FIDE Rules on ICGA - Rybka controversy

[Chris Whittington]

Sorry I was NOT the "blocking source."

Neither was Ed or anyone else except for the four of us I named above. .

To: "Robert M. Hyatt" <hyatt@.....>
From: Ed Schroder <........>
Subject: Tribunal
Date: 20:16 25-2-2011
CC: Chris Whittington <chris@.....>

Hi Bob,

Is Chris W. not allowed to enter on http://icga.wikispaces.com ?

He can't get in, perhaps you can instruct him?

Ed

-----------

The email address on the registration form is the exact as listed in CC.

Explain.

Just to be utterly pedantic:

On the 25th, Ed verifies to Hyatt my email address." CC address same as on the registration form".
On the 28th, Lefler reports that "he is waiting on Hyatt's decision".

Blocked for three days, at least, without reason. By Hyatt. Ed Schroeder was enough.
Deliberate obstruction of the fair operation of the panel process, excluding a known dissenter, by Hyatt, whose motive was to keep out effective opposition to his single-minded objective of forcing through a guilty verdict.
Is this acceptable? Is the verdict acceptable?

[hyatt]

Sorry I was NOT the "blocking source."

Neither was Ed or anyone else except for the four of us I named above. .

To: "Robert M. Hyatt" <hyatt@.....>
From: Ed Schroder <........>
Subject: Tribunal
Date: 20:16 25-2-2011
CC: Chris Whittington <chris@.....>

Hi Bob,

Is Chris W. not allowed to enter on http://icga.wikispaces.com ?

He can't get in, perhaps you can instruct him?

Ed

-----------

The email address on the registration form is the exact as listed in CC.

Explain.

Just to be utterly pedantic:

On the 25th, Ed verifies to Hyatt my email address." CC address same as on the registration form".
On the 28th, Lefler reports that "he is waiting on Hyatt's decision".

Blocked for three days, at least, without reason. By Hyatt. Ed Schroeder was enough.
Deliberate obstruction of the fair operation of the panel process, excluding a known dissenter, by Hyatt, whose motive was to keep out effective opposition to his single-minded objective of forcing through a guilty verdict.
Is this acceptable? Is the verdict acceptable?

Just to be utterly correct, you realize that part below the ----- was NOT a part of the email? It was his post today. You ALWAYS get the details wrong. And quite often the DETAILS are the important things.

And I must admit, making you wait for THREE WHOLE DAYS is egregious conduct and should be subject to capital punishment, no doubt...

You are such a sanctimonious whiner whose perfidious behavior continues to set new lows each and every day.

[Chris Whittington]

Sorry I was NOT the "blocking source."

Neither was Ed or anyone else except for the four of us I named above. .

To: "Robert M. Hyatt" <hyatt@.....>
From: Ed Schroder <........>
Subject: Tribunal
Date: 20:16 25-2-2011
CC: Chris Whittington <chris@.....>

Hi Bob,

Is Chris W. not allowed to enter on http://icga.wikispaces.com ?

He can't get in, perhaps you can instruct him?

Ed

-----------

The email address on the registration form is the exact as listed in CC.

Explain.

Just to be utterly pedantic:

On the 25th, Ed verifies to Hyatt my email address." CC address same as on the registration form".
On the 28th, Lefler reports that "he is waiting on Hyatt's decision".

Blocked for three days, at least, without reason. By Hyatt. Ed Schroeder was enough.
Deliberate obstruction of the fair operation of the panel process, excluding a known dissenter, by Hyatt, whose motive was to keep out effective opposition to his single-minded objective of forcing through a guilty verdict.
Is this acceptable? Is the verdict acceptable?

Just to be utterly correct, you realize that part below the ----- was NOT a part of the email? It was his post today. You ALWAYS get the details wrong. And quite often the DETAILS are the important things.

And I must admit, making you wait for THREE WHOLE DAYS is egregious conduct and should be subject to capital punishment, no doubt...

You are such a sanctimonious whiner whose perfidious behavior continues to set new lows each and every day.

Save your rude insults for Rybka Forum. If I retaliate here the thread will get closed down, so perhaps you'll stop playing the system, huh?

I'm not "whining", I'm presenting evidence to convict you of deliberately sabotaging the application with the intent of driving through a guilty verdict without having to face any effective opposition. Understand now?

