FIGG/AGI/Italian problems
Nicoletta Corradi
happening in Italy, even if I agree with Carlo Tibaldi that any report
has the problem of being somewhat partial, one can try to be as
objective as possible but this is difficult when you are personally
involved.
Mr. Bergsaker in all these months has been the voice of the Italian
"opposition party" in Italy and expecially abroad, some of us "evils"
have waited, thinking that international advertisement of an internal
problem was not the right way of finding a solution.
The (mostly false) statements of Mr. Bergsaker have appeared on
rec.games.go, on the Italian web site and in several other places, now I
would just like to express also my opinion about some points that were
mentioned on this newsgroup:
-Choice of representative for the WAGC and "bunch of lies"
The Italian participant to the WAGC was chosen following FIGG rules in
an emergency situation. A change of the system that had led to the
emergency was proposed by the board, voted and approved this year at the
FIGG General Meeting in order to avoid such kind of problems in the
future.
The person chosen was a extremely neutral person, (also a good friend of
Raffaella and Marco).
The "lies" on his ranking and tournament are true, they were a big
mistake, actually the same big mistake was done also in the previous
years, knowing that the pairing is not affected (Mr. Held had promised
an explanation on why the pairing this year could have been affected but
still we are waiting for it) Italy several times has sent people
declaring the Japanese rating, the same was done by many other
Federations and noone had ever cared about this.
Italy has officially apologised to the IGF about these wrong statements.
The IGF has never asked the FIGG board for a version of the facts and
only relied on what the "opposition" had told them.
The petition sent to the IGF was signed by 4 players and not 5 as stated
by the "opposition" (that is one of the reasons why in Italy a petition,
the "Carlo Tibaldi" one, was addressed to the honour commission, also in
order to get informations about this and other statements).
-Expulsion affair/ FIGG open to all players?:
The request of expulsion was the last act following months of problems
and public insults, after Mr.Vajani had threatened a sue for 10.000USD
and diffamating rumours had been spread all over europe. Not many
players in Italy favoured the expulsions (nor the members of the board
themselves who felt compelled to take such a strong decision), for
example Neil Mitchinson (now AGI President, who also wrote here that
"decision during the december meeeting were taken democratically")
during FIGG General Meeting proposed to "freeze" the situation for one
year in order to better evaluate the facts and find a possible solution.
Other proposals regarded the exclusion of these persons from
representing Italy in the World championships for a fixed period as an
alternative punishment. These proposals were voted but neither Raffaella
Giardino nor her friends were in favour of this, the motions didn't pass
and so we had to make the votation regarding the expulsions.
Mr. Vajani had apologised to the board and to the Meeting for his
behaviour while Ms.Giardino had asked the meeting to expell her if it
was thought that the board had had a correct behaviour. That might be
the reason why there has been only one expulsion.
A few more informations: there is nothing in our constitution that
forbids an expelled to re-apply for membership, also, up to now no
membership request was ever refused except one: that of Mr. Bergsaker.
Everybody in Italy was and is invited to join the FIGG, if someone has
personal hate towards somebody else and because of this decides not to
be a member that is his/her choice, this could happen in any other
association.
-Hiding of letters/secret number of members
All the correspondance from/to IGF and EGF was available at the General
Meeting (the "opposition" could read it). The number of the FIGG
members was never kept secret, at the Meeting the exact number (active
players plus non active members) was given and commented while
previously the total number of members was written on the web site and
told to people several times. There is a law in Italy that forbids
giving lists of addresses or names (it is to defend the privacy of an
individual) anyway when the “opposition” asked to send a letter to all
the FIGG members in order to do their electoral campaign the board was
of help giving the addresses as stickers for the envelopes and posting
together the letters.
-Election Extraordinary Meeting (and birth of AGI)
The “opposition” candidates arrived late at the meeting (3 were
physically present of the 6 proposed), they asked for the acceptance on
the spot of a few requests of membership while other requests (a total
of 37 almost in equal number between "friends" of the "opposition" and
"friends" of the past board members) had arrived mostly in the past 72
hours. The club delegates present (Milano, Varese, Biella) were asked
for an opinion and they suggested a vote whether to stop the meeting and
evaluate the requests or to do the elections and let the new board take
care of this.
The meeting voted to go on with the elections and at this point the
opposition withdrew the candidatures and left.
It should be noted that the resigning board had suggested a new board
made of 9 members while proposing a list of 7 people (3 of them
belonging to the previous board). So AT LEAST the “opposition” would for
sure have had 2 members in the new board (maybe more as the vote was for
the single persons and not for the list as a whole).
The “dummy judoists” present at the meeting are Go-players, regular FIGG
members, they belong to the Bu-Sen Go club in Milano (some of those who
came to the Fujitsu in Milano were their guests at the dojo) and to the
Biella Go Club.
The truth in my opinion is that the opposition left the meeting when
they thought that it was difficult for them to get ALL of their
candidates elected (later on our web site several people stated that
they were ready to vote members of both lists, so maybe their conclusion
was partially wrong).
In my opinion they were already ready to make a new association.
Unfortunately Mr. Mithchinson could not be present otherwise I'm sure he
wouldn't have had doubts about the democracy of this meeting and maybe
things would be different now.
AGI
I think it is the wrong answer to a real problem, in Milano there are
two groups of people that don't like very much each other, a simple
solution could have been that of a new Go club, maybe in a different day
so that those who have friends in both groups wouldn't have to choose
between one and the other.
- hostility of FIGG board towards M. Vajani and R. Giardino initiatives
I don't know how much was done by Marco Vajani for the FIGG before 1989
when I started to play, after that time not much for sure; even if I
remember he gave some very nice game comments at Milano Go club in a few
occasions. I know he once was elected in the FIGG board but later
resigned for lack of time.
Raffaella Giardino up to her expulsion was a member of the "didactic
commission" of the FIGG, very strange for someone who is
"excommunicated" (as was written here by Mr. Bergsaker) to be a regular
member of a FIGG commission.
The stages organized by the "opposition" had the support of the FIGG who
gave some money (for the first one), the playing materials (in both
occasions) and advertised the events on the FIGG web site. This I don't
think may be regarded as "oppressive behaviour".
I shoud add that both M. Vajani and R. Giardino were sent by the “evil”
FIGG board to Japan twice in recent years.
Well, I think I did not answer to all of the accusations that were made
(too many), I just wanted to state that I think the FIGG has always been
and still is the Association that represents the Italian Go players (or
most of them) and that it is open to everyone.
Nicoletta Corradi
Henric Bergsåker
> Mr. Bergsaker in all these months has been the voice of the Italian
> "opposition party" in Italy and expecially abroad, some of us "evils"
> have waited, thinking that international advertisement of an internal
> problem was not the right way of finding a solution.
> The (mostly false) statements of Mr. Bergsaker have appeared on
> rec.games.go, on the Italian web site and in several other places, now I
> would just like to express also my opinion about some points that were
> mentioned on this newsgroup:
It is very nice that the Figg executive has finally decided to make
a statement. I am hardly the "voice" of the italian opposition party,
I would say that I speak for myself and based on what I happen to
know. I have not made any false statements at all, I would be happy
to substantiate and document anything that ms Corradi may claim
to be incorrect.
>
>
> -Choice of representative for the WAGC and "bunch of lies"
>
> The Italian participant to the WAGC was chosen following FIGG rules in
> an emergency situation. A change of the system that had led to the
> emergency was proposed by the board, voted and approved this year at the
> FIGG General Meeting in order to avoid such kind of problems in the
> future.
The atmosphere in the Figg is such that the board was immediately
suspected of having created the emergency situation on purpose,
and there are good arguments to support this view.
It is of course excellent that the system has been changed once
again, but the same emergency-change of system round was
performed already a couple of years ago according to mr Vajani.
>
> The person chosen was a extremely neutral person, (also a good friend of
> Raffaella and Marco).
This is correct and has never been contested, the point is that a few of
the people who were bypassed belong to the paria class.
>
> The "lies" on his ranking and tournament are true, they were a big
> mistake, actually the same big mistake was done also in the previous
> years, knowing that the pairing is not affected (Mr. Held had promised
> an explanation on why the pairing this year could have been affected but
> still we are waiting for it) Italy several times has sent people
> declaring the Japanese rating, the same was done by many other
> Federations and noone had ever cared about this.
> Italy has officially apologised to the IGF about these wrong statements.
As I have understood it, Figg members were demanding to see the
correspondance with the IGF the whole autumn, but this was denied.
