chris that used that. I did not relish the idea of going thru a _bunch_ of DVD backups, one at a time, to see if I could find it. And there was nothing in the email itself that gave any clue that it was real...