Ed gave you my email address, the one you claimed you needed to link "me" with the "email". You had it for three days and sat on it, claiming you couldn't verify my email address. Very funny. Were there any more unlikely events you wish to add to the list of unlikely events, fanciful explanations and demonstrably untruthful explanations of why suddenly everything fell apart for you just as soon as I applied? When we add the rudenesses and bad opinion you seem to have of me, and I think the assertion at some point that it was a good thing I was kept off the panel plus an obvious motive for doing so, then the readers will have no great difficulty in finding you guilty of wilful obstruction of a fair process against someone whose career was then destroyed. That's when it ceases to be an internet game and gets serious. Do you understand that?

[Rebel]

Sorry I was NOT the "blocking source."

Neither was Ed or anyone else except for the four of us I named above. .

To: "Robert M. Hyatt" <hyatt@.....>
From: Ed Schroder <........>
Subject: Tribunal
Date: 20:16 25-2-2011
CC: Chris Whittington <chris@.....>

Hi Bob,

Is Chris W. not allowed to enter on http://icga.wikispaces.com ?

He can't get in, perhaps you can instruct him?

Ed

-----------

The email address on the registration form is the exact as listed in CC.

Explain.

Just to be utterly pedantic:

On the 25th, Ed verifies to Hyatt my email address." CC address same as on the registration form".
On the 28th, Lefler reports that "he is waiting on Hyatt's decision".

Blocked for three days, at least, without reason. By Hyatt. Ed Schroeder was enough.
Deliberate obstruction of the fair operation of the panel process, excluding a known dissenter, by Hyatt, whose motive was to keep out effective opposition to his single-minded objective of forcing through a guilty verdict.
Is this acceptable? Is the verdict acceptable?

Just to be utterly correct, you realize that part below the ----- was NOT a part of the email? It was his post today. You ALWAYS get the details wrong. And quite often the DETAILS are the important things.

And I must admit, making you wait for THREE WHOLE DAYS is egregious conduct and should be subject to capital punishment, no doubt...

You are such a sanctimonious whiner whose perfidious behavior continues to set new lows each and every day.

Save your rude insults for Rybka Forum. If I retaliate here the thread will get closed down, so perhaps you'll stop playing the system, huh?

I'm not "whining", I'm presenting evidence to convict you of deliberately sabotaging the application with the intent of driving through a guilty verdict without having to face any effective opposition. Understand now?

Ed gave you my email address, the one you claimed you needed to link "me" with the "email". You had it for three days and sat on it, claiming you couldn't verify my email address. Very funny. Were there any more unlikely events you wish to add to the list of unlikely events, fanciful explanations and demonstrably untruthful explanations of why suddenly everything fell apart for you just as soon as I applied? When we add the rudenesses and bad opinion you seem to have of me, and I think the assertion at some point that it was a good thing I was kept off the panel plus an obvious motive for doing so, then the readers will have no great difficulty in finding you guilty of wilful obstruction of a fair process against someone whose career was then destroyed. That's when it ceases to be an internet game and gets serious. Do you understand that?

And refering to this case in email to David his answer was -

David Levy - No, I'm not interested.

[BB+]

Somehow the latest postings in this thread have recycled things that were posted previously...

Whittington's email: viewtopic.php?f=3&p=13136#p13136

the obvious person to validate the email (which you could have done in the first place of course) is Ed Schroeder with whom I have been in email contact using this email for several years now. Since Ed suggested me "taking a look here" and he has been in contact with Hyatt (at least) concerning the very slow and actually quite rude process, you might think it hardly even necessary to ask him, but of course, depending on paranoia level, you may also not believe him as real, even though he and I have been famously in computer chess since about 1980.

Hyatt additionally has been in occasional email contact with this address principally at the time I first modded CCC. He usually claims total storage of everything, does he not?

In what sense do you and the unknown HW think you can make time wasting humiliations in this way? Not a very good start imo.

And no, please do not track my ISP, the talkchess capability of giving immediate IP access/knowledge to mods is one reason I never log in there. Read Jeremy Bernstein's account of behaviour between the "mods" Conkie, Banks and various malicious endusers relating to IP addresses and telephone numbers, for just one example - all done with full knowledge of talkchess and the tcadmin. The danger is not from us humble readers but from site owners/administrators and the occasional little hitler tendency of "mods".

Lefler's subsequent post (including his email response): viewtopic.php?f=3&p=13160#p13160

Within a day I sent this email to Chris, offering to let him be on the panel, provided he would be more polite. But Chris never responded to this offer. Please also note I offered to call him on a land line (and some people scanned in ID cards to prove identity), but he never responded to these offers either.