In the end they had copies of the letters from the IGF to the Figg
by asking the IGF directly.
>
> The IGF has never asked the FIGG board for a version of the facts and
> only relied on what the "opposition" had told them.
This is not correct. On the 24-th of May 1998 the Figg secretary wrote
to members of the opposition:
(http://www.figg.org/discussioni/wagc/risp16.html)
" The Board maintains that it has informed Mr Held (vice president of the
IGF, my comment) exhaustively and doesn't see any necessity
in sending (partial) documentation ..."
The letter which the opposition sent to the IGF also contained the official
statements by the Board and by the mediation commission (appointed by
the Board).
>The petition sent to the IGF was signed by 4 players and not 5 as stated
There has indeed been some confusion on this point. Still in October
one of the five hadn't decided if she did sign the letter to the IGF or
not.
> example Neil Mitchinson (now AGI President, who also wrote here that
> "decision during the december meeeting were taken democratically")
As I already stated once, I certainly don't agree with mr Mitchison:
1) The main point of controversy, the expulsions, was not
indicated on the agenda. I looked at the AGM agenda on the
website as late as the day before the meeting and there was no
hint there that any expulsions were going to be voted on.
Nor were the expulsions to be found on the AGM agenda in the
Figg journal Stone Age. The Figg board decided to expell two
members on the 2:nd of september and they could easily have
published the AGM agenda including the expulsions ,
since the 25:th number of the journal did contain a ferocious
attack on the expellees and their friends (obviously without
any possibility for them to respond or defend themselves) which
was also dated 2:nd of september. It is true that most members were
probably aware of what was going on anyway ( though who knows
for sure, if the board keeps the list of members and even the
number of members secret??). But according to Enrico Tognoni
at least one delegate from Genova left Milano before the AGM
not knowing that expulsions were going to be voted on.
(I will have to correct myself here. The delegate who would have
offered the saving proxy vote was from Reggio Emilia. There
were also delegates from Varese and Bologna, I have been told,
who didn't know that expulsions were going to be voted on.)
2) The board played the trick of imposing the deadline 10-th of
september for members to pay their subscription if they were to
have the right to vote at the AGM in early december. The romans
were accustomed to pay the subscription in december.
The ultimatum of the deadline was published on the web site
two days or so before the 10-th. To be even more on the safe
side, the letters to the two expellees, to inform them of their
expulsion (decided on the 2/9) were not mailed until the 12-th of
september! Obviously the board could choose to accept applications
for readmission between september and december if it wanted to,
but when asked it refused to state that it would consider applications
within that period, and at least the romans that I was talking to
were under the impression that they wouldn't be admittet.
The discussion at the website, with people like Tibaldi and Montrasio
pointing fingers at those who did not reconfirm their membership
before the 10-th so that they wouldn't have the right to vote at
the AGM is still there to be studied.
Do these tricks by the Figg board really strike you as genuenely
democratic???
> A few more informations: there is nothing in our constitution that
> forbids an expelled to re-apply for membership, also, up to now no
> membership request was ever refused except one: that of Mr. Bergsaker.
> Everybody in Italy was and is invited to join the FIGG, if someone has
> personal hate towards somebody else and because of this decides not to
> be a member that is his/her choice, this could happen in any other
> association.
Everybody is now invited to join the Figg?
Of course this retreat is good news. Why did it have to take six months
quarrel to arrive at this point? Why expel in the first place, if you are
now committing yourselves to accepting everybody? If you are now
suddenly sensitive to the opinion abroad and to the existence of a
competing Go association, surely you have to admit that these developments
were rather predictable? Why didn't you think a little earlier?
If you had been the least interested in democracy and in the prosperity
of italian Go you would have made these invitations before the AGM:s.
>
>
> -Hiding of letters/secret number of members
>
> All the correspondance from/to IGF and EGF was available at the General
> Meeting (the "opposition" could read it). The number of the FIGG
> members was never kept secret, at the Meeting the exact number (active
> players plus non active members) was given and commented while
> previously the total number of members was written on the web site and
I think that these statements are incorrect, but people who were really
there
will have to comment. There were months in the autumn when members
were asking for the number of members and didn't get any sensible answer.
>
> individual) anyway when the ?opposition? asked to send a letter to all
> the FIGG members in order to do their electoral campaign the board was
> of help giving the addresses as stickers for the envelopes and posting
> together the letters.
>
This was for the second AGM, not for the first. The stickers were
offered in the last minute and it is clear that the opposition didn't
know of the existence of the judo people and still don't know when
they entered the Figg.
> AGI
>
> I think it is the wrong answer to a real problem, in Milano there are
> two groups of people that don't like very much each other, a simple
> solution could have been that of a new Go club, maybe in a different day
> so that those who have friends in both groups wouldn't have to choose
> between one and the other.
Sounds like an excellent idea. Why didn't you propose that instead of
starting the expulsion circus? Not to mention the things that have been
going on in previous years!
> Well, I think I did not answer to all of the accusations that were made
> (too many), I just wanted to state that I think the FIGG has always been
> and still is the Association that represents the Italian Go players (or
> most of them) and that it is open to everyone.
>
Good news, you should have thought about that earlier, provided that
the invitation is sincere. It might too late now.
Henric Bergsåker.
ncor...@yahoo.com
give another point of view on the Italian situation, not to start a new
discussion.
In article <36B98D90...@msi.remove.se>,
Henric =?iso-8859-1?Q?Bergs=E5ker?= <berg...@msi.remove.se> wrote:
> Nicoletta Corradi wrote:
>>I would just like to express also my opinion about some points that were
>> mentioned on this newsgroup:
>
>It is very nice that the Figg executive has finally decided to make
>a statement.
As I wrote in my message, I am expressing exclusively my personal opinion so
it is clearly NOT an official statement of the FIGG board.
>I am hardly the "voice" of the italian opposition party,
>I would say that I speak for myself and based on what I happen to
>know.
Mr. Bergasker does not live in Italy.
>> -Choice of representative for the WAGC and "bunch of lies"
>
>The atmosphere in the Figg is such that the board was immediately
>suspected of having created the emergency situation on purpose
No, someone just used this as an excuse to create problems because of personal
reasons.
>It is of course excellent that the system has been changed once
>again, but the same emergency-change of system round was
>performed already a couple of years ago according to mr Vajani.
The only previous problem was that due to the usual period of the Italian
championship finals, the potential representatives could be contacted only
very late and while waiting to know if they could get their holidays time
always run out and the last ones had just one ore two days to decide. It was
decided to anticipate the final.
>This is correct and has never been contested, the point is that a few of
>the people who were bypassed belong to the paria class.
There has never been a "paria class", unless you want to call in this way
the members of the board (who were in that list too).
>
>As I have understood it, Figg members were demanding to see the
>correspondance with the IGF the whole autumn, but this was denied
>In the end they had copies of the letters from the IGF to the Figg
>by asking the IGF directly.
>
You did not understand well. By the way the IGF refused to give to the FIGG
even just a copy of the petition that it received, while it has easily given
the correspondence IGF/FIGG to the "opposition"? The "opposition" obviously
had a preferential channel.
>
>> The IGF has never asked the FIGG board for a version of the facts and
>> only relied on what the "opposition" had told them.
>This is not correct. On the 24-th of May 1998 the Figg secretary wrote
>to members of the opposition:
>(http://www.figg.org/discussioni/wagc/risp16.html)
>" The Board maintains that it has informed Mr Held (vice president of the
>IGF, my comment) exhaustively and doesn't see any necessity
>in sending (partial) documentation ..."
Mr. Bergsaker very well knows that this phrase is totally out of context and
was related to an e-mail of the "opposition", addressed to the board and
talking about a hypotetical will of "stopping the rumours" that were being
spread. In order to "stop the rumours" the board wrote that answer,
suggesting not to write to anyone as Mr. Held was already aware of the
situation because of a PERSONAL e-mail that he had exchanged with one of the
board members time before (I should add that this e-mail was later sent to
Mr. Bergsaker from Mr. Held, Mr.Bergsaker forwarded it to the "opposition
members" who made public a quotation of it pretending it was written to
them).
The IGF has NEVER asked the FIGG for a version of the facts, not even when
Italy officially complained about this.
>The letter which the opposition sent to the IGF also contained the official
>statements by the Board and by the mediation commission (appointed by
>the Board).
There were no "official statements" by the Board but just an informal letter
of excuse to all those who due to the emergency situation had been skipped.