Chris,

I do not know what to say. I do not think we have been in any way "rude" to you. Yes, the approval process has been slow for you and others we do not know well. But since we have several examples of people falsely claiming to be others and in the process stealing source code, requesting extra information is totally reasonable. If anything, you have been rude. Just look at the snarky writing below! "wasting humiliation"? "occasional little hilter"? Do you really think acting like this is in your best interest?

David Levy and Harvey felt we should approve you. I have been waiting on Bob Hyatt's decision. I was going to approve you as well, but the histrionics of your emails and sheer paranoia suggest I should not decide in your favor. We need professional, reliable people on the panel. Are you willing to change and be more polite to serve there?

Perhaps one new thing to note is that MarkL actually offered to make the call himself, whereas Rajlich only offered ("invited" is Schröder's recent word) that Levy should call him (before 1400 European time on weekdays)..

I might also note that Feb 25, 2011 was a Friday, and the 28th a Monday. I have no idea how many people the Secretariat were concurrently trying to certify. The Panel was "Organized" [wikispaces term] on the 22nd, the first approvals seem to be on the 24th:
Uniacke, Isenberg, Letouzey, Wegner, Romstad, Roberson, Pijl, Watkins, SMK, Schröder, Krabbenbos; 25th - van Kervinck, Ban, Mayer, Pronk; 26th - Horvath; 27th - Dailey, Deville, Vida; March 1st - Szmit, Schäfer. NB: The dates might be slightly shifed, as the reference time of day might be local to my Wikispaces preferences.

[Harvey Williamson]

Sorry I was NOT the "blocking source."

Neither was Ed or anyone else except for the four of us I named above. .

To: "Robert M. Hyatt" <hyatt@.....>
From: Ed Schroder <........>
Subject: Tribunal
Date: 20:16 25-2-2011
CC: Chris Whittington <chris@.....>

Hi Bob,

Is Chris W. not allowed to enter on http://icga.wikispaces.com ?

He can't get in, perhaps you can instruct him?

Ed

-----------

The email address on the registration form is the exact as listed in CC.

Explain.

Bob, Just ignore them and this will all stop. Vas will still be guilty and the sentence should be examined. Otherwise it is like the 70's disco classic https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9J4vEVDr5w

[Rebel]

Mark, assuming you have read it all, do you want to be associated with these guys?

1. Hyatt - preempting a critic who could have made a difference during the Panel deliberations misusing the power he was entrusted;

2. Levy - while fully aware : not interested;

3. Levy - while fully aware: telling half truths on Chessbase;

4. Hyatt - accusing me (and or Chris) leaking the complete Panel deliberations as found on Rybka forum;

5. Harvey - implying (4);

These guys hurt people when you stand in their way.

Zach left in disgust, smart thing to do.

[Rebel]

Bob, Just ignore them and this will all stop. Vas will still be guilty and the sentence should be examined. Otherwise it is like the 70's disco classic https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9J4vEVDr5w

There is still a question you left unanswered:

Are you implying I am the leak for the whole Panel discussions?

[Harvey Williamson]

Bob, Just ignore them and this will all stop. Vas will still be guilty and the sentence should be examined. Otherwise it is like the 70's disco classic https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9J4vEVDr5w

There is still a question you left unanswered:

Are you implying I am the leak for the whole Panel discussions?

Hmm let me think my responce is with another classic https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JoSIGGOGZQ

this whole topic is really boring now accept the verdict or appeal in court.

[Chris Whittington]

Bob, Just ignore them and this will all stop. Vas will still be guilty and the sentence should be examined. Otherwise it is like the 70's disco classic https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9J4vEVDr5w

There is still a question you left unanswered:

Are you implying I am the leak for the whole Panel discussions?

Hmm let me think my responce is with another classic https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JoSIGGOGZQ

this whole topic is really boring now accept the verdict or appeal in court.

There's very little point is your pretending you, or Levy, or Hyatt, or ICGA have any say in whether or not there is some kind of appeal, review, retrial, whatever, for the simple reason that you are all three disbarred by the bias of self-interest. You would be very foolish to allow the possibility for a verdict reversal because the question of damages for destruction of business then arises, in spades. Hence, disbarred from deciding on "appeals".

Therefore, some suitable independent and unbiased third party will need to decide this part of the case. It is out of your and ICGA hands.