>>The petition sent to the IGF was signed by 4 players and not 5 as stated
>There has indeed been some confusion on this point. Still in October
>one of the five hadn't decided if she did sign the letter to the IGF or
>not.
>
There is no confusion at all on this point.
>> example Neil Mitchinson (now AGI President, who also wrote here that
>> "decision during the december meeeting were taken democratically")
>
>As I already stated once, I certainly don't agree with mr Mitchison
Mr. Bergsaker who was not present at the Meeting pretends to know what
happened there better than Mr. Mitchinson who was present and who for sure can
be considered at least neutral.
>1) The main point of controversy, the expulsions, was not
>indicated on the agenda. I looked at the AGM agenda on the
>website as late as the day before the meeting and there was no
>hint there that any expulsions were going to be voted on.
Wrong, and moreover the expulsions were extensively discussed on our web site.
>Nor were the expulsions to be found on the AGM agenda in the
>Figg journal Stone Age. The Figg board decided to expell two
>members on the 2:nd of september and they could easily have
>published the AGM agenda including the expulsions ,
The people expelled appealed to the General Meeting after the printing of
Stone Age, so the agenda had to be modified later.
> It is true that most members were
>probably aware of what was going on anyway ( though who knows
>for sure, if the board keeps the list of members and even the
>number of members secret??)
read better my message, it said:
>>The number of the FIGG members was never kept secret, at the Meeting the
>>exact number (active players plus sponsors) was given and commented while
>>previously the total number of members was written on the web site, told to
>>people etc several times.
I think it says enough
>But according to Enrico Tognoni
>at least one delegate from Genova left Milano before the AGM
>not knowing that expulsions were going to be voted on.
> (I will have to correct myself here. The delegate who would have
> offered the saving proxy vote was from Reggio Emilia. There
> were also delegates from Varese and Bologna, I have been told,
> who didn't know that expulsions were going to be voted on.)
Your informations always need corrections, by the way, the agenda was hang
out at the beginning of the tournament, so everybody could read the point
about the expulsions.
>2) The board played the trick of imposing the deadline 10-th of
>september for members to pay their subscription if they were to
>have the right to vote at the AGM in early december.
That is not a trick, sorry but when you are member of any association you
have to pay your dues. Anyway, Mr. Podavini, for example, who is an AGI
founder, asked for re-inscription after the deadline and had no problems so,
the "opposition" well knew that there was no ostracism towards those who
wanted to reapply after september. He could vote as any other member.
>The romans
>were accustomed to pay the subscription in december.
>The ultimatum of the deadline was published on the web site
>two days or so before the 10-th.
False, it was published in july on the web site. Only one roman asked to pay
in december (he was told yes) and moreover before the deadline the FIGG sent
e-mails to this player in the Roma Go Club asking for a list of names of
those interested but received no list. About 12 requests from Rome arrived
72h before the extraordinary meeting (most of them were not members in the
previuos years).
>Obviously the board could choose to accept applications
>for readmission between september and december if it wanted to,
>but when asked it refused to state that it would consider applications
>within that period,
This is false, there never was such statement as I already said, Mr. Podavini
was registered as well as all those who requested it.
>and at least the romans that I was talking to
>were under the impression that they wouldn't be admittet.
They never asked to, sorry but an impression is not a fact.
>> up to now nomembership request was ever refused except one: that of Mr.
>>Bergsaker.
>> Everybody in Italy was and is invited to join the FIGG, if someone has
>> personal hate towards somebody else and because of this decides not to
>> be a member that is his/her choice, this could happen in any other
>> association.
>
>Everybody is now invited to join the Figg?
Everybody has ALWAYS been invited to join the FIGG
>Of course this retreat is good news. Why did it have to take six months
>quarrel to arrive at this point? Why expel in the first place, if you are
>now committing yourselves to accepting everybody?
>If you are now
>suddenly sensitive to the opinion abroad and to the existence of a
>competing Go association, surely you have to admit that these developments
>were rather predictable? Why didn't you think a little earlier?
My opinion has not changed, when you decide to be member of an Association
you accept also to follow its rules (and FIGG rules are not different from
those of most associations in Italy). The FIGG has always been open and
democratic, now some people decided to leave, not accepting a democratic
election, that was their choice, nobody has forced them.
>>
>> -Hiding of letters/secret number of members
>>
>> All the correspondance from/to IGF and EGF was available at the General
>> Meeting (the "opposition" could read it). The number of the FIGG
>> members was never kept secret, at the Meeting the exact number (active
>> players plus non active members) was given and commented while
>> previously the total number of members was written on the web site and
>
>I think that these statements are incorrect,
They are correct.
> There were months in the autumn when members
>were asking for the number of members and didn't get any sensible answer.
This is false
>> individual) anyway when the ?opposition? asked to send a letter to all
>> the FIGG members in order to do their electoral campaign the board was
>> of help giving the addresses as stickers for the envelopes and posting
>> together the letters.
>>
>
>This was for the second AGM, not for the first.
Noone asked to send any letter before the first meeting.
>The stickers were
>offered in the last minute
False, the stickers were asked at the last minute
>and it is clear that the opposition didn't
>know of the existence of the judo people
False, Marco Vajani himself went to the Bu-Sen Go Club before the December
meeting to express his opinion on the expulsion and in the past several
members of the "opposition" have been to the Biella Go Club.
>
>> Well, I think I did not answer to all of the accusations that were made
>> (too many), I just wanted to state that I think the FIGG has always been
>> and still is the Association that represents the Italian Go players (or
>> most of them) and that it is open to everyone.
>Good news, you should have thought about that earlier
Even if Mr. Bergsaker doesn't like to admit this, the FIGG was, is and will
always be open to all.
nicoletta corradi
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Rob Kok
Another posting of Neil Mitchison.
One personal question to Nicoletta:
What happened to all the signatures I gathered against the expulsion?
They were not presented to the general meeting.
Was the FIGG afraid that it might influence the outcome of the vote?
There were many and some very prominent Go players who signed against the
expulsion.
Rob Kok
Here is Neil's message:
I am pleased to see that Nicoletta, as a member of
the FIGG Executive, has given her view of the
events leading up to the Italian Go schism.
I think this is a valuable contribution to the discussion.
I would like to make personal comments on
two points she made:
1) There seems to me to be a certain inconsistency between
her declarations that the FIGG is open to all Italian Go players
and the refusal to consider the requests for re-inscription of 37
Go players, many of whom were well-known and indeed were
listed in the official FIGG Go classification.
At best, the Executive of the FIGG seems to be saying
"yes, you may become members; but don't think that that
will entitle you to vote on the composition of the Executive".
2) The statement that the opposition could have had two members
on the new board seems to me to be a red herring.
Take, for example, my own position:
the old Executive had resigned having lost an issue of confidence
at the AGM. It seemed to me quite inappropriate and inconsistent
to have a new Executive elected which consisted essentially
of the old one and their friends and allies from the same Go club,
plus one or two extras to "add respectability".
[Now those who know me well would giggle at the idea
that I could add respectability to any group whatsoever,
but be that as it may .... :-) ].
I had therefore made it very clear that I was not interested in
joining an Executive which would preserve essentially unchanged
the old power structures, and continue the same policy which
had led to the state of manifest crisis.
And certainly I could in no way have accepted being voted onto the
Executive by a meeting which I did not accept as democratic.
Neil Mitchison
T Mark Hall
<ncor...@yahoo.com> writes
As a contestant at last year's WAGC and both as a friend of Italian Go
and a long-standing official (Auditor) of the EGF, I became involved in
a minor way with what went on. I hope that if I misstate this someone
with better qualifications will correct me.
The draw for the first round of the WAGC ensures that the players from
those countries most likely to win (on previous results) do not play
each other. Basically, the top 12 players will play the next 12 players
on the list with some slight random element. In a similar way, the
bottom 13 will be matched against the 13 players immediately above them,
perhaps more randomly, but this inital draw will be made on declared
strengths. It is therefore possible for a player at 2-dan or 3-dan to be
drawn in the first round against a top player. If that player is not in
fact properly graded and has been entered at a higher level than he
should be, then a strong player will have an easy game but he (the
stronger player) will find that his sum of opponent's scores will be
affected. If a 1-kyu entered at 2 or 3-dan then goes on to lose 6 or 7
games, this can affect the final placings in a tie. This is my
understanding of the cause of the irritation to the organisers. There
was a separate argument about the qualification achieved by the Italian
representative for him to be made the representative and about
statements made about letters sent to the FIGG. I will avoid comment.
--
T Mark Hall
Nicoletta Corradi
> One personal question to Nicoletta:
> What happened to all the signatures I gathered against the expulsion?
> They were not presented to the general meeting.
The General Meeting voted not to read anything coming from abroad (anyway
noone from the "opposition" asked to show them).
> Was the FIGG afraid that it might influence the outcome of the vote?
No, it was a free choice of the FIGG members.
> There were many and some very prominent Go players who signed against the
> expulsion.
I think that the fact of being a strong player does not mean that your
opinion is "better" than that of a 20th kyu, obviously unless you are
commenting a Go game.
> Here is Neil's message:
>
> I am pleased to see that Nicoletta, as a member of
> the FIGG Executive, has given her view of the
> events leading up to the Italian Go schism.
Just to avoid misunderstandings, this is my personal opinion and not a FIGG
official statement.
> I would like to make personal comments on
> two points she made:
>
> 1) There seems to me to be a certain inconsistency between
> her declarations that the FIGG is open to all Italian Go players
> and the refusal to consider the requests for re-inscription of 37
> Go players, many of whom were well-known and indeed were
> listed in the official FIGG Go classification.
This was a choice of the Meeting not of the FIGG board. Anyway the
inscriptions were not rejected but just passed to the new board.
> 2) The statement that the opposition could have had two members
> on the new board seems to me to be a red herring.
That is your opinion and I respect all of your choices, however I see things
in a different way, I think that even if just one person that the
"opposition" could trust would have been elected in the board it could have
been enough to see what "really" happens and to make it public if
necessary.
nicoletta
henric
ncor...@yahoo.com wrote:
> I first would like to say that I wish to end here this thread, my aim was to
> give another point of view on the Italian situation, not to start a new
> discussion.
>
There are plenty of lies and half lies in your message and I will
be happy to analyse them in more detail, unless some more italians
finally decide to step forward. For the time being, just a few
minor comments.
>
> >But according to Enrico Tognoni
> >at least one delegate from Genova left Milano before the AGM
> >not knowing that expulsions were going to be voted on.
> > (I will have to correct myself here. The delegate who would have
> > offered the saving proxy vote was from Reggio Emilia. There
> > were also delegates from Varese and Bologna, I have been told,
> > who didn't know that expulsions were going to be voted on.)
>
> Your informations always need corrections, by the way, the agenda was hang
> out at the beginning of the tournament, so everybody could read the point
> about the expulsions.
>
the board informed the many secret members that the expulsions were going
to be voted on, unless they felt confident that they would have support
from them. If not even all of those present in Milano before
the AGM knew about the expulsion vote (one of them would have
voted against if he had known), then how would those who decided not
to come have known? I mentioned the Reggio Emilia guy as an example,
the details are hardly relevant. The information which supposedly
reaches all members of the Figg is the official journal, and the
relevant material which that contained before the AGM was just an
aggressive attack on the dissidents, spiced with insults, for instance
of me :-). No hint that any expulsions were going to be voted on at
the AGM!
>
> Everybody has ALWAYS been invited to join the FIGG
>
Very funny! Like the romans before the first AGM! Or the 37
at the second AGM! Pretty rich, Nicoletta, you have some nerve!
But there is more to come!
Henric
Matteo SISA
ncor...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > 2) The statement that the opposition could have had two members
> > on the new board seems to me to be a red herring.
>
> That is your opinion and I respect all of your choices, however I see things
> in a different way, I think that even if just one person that the
> "opposition" could trust would have been elected in the board it could have
> been enough to see what "really" happens and to make it public if
> necessary.
>
> nicoletta
Uh, this sounds really interesting! I am one of the founders of AGI and one of
the candidates of the "opposition" at the January FIGG general meeting (but I
didn't pay 1998 fee, so I had to re-apply for inscription, and I am one of the
37 people whose inscription was "not evaluated" by the Board before that
meeting).
I was elected in the Board at the 1997 general meeting, but when the
resultates of the election were announced, the exiting secretary (re-elected)
stated: "I don't want him [me] in the Board! It's me or him!", so I decided
to dismiss imediately to keep things simple. So I found it difficoult to
understand you now.
Matteo Sisa
Rob Kok
Nicoletta Corradi wrote
>> There were many and some very prominent Go players who signed against the
>> expulsion.
>
> I think that the fact of being a strong player does not mean that your
>opinion is "better" than that of a 20th kyu, obviously unless you are
>commenting a Go game.
Did I mention strength...?
Rob
Nicoletta Corradi
I understood "prominent" as "strong" (my english is not so good...) I'm
glad you didn't mean that.
nicoletta
ncor...@yahoo.com
Matteo SISA <sat...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
> In article <36BCA4A2...@yahoo.com>,
> ncor...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>I think that even if just one person that the
> > "opposition" could trust would have been elected in the board it could have
> > been enough to see what "really" happens and to make it public if
> > necessary.
> >
> > nicoletta
>
> Uh, this sounds really interesting! I am one of the founders of AGI and one of
> the candidates of the "opposition" at the January FIGG general meeting (but I
> didn't pay 1998 fee, so I had to re-apply for inscription, and I am one of the
> 37 people whose inscription was "not evaluated" by the Board before that
> meeting).
>
This does not mean that in your particular case the Meeting could have taken
a different decision, you left before this issue could even have been raised,
your name was already on the voting card in the belief that you would have
been a candidate. I am sure you would have been. A simple choice for you
would anyway have been just to renew your membership in time.
> I was elected in the Board at the 1997 general meeting, but when the
> resultates of the election were announced, the exiting secretary (re-elected)
> stated: "I don't want him [me] in the Board! It's me or him!", so I decided
> to dismiss imediately to keep things simple. So I found it difficoult to
> understand you now.
What happened that time was that you did not submit your candidature before
the deadline, rather you wanted to candidate on the spot during the meeting.
The secretary (giving voice also to the feelings of the other candidates)
stated that he was unwilling to work with you (something similar happened
this year at the European General Meeting when Mr. Held gave voice to the
feelings of the existing executive, so it is not such an uncommon situation).
At this point you you gave up wanting to be a candidate.
nicoletta
Henric Bergsaker
> The secretary (giving voice also to the feelings of the other candidates)
> stated that he was unwilling to work with you (something similar happened
> this year at the European General Meeting when Mr. Held gave voice to the
> feelings of the existing executive, so it is not such an uncommon situation).
The EGF situation was a bit different. In your case the candidate had already been
elected by the majority. At the EGF meeting the italian candidate withdrew before
the election, content with having scared everybody with the prospects of a possible
italian regime in the EGF.
H.
Alberto Rezza
>>The romans
>>were accustomed to pay the subscription in december.
>>The ultimatum of the deadline was published on the web site
>>two days or so before the 10-th.
>False, it was published in july on the web site. Only one roman asked to pay
>in december (he was told yes) and moreover before the deadline the FIGG sent
>e-mails to this player in the Roma Go Club asking for a list of names of
>those interested but received no list. About 12 requests from Rome arrived
>72h before the extraordinary meeting (most of them were not members in the
>previuos years).
First of all, it was not just the romans. Due to the policy of secrecy
followed by the FIGG board, one cannot tell now what the position of
people from other towns was - but in past years I remember very well I
saw with my own eyes quite a few people from various parts of Italy
(perhaps even some from Milan) who paid their subscription for the
current year in November or December, at the Italian Championship.
It was a habit, born of the fact that some players only appeared once
an year, in that occasion.
Second: sent e-mail to a player? published in July? This is all very
interesting, unfortunately it doesn't correspond to the facts as they
are known to me. Was it maybe published in July on a page with no link
to it? Even the September 2 board rulings were very hard to find.
Suffice it to say that I, who had signed the original petition and
followed the FIGG site in order to read the discussions in the
moderated forum, only came to know about it after the September 10
deadline. There are players who only play in their town, don't go to
tournaments and have no internet access... People were wat not warned
at all.
The Sept. 2 ruling WAS indeed published on the web. (Actually, how
news about a decision taken on Sept. 2 could have been published in
July escapes me. But of course, everything is possible...)
Then again, we are not talking of ghosts or aliens here. These are
players who had been members for a few years. By past experience, the
FIGG board knew very well that these people paid regularly (though
late) every year. They were thrown out with no advance warning. This
decision was taken in the very same FIGG board meeting in which the
two expulsions were decided. These facts admits only one
interpretation: the board knew the AGM would have to vote on the
expulsions and found a clean way to also "expel" a few more dangerous
voters from outside Milan - thereby damaging some players who were
totally unrelated to the whole WAGC matter. Any other explanation is
ludicrous in my eyes.
>>Obviously the board could choose to accept applications
>>for readmission between september and december if it wanted to,
>>but when asked it refused to state that it would consider applications
>>within that period,
>This is false, there never was such statement as I already said, Mr. Podavini
>was registered as well as all those who requested it.
Partially correct. Perhaps what Nicoletta means is: the late payers
who were on the side of the FIGG board were readmitted immediately.
For the others, the FIGG bard, by its own ruling, had a period of 90
days before taking a decision.. and then perhaps refuse them, giving
no reason.
>>and at least the romans that I was talking to
>>were under the impression that they wouldn't be admittet.
>They never asked to, sorry but an impression is not a fact.
It IS a fact, as the events of the January AGM have proven.
Those players who were no longer members because of the 9/2 rulings,
and who had re-applied, were NOT admitted - or at least they could
not vote. Now that the vote has passed, I'm sure the FIGG board is
ready to take them back.. but it's too late.
Even the one roman player (Claudio Campetto) who had been assured
he would be allowed to pay late was not allowed to vote in the
January AGM. Taking the FIGG board's words at face value, Campetto
was still a FIGG member. He had sent a proxy to the AGM. In the
one voting that took place before the board's opposition left
the meeting, Campetto's vote was not considered.
These are the facts.
Alberto Rezza
Henric Bergsaker
> I first would like to say that I wish to end here this thread, my aim was to
> give another point of view on the Italian situation, not to start a new
> discussion.
>
Firstly I would like to apologize. I can understand if many think that they have
already
seen more than enough of this discussion, if that is how you feel then please
don't
waste more time on it! However I know that some at least are interested and I am
writing for them.
> > There were months in the autumn when members
> >were asking for the number of members and didn't get any sensible answer.
>
> This is false
Is it?
Concerning the number of members then, I actually find the conflict astonishing
and conflicting views have been expressed even as to simple facts, so if others
who are well informed would help straighten things out I would welcome that.
I have it from more than one independent sources that the Figg Secretary stated
to the EGF that the nimber of Figg members in 1997 were 300, 12 of which dan
players.
There are 68 active italian players on the european rating lists.
In september 1998 he was stating in the Figg journal how prospering the Figg was
and that it was growing (as opposed to the rest of Europe, where Go is in decline
if we are to believe the Figg Secretary).
In october 1998 we find a conversation on the Figg web site (some excerpts):
Mark Fricker:
...One week ago I sent an e-mail to the Figg Board asking how many members
there are in the federation this year, I am still waiting for an answer...
MF:
...With my second innocent question, more than a week ago, how many are we?
it seems like I would have asked I don't know what!
The Secretary's Wife:
Circa 200
MF:
I have been told between 150 and 200
Wife:
...the question is not so innocent...
Secretary:
I am asking myself something else, which I find more important as a member of
the Milano Go Club, how many stones are there at the club?
MF
...the stones are 8522 white and 8535 black, I spent two nights counting them,
could you spend a couple of minutes counting the members?
Claudio Campiello:
It seems to me that the question how many are we requires an answer by
a number or by an "we don't know"...I believe that I am still a member, since...
Figg Board:
We are 250!
MF:
What! Are we 250 members this year? How is it possible, if 173 are
mentioned in Stone Age and half of them don't play since years, and are no longer
members?
Board:
No, not members, we are 250 messages on the message board!
Secretary:
I don't understand all this worry about how many members we are
And so on! In early december the number of members stated had converged
towards 140, but the final number was not stated until the meeting itself.
When Enrico Tognoni at the meeting asked why the number 300 had been
given to the EGF, the Secretary shouted that he (Tognoni) was a lier.
You have to know that in the Figg it is the Figg Board which scrutinizes
and decides on every application for membership, so it shouldn't be a
particularly complicated matter to find the number of members. This conversation
took place at a time when the Board did certainly not invite any new or old
members to sign up. The romans said that they had been tricked out of their
right to vote at the AGM which was coming up in december. Please go back
and consult the posting on rec.games.go by Alberto Rezza 1/12 1998:
>I (Alberto) might add that in my opinion the B.D.'s later
>actions - such as the steps they have taken in order to
>ensure a favorable vote in the next meeting - are even worse
>than the expulsions and more than enough to prove their
>bad faith.
I believe that the Wife's tongue slipped a little bit when she said that
the question "How many are we" was not so innocent. Of course I myself
also asked members of the Board for the number of Figg members, suggesting
that they wanted to select members according to their opinion on the
expulsion matter. I also asked many times why they didn't invite all
the italian goplayers to the AGM. Of course I didn't get any sensible
answers, only things like "the romans are stupid who didn't pay their fee
in time (three months before the AGM) if they wanted to have a say",
"I would feel like an imbecil if those people were admitted",
"the subversives have complained that the Board didn't follow all the rules,
so now we have decided to follow the rules to the letter, by the statutes
we don't have to let any old members in before the AGM" and similar things.
A large number of original texts of this type can be presented upon request!
Neil Mitchison (neutral according to the Wife) in his quiet and factual way
summarized his view in a recent r.g.g. posting:
>Executive wished to ensure their re-election - or the election of their friends
-
>they could do so. They had all the levers of power: they could enroll large
>numbers of new members; they would know how to contact the members
>(the opposition asked for a list of members' names and addresses, but that
>was refused as not being permitted under Italian law); and they had the
>power to refuse re-admissions. That last point was indeed explicitly raised
>at the December meeting, and it was agreed that before the January meeting
>started any re-admissions refused would be discussed.
Finally I may add that indeed the Board can bring in as many members as it
likes, when it likes, and keep in power, so there wasn't any need to exclude
the 37. In fact, the admission fee to the Figg is very low, about 12 dollars,
and in a recent promotion campaign the Secretary has even proposed two
members for the price of one. I have been told that the Figg economy relies
heavily on generous contributions from the Secretary's wealthy friends,
but I can not claim to ever have seen their accounts, so I would invite those
who have to comment, if they feel like it.
Henric Berfgsåker
Ales Cieply
in Mamaia myself but know from a reliable source that the situation
was not so clear. It is true that there were many people scared that
Mr. Soletti would be elected and become the president of EGF but
there were also many associations that supported his candidature.
I was also told that he withdrew and suggested an alternative person
(who got elected to the EGF executive) to avoid splitting the meeting
in two opposing parts.
I would like to add that I do not want to comment on the expulsion
affair that started this discussion. I just feel that people should
talk about facts and not what they wish them to be.
With my best regards, Ales Cieply
Ales Cieply
> I have it from more than one independent sources that the Figg Secretary stated
> to the EGF that the nimber of Figg members in 1997 were 300, 12 of which dan
> players.
> There are 68 active italian players on the european rating lists.
>
at the EGF site. It really states 300 for Italy while there are
68 active players in the EGF rating list. The total number of all
Italian players who participated in at least one included tournament
(since the beginning of 1996) is 117.
However, Italy is not the only country that reports numbers that
are quite different from those found in the rating database. Another
example is Netherlands:
reported number: 888
active players in EGF ratings: 247
all players in EGF ratings since 1996: 353
It seems clear that various criteria are applied in different
countries when the members are counted. Some countries report
only the number of licenced players, some other only those who
paid the fee in last year, some other may count everyone
who appeared in at least one tournament since 1990 etc. As far
as the criteria are not given the numbers are difficult to compare.
It would be nice if EGF requested the numbers counted by using the
same criteria in all national associations. Only these would give
us a reliable measure on how go is progressing in a given country.
Henric Bergsaker
> >
> I think that you are exaggerating on this issue. I was not present
> in Mamaia myself but know from a reliable source that the situation
> was not so clear. It is true that there were many people scared that
> Mr. Soletti would be elected and become the president of EGF but
> there were also many associations that supported his candidature.
> I was also told that he withdrew and suggested an alternative person
> (who got elected to the EGF executive) to avoid splitting the meeting
> in two opposing parts.
>
> I would like to add that I do not want to comment on the expulsion
> affair that started this discussion. I just feel that people should
> talk about facts and not what they wish them to be.
I was present at the Mamaia meeting. Mr Soletti withdrew his candidature
saying that in this way he would prove that he is not as possessed with the
will to power as some people think. Italy had nominated five candidates for
each position in the Executive, if I remember right , and when asked by the french
delegate why he was the only one of them to withdraw, Mr Soletti answered
that it was just him that people were afraid of. I don't know how many associations
would have supported his candidature, had he not withdrawn. Maybe my
previous rendering of the events was a bit careless, it wasn't intended to be
taken so seriously, the point I wanted to make was the difference between
convincing by ultimatum someone to resign who has already been elected and
someone withdrawing before the election. Actually I may even agree with
Ms Corradi that there are similaries too. But the 'either you or me' policy
has a long history within the Figg, although of course the same kind of position
when it occurs in the EGF is very vividly condemned by the Figg.
Henric Bergsåker
Andre Engels
> I was present at the Mamaia meeting. Mr Soletti withdrew his candidature
> saying that in this way he would prove that he is not as possessed with the
> will to power as some people think. Italy had nominated five candidates for
> each position in the Executive, if I remember right ,
Actually, Italy had nominated seven candidates, but the EGF board
decided to remove two of them from the candidate list because they had
told the board that they did not want to be on the board (one of them
was Francis Roads, the other I think Yuri Plyusch, but I'm not sure).
> and when asked by the french
> delegate why he was the only one of them to withdraw, Mr Soletti answered
> that it was just him that people were afraid of.
This is incorrect. The question of the French representative was
actually to Erik Puyt and the sitting board members, asking whether
they had problems only with Gionata or also with the other candidates
of the Italian Go Federation (Mutabzija, Danek, Siivola and Bogdanov).
They had no problems with the other candidates. It was to this answer
that Soletti reacted.
It was only when the candidates were asked to hold a speech for their
election for president that Soletti and his fellow candidates withdrew
in favor of Mutabzija. This, however, was not a full withdrawal, but
only for that position - although Soletti and Danek after this did not
candidate for any of the remaining positions either.
Apparently because of this, the board then decided to now not regard
all candidates actually candidates for the positions, but ask them
whether they wanted to candidate. I think this went against the
official procedure, but must not regarded as causing problems. The
secretary, treasurer, and I think also the first vice president
position were not contested, but when the post of second vice
president came up, apart from the board candidate Gavrilov, also
Siivola, Bogdanov and Mutabzija candidated.
In the first round of that election, Siivola dropped out, and Bogdanov
resigned, leaving only Mutabzija and Bogdanov. In the second round,
Mutabzija was chosen - with such a majority that it seems even some
countries that chose Gavrilov in the first round, voted for Mutabzija
in the second.
There was also a problem here, because the board, not having any
indication who was to be chosen in what position by the FIGG, tried to
contact the candidates themselves to ask them what position they
wanted, and asking them to withdraw from the other elections (the EGF
board is elected in function). Apparently this was misunderstood by at
least some of the Italian candidates as a request to withdraw
altogether.
--
Andre Engels, eng...@win.tue.nl, ICQ #6260644
http://www.win.tue.nl/cs/fm/engels/index_en.html
A child is not a glass that is filled but a fire that is set ablaze.
-- N.N.
etog...@cursore.it
> give another point of view on the Italian situation, not to start a new
> discussion.
>
> In article <36B98D90...@msi.remove.se>,
> Henric =?iso-8859-1?Q?Bergs=E5ker?= <berg...@msi.remove.se> wrote:
>
> > Nicoletta Corradi wrote:
> >The atmosphere in the Figg is such that the board was immediately
> >suspected of having created the emergency situation on purpose
>
> No, someone just used this as an excuse to create problems because of personal
> reasons.
and what is your personal reason? :)
>
> >It is of course excellent that the system has been changed once
> >again, but the same emergency-change of system round was
> >performed already a couple of years ago according to mr Vajani.
> The only previous problem was that due to the usual period of the Italian
> championship finals, the potential representatives could be contacted only
> very late and while waiting to know if they could get their holidays time
> always run out and the last ones had just one ore two days to decide. It was
> decided to anticipate the final.
>
> >This is correct and has never been contested, the point is that a few of
> >the people who were bypassed belong to the paria class.
>
> There has never been a "paria class", unless you want to call in this way
> the members of the board (who were in that list too).
3 class: friends of board (Brahmins), not friends(parias) and neutral friends
(dealers?) :)
> >As I have understood it, Figg members were demanding to see the
> >correspondance with the IGF the whole autumn, but this was denied
> >In the end they had copies of the letters from the IGF to the Figg
> >by asking the IGF directly.
> You did not understand well. By the way the IGF refused to give to the FIGG
> even just a copy of the petition that it received, while it has easily given
> the correspondence IGF/FIGG to the "opposition"? The "opposition" obviously
> had a preferential channel.
preferential channel? opposition? i'm one of member who demand to see
correspondance :).
> >
> >> The IGF has never asked the FIGG board for a version of the facts and
> >> only relied on what the "opposition" had told them.
do you need a version of the facts? In this case facts are the
version :).
> >This is not correct. On the 24-th of May 1998 the Figg secretary wrote
> >to members of the opposition:
> >(http://www.figg.org/discussioni/wagc/risp16.html)
> >" The Board maintains that it has informed Mr Held (vice president of the
> >IGF, my comment) exhaustively and doesn't see any necessity
> >in sending (partial) documentation ..."
>
> Mr. Bergsaker very well knows that this phrase is totally out of context and
> was related to an e-mail of the "opposition", addressed to the board and
> talking about a hypotetical will of "stopping the rumours" that were being
> spread. In order to "stop the rumours" the board wrote that answer,
> suggesting not to write to anyone as Mr. Held was already aware of the
> situation because of a PERSONAL e-mail that he had exchanged with one of the
> board members time before (I should add that this e-mail was later sent to
> Mr. Bergsaker from Mr. Held, Mr.Bergsaker forwarded it to the "opposition
> members" who made public a quotation of it pretending it was written to
> them).
the subject was official (WAGC problem) the contact between 2 official
members 2 Vice presidents (figg and egf), but conversation off of the record
:)they are speaking about small bottles :)
suggesting not to write to anyone ...... :) top secret!
> The IGF has NEVER asked the FIGG for a version of the facts, not even when
> Italy officially complained about this.
true, pls ask officially! "why did you do it?" :)
> >The letter which the opposition sent to the IGF also contained the official
> >statements by the Board and by the mediation commission (appointed by
> >the Board).
>
> There were no "official statements" by the Board but just an informal letter
> of excuse to all those who due to the emergency situation had been skipped.
>
> >>The petition sent to the IGF was signed by 4 players and not 5 as stated
>
> >There has indeed been some confusion on this point. Still in October
> >one of the five hadn't decided if she did sign the letter to the IGF or
> >not.
> >
>
> There is no confusion at all on this point.
:) there is a BIG, BiiiiiiiG confusion on this point!
> >> example Neil Mitchinson (now AGI President, who also wrote here that
> >> "decision during the december meeeting were taken democratically")
> >
> >As I already stated once, I certainly don't agree with mr Mitchison
example Neil Mitchison (now Agi Presidente, who also wrote here, that
"decision during the december meeting were taken") adulteration?
manipulation? no! nicolettation!
> Mr. Bergsaker who was not present at the Meeting pretends to know what
> happened there better than Mr. Mitchinson who was present and who for sure can
> be considered at least neutral.
Mr. Bergsaker is telepathic :)
> >1) The main point of controversy, the expulsions, was not
> >indicated on the agenda. I looked at the AGM agenda on the
> >website as late as the day before the meeting and there was no
> >hint there that any expulsions were going to be voted on.
>
> Wrong, and moreover the expulsions were extensively discussed on our web site.
discussed between me and you Nico :) only between me and you :)
> >Nor were the expulsions to be found on the AGM agenda in the
> >Figg journal Stone Age. The Figg board decided to expell two
> >members on the 2:nd of september and they could easily have
> >published the AGM agenda including the expulsions ,
>
> The people expelled appealed to the General Meeting after the printing of
> Stone Age, so the agenda had to be modified later.
i cannot check the Stone Age "printing date" i can only ask to my self why
there is not a printing date in all 24 precedente numbers :) but in 25 there
is a printing date on the last page (what a farsighted publisher :) milano
01/01/1898 :)
> > It is true that most members were
> >probably aware of what was going on anyway ( though who knows
> >for sure, if the board keeps the list of members and even the
> >number of members secret??)
>
> read better my message, it said:
>
> >>The number of the FIGG members was never kept secret, at the Meeting the
> >>exact number (active players plus sponsors) was given and commented while
> >>previously the total number of members was written on the web site, told to
> >>people etc several times.
the number was secret before the december meeting and before the january
meeting maybe not for you , aniway, in Italy we love surprise!
> I think it says enough
>
> >But according to Enrico Tognoni
> >at least one delegate from Genova left Milano before the AGM
> >not knowing that expulsions were going to be voted on.
> > (I will have to correct myself here. The delegate who would have
> > offered the saving proxy vote was from Reggio Emilia. There
> > were also delegates from Varese and Bologna, I have been told,
> > who didn't know that expulsions were going to be voted on.)
>
> Your informations always need corrections, by the way, the agenda was hang
> out at the beginning of the tournament, so everybody could read the point
> about the expulsions.
Information dont need correction, maybe you need to stop to say "innacuracy"
> >2) The board played the trick of imposing the deadline 10-th of
> >september for members to pay their subscription if they were to
> >have the right to vote at the AGM in early december.
>
> That is not a trick, sorry but when you are member of any association you
> have to pay your dues. Anyway, Mr. Podavini, for example, who is an AGI
> founder, asked for re-inscription after the deadline and had no problems so,
> the "opposition" well knew that there was no ostracism towards those who
> wanted to reapply after september. He could vote as any other member.
>
> >The romans
> >were accustomed to pay the subscription in december.
> >The ultimatum of the deadline was published on the web site
> >two days or so before the 10-th.
>
> False, it was published in july on the web site. Only one roman asked to pay
july?? , september !!
> in december (he was told yes) and moreover before the deadline the FIGG sent
> e-mails to this player in the Roma Go Club asking for a list of names of
> those interested but received no list. About 12 requests from Rome arrived
> 72h before the extraordinary meeting (most of them were not members in the
> previuos years).
>
> >Obviously the board could choose to accept applications
> >for readmission between september and december if it wanted to,
> >but when asked it refused to state that it would consider applications
> >within that period,
>
> This is false, there never was such statement as I already said, Mr. Podavini
> was registered as well as all those who requested it.
:) mmhh in december in the day of meeting I.V. was registered for
example, but in Juanuary ..... new year! new life!
Delibera n° 4/1998
here is the official statement from CF (maybe you know before statement?)
pls observe the date!!!!!! (www.figg.org ->prima pagina ->delibere)
Data 2/9/1998
Oggetto: Comportamento nei confronti dei Soci morosi
Provvedimento Visto lo Statuto Art.9 par 2, visto il Regolamento Art 1.E, 2.H,
2.I, 9.F, 9.G, vista la comunicazione sul
sito web (affissa in luglio), sentito il Tesoriere della Federazione, il CF
DELIBERA
Il decadere dalla qualifica di Socio di tutti gli iscritti che non habbiano
regolarizzato, o abbiano avvisato il Tesoriere
Federale circa la loro intenzione di regolarizzare, entro e non oltre il 10
settembre 1998.
et cetera et cetera
> >and at least the romans that I was talking to
> >were under the impression that they wouldn't be admittet.
>
> They never asked to, sorry but an impression is not a fact.
but impression is impression and i'm very impressed :)
> >> up to now nomembership request was ever refused except one: that of Mr.
> >>Bergsaker.
> >> Everybody in Italy was and is invited to join the FIGG, if someone has
> >> personal hate towards somebody else and because of this decides not to
> >> be a member that is his/her choice, this could happen in any other
> >> association.
but not evrybody can vote about expulsion because of the dead line :)
so you can be a member but ... not vote for a member :)
> >
> >Everybody is now invited to join the Figg?
>
> Everybody has ALWAYS been invited to join the FIGG
>
> >Of course this retreat is good news. Why did it have to take six months
> >quarrel to arrive at this point? Why expel in the first place, if you are
> >now committing yourselves to accepting everybody?
> >If you are now
> >suddenly sensitive to the opinion abroad and to the existence of a
> >competing Go association, surely you have to admit that these developments
> >were rather predictable? Why didn't you think a little earlier?
>
> My opinion has not changed, when you decide to be member of an Association
> you accept also to follow its rules (and FIGG rules are not different from
> those of most associations in Italy). The FIGG has always been open and
> democratic, now some people decided to leave, not accepting a democratic
> election, that was their choice, nobody has forced them.
urgency is urgency :)
maybe something forced them :)maybe a "democratic election"
we are all monarchist :) !!!
> >>
> >> -Hiding of letters/secret number of members
> >>
> >> All the correspondance from/to IGF and EGF was available at the General
> >> Meeting (the "opposition" could read it). The number of the FIGG
> >> members was never kept secret, at the Meeting the exact number (active
> >> players plus non active members) was given and commented while
> >> previously the total number of members was written on the web site and
> >
> >I think that these statements are incorrect,
>
> They are correct.
it was impossible to read and to translate the correspandance once, without
to paralyse the meeting , but evry member if he like .... with only 1 copy of
correspondance (30 pages)and 37 members ....
> > There were months in the autumn when members
> >were asking for the number of members and didn't get any sensible answer.
>
> This is false
false is your false :) (then > This is true :)
> >> individual) anyway when the ?opposition? asked to send a letter to all
> >> the FIGG members in order to do their electoral campaign the board was
> >> of help giving the addresses as stickers for the envelopes and posting
> >> together the letters.
> >>
> >
> >This was for the second AGM, not for the first.
>
> Noone asked to send any letter before the first meeting.
true, nobody can imagine the behaviour of the Board and friends
>
> >The stickers were
> >offered in the last minute
>
> False, the stickers were asked at the last minute
:) the word of mr Secretary against the word of mr A.Podavini :-)
a little help:
mr Figg Secretary sometime make "big mistakes" :) (AH AH AH!)
> >and it is clear that the opposition didn't
> >know of the existence of the judo people
>
> False, Marco Vajani himself went to the Bu-Sen Go Club before the December
> meeting to express his opinion on the expulsion and in the past several
> members of the "opposition" have been to the Biella Go Club.
Me and Bergsaker we played in the cellar of Busen with the Master and some
disciples, there are a lot of unknow judoists go players, also for me (i
played judo 6 months in Barioli gymnasium and go in the cellar tuesday)
because The C.B. sensei teach judo and go for 30 and more years in gymnasium,
so go players in italy are a lot moreover ctibaldi, mr. secretary and also
the new girl F.A. in the executive board and the judo master from Biella (now
new in the executive board!) and the old President L.G. they come from C.B.
gymnasium. (if anyone ask why we found the Agi :)we dont like Judo! :)
> >
> >> Well, I think I did not answer to all of the accusations that were made
> >> (too many), I just wanted to state that I think the FIGG has always been
> >> and still is the Association that represents the Italian Go players (or
> >> most of them) and that it is open to everyone.
>
> >Good news, you should have thought about that earlier
>
> Even if Mr. Bergsaker doesn't like to admit this, the FIGG was, is and will
> always be open to all.
false:-) not for you Bergsaker :-)
(that's why he is pissed off :-)
Enrico Tognoni
P.S. sorry for grammar mistakes :)
ncor...@yahoo.com
Alberto Rezza wrote:
>
> Second: sent e-mail to a player? published in July? This is all very
> interesting, unfortunately it doesn't correspond to the facts as they
> are known to me.
I suppose you don't know well enough the facts. Mr. Campetto received more
than one e-mail before the deadline asking for a list of the Rome Go players,
and for the name of a coordinator of the Roma Go Club. He sent no list and no
name, he was also asked to ask you before the deadline if you wanted to renew
your membership as there had been no news from you. Maybe you can ask him to
show you these mails.
> Was it maybe published in July on a page with no link
> to it?
No it was in the main page, perfectly linked and advertised.
> The Sept. 2 ruling WAS indeed published on the web. (Actually, how
> news about a decision taken on Sept. 2 could have been published in
> July escapes me.
The rule to pay before the 31st March was there also years ago, this new date
of the 10th September was decided and advertised in July. The The Sept. 2
ruling formally stated this.
>the board knew the AGM would have to vote on the
> expulsions and found a clean way to also "expel" a few more dangerous
> voters from outside Milan - thereby damaging some players who were
> totally unrelated to the whole WAGC matter.
No player was refused reapplication.
> Perhaps what Nicoletta means is: the late payers
> who were on the side of the FIGG board were readmitted immediately.
> For the others, the FIGG bard, by its own ruling, had a period of 90
> days before taking a decision.. and then perhaps refuse them, giving
> no reason.
Mr. Podavini is not a "friend of the board" and he was readmitted.
The problems regarded only those who applied just 72h before the meeting
(january 1999) or on the spot at the meeting, as I said noone was refused.
> Even the one roman player (Claudio Campetto) who had been assured
> he would be allowed to pay late was not allowed to vote in the
> January AGM. Taking the FIGG board's words at face value, Campetto
> was still a FIGG member.
In fact he was.
>He had sent a proxy to the AGM. In the
> one voting that took place before the board's opposition left
> the meeting, Campetto's vote was not considered.
This is not true, Mr. Campetto well knew he was a member and a candidate,
during the first vote there was no mention of him so I suppose his proxy vote
was used, I see no reason why it should have not.
Henric Bergsaker
>
> Just to avoid misunderstandings, this is my personal opinion and not a FIGG
> official statement.
>
So the invitation to all players to join the Figg, including the expelled and
the
37 who were refused at the january meeting is still just Nicoletta Corradi's
personal opinion? I would like to offer some constructive advice, for a change.
If the Figg board were to make an official statement, committing itself to
accept all italian players as members, without exception, and to use objective
criteria in the selection of WAGC representative among the active italian
players, Figg members or not, I believe that this affair would cease to be an
international matter ( it certainly would as far as I am concerned ).
There would of course still be the internal problems which the Figg board gang
have quite unnecessarily created for themselves. My advice there would be
to announce a new AGM, this time inviting everybody to participate, as you
should have done already in december or january. I don't speak on behalf of the
Agi supporters, but elementary psychology suggests that it would be easier
to convince them to attend such a meeting if the old gang admits that it has
made some serious mistakes in the past. I don't speak on behalf of the
international
community either, but I would guess that if the Figg board would make such a
statesmanly move, people would conclude that the italian goplayers have perhaps
a mediterranean temperament and that they are a bit ridiculous at times, but
that
they may be decent and reasonable people after all. Moreover I suggest that
such a Copernican revolution in the thinking of the Figg board might even
result in a one stone improvement in the playing strength of its members!
Henric Bergsåker
Henric Bergsaker
> >> The IGF has never asked the FIGG board for a version of the facts and
> >> only relied on what the "opposition" had told them.
>
> >This is not correct. On the 24-th of May 1998 the Figg secretary wrote
> >to members of the opposition:
> >(http://www.figg.org/discussioni/wagc/risp16.html)
> >" The Board maintains that it has informed Mr Held (vice president of the
> >IGF, my comment) exhaustively and doesn't see any necessity
> >in sending (partial) documentation ..."
>
> Mr. Bergsaker very well knows that this phrase is totally out of context and
> was related to an e-mail of the "opposition", addressed to the board and
> talking about a hypotetical will of "stopping the rumours" that were being
> spread. In order to "stop the rumours" the board wrote that answer,
> suggesting not to write to anyone
So let me elaborate a little on the context then. The opposition was circulating
the draft for the letter to be sent to Mr Held. The Figg board got very worried
by this and wrote the letter from which the quoted phrases are taken, trying to
convince the dissidents not to write to Mr Held. At that point (24/5) the
dissidents
had already been complaining to the Board and adressed a petition to the
permanent mediation commission (which is appointed by the Board). The Board
had circulated a letter 14/5 with it's version of how the WAGC representative
had been selected. The mediation commission had also met on the 14/5 and
had produced an officious document on the matter. The Board tells the dissidents
that it has already informed IGF exhaustively. As far as I know, the Board had
in fact sent only a very brief letter to Mr Held, not very exhaustive at all but
containing yet a couple of lies, for instance:
1) that it had found itself in an emergency situation, with only 48 hours to
decide
on the WAGC representative. In fact it had had 6 days at it's disposal and
according to Alan Held's report from the IGF director's meeting las year it
was this "misrepresentation of the facts" which made the affair into a
matter
for the IGF.
2) it says that there were only one or two italians who were complaining
about the way the WAGC representative had been chosen. In fact there
were five people who had been bypassed who had complained to the
mediators ten days earlier, and others who did not belong to the bypassed
had also expressed their discontent. It also tries to portray one of the
contestants as a ridiculous person who needs not to be taken seriously.
Of course it had not occurred to the Board to show the "exhaustive" information
it had sent to Alan Held to the dissidents. The dissidents on the other hand,
decided to send to Alan Held a letter from the Board on the matter, their own
petition to the mediation commission and the reply from the commission, plus
a letter of their own to Held/EGF/IGF, asking for their opinion and hoping for
moral support from the international community and the organizer of the WAGC.
> >The letter which the opposition sent to the IGF also contained the official
> >statements by the Board and by the mediation commission (appointed by
> >the Board).
>
> There were no "official statements" by the Board but just an informal letter
> of excuse to all those who due to the emergency situation had been skipped.
Ms Corradi has a very developed sense for the official, let's say that it was
the only thing written by the Board on the matter that was available to the
dissidents. And the statement by the commission is, I think, as official as
it could be, with place, date and signature by the President, Vice-President
and Third Member of the commission on it, with titles. It is at any rate clear
that the IGF didn't have to rely on the opposition's version, it had access to
the "exhaustive" communication from the board + the Board's "letter of excuse" +
the statement by the mediation commission. I would be surprised if the Board
had'nt written additional letters to the IGF as well, but as we know from the
Figg statutes such letters would be secret, possibly even known only to the
President, only to the President and the Secretary or something like that.
Henric Bergsåker
jan van rongen
Ales Cieply wrote:
<snip>
> However, Italy is not the only country that reports numbers that
> are quite different from those found in the rating database. Another
> example is Netherlands:
> reported number: 888
> active players in EGF ratings: 247
> all players in EGF ratings since 1996: 353
>
> It seems clear that various criteria are applied in different
> countries when the members are counted.
<snip>
This is not correct. All country associations pay the EGF membership based on the
number of paying members they have. So in our case we have indeed about 900 paying
members. Most of them active in clubs, but only part of them playing in tournaments
that are used in the EGF ratings.
Lesson: you do not need to be strong in order to enjoy playing Go. In all Go
Associations players of any strength should feel at home.
--
----------------------------------------------
Jan van Rongen,
President Dutch Go Association.
http://www.euronet.nl/users/cl628517
with a biography and large games collection of
Cho Chikun.
----------------------------------------------
ncor...@yahoo.com
Henric Bergsaker <hen...@fusion.kth.se> wrote:
> ncor...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > >> The IGF has never asked the FIGG board for a version of the facts and
> > >> only relied on what the "opposition" had told them.
> >
> > >This is not correct. On the 24-th of May 1998 the Figg secretary wrote
> > >to members of the opposition:
> > >(http://www.figg.org/discussioni/wagc/risp16.html)
> > >" The Board maintains that it has informed Mr Held (vice president of the
> > >IGF, my comment) exhaustively and doesn't see any necessity
> > >in sending (partial) documentation ..."
> >
> > Mr. Bergsaker very well knows that this phrase is totally out of context and
> > was related to an e-mail of the "opposition", addressed to the board and
> > talking about a hypotetical will of "stopping the rumours" that were being
> > spread. In order to "stop the rumours" the board wrote that answer,
> > suggesting not to write to anyone
>
> the draft for the letter to be sent to Mr Held. The Figg board got very worried
> by this and wrote the letter from which the quoted phrases are taken, trying to
> convince the dissidents not to write to Mr Held.
The board had not received the draft, instead it received a different letter
from the opposition in which they claimed to be "willing to stop the
rumours". The board answered following this declared aim. The fact that the
opposition was spreading the rumours and had no will at all to stop them,
became clear only later.
>At that point (24/5) the
> dissidents
> had already been complaining to the Board
Instead of "complaining" it should be said "blackmailing and threatening a
sue"
> As far as I know, the Board had
> in fact sent only a very brief letter to Mr Held, not very exhaustive at all but
> containing yet a couple of lies, for instance:
> 1) that it had found itself in an emergency situation, with only 48 hours to
> decide
> on the WAGC representative. In fact it had had 6 days at it's disposal
> 2) it says that there were only one or two italians who were complaining
> about the way the WAGC representative had been chosen.
The Board had not sent a letter to Mr. Held. Mr. Held had written to an
Italian player he knew personally and, at the time, he did not know that this
player was on the executive. There was no official contact. The letter
referred to only two players as they were those two who had threatened a sue.
The shortage of time in chosing the representative was due to the fact that
Easter holidays were going to start after two days when the deadline letter
arrived from Japan. There was therefore the urge to find someone immediately
as all of the Board members were leaving Milano (some for the Paris
tournament) and in case of a delay there would not have been enough time left
for the documents to reach Japan before the deadline. DHL offices in Milano
are open mon-fri and close during Easter. This may not have been regarded as
a problem by the IGF but for sure it was a problem for the Italian Board.