Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 82

Thread: Selection choices- option A

  1. #61

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cesh_fencing View Post
    Including the Age-groups in the Euro Teams selection scheme for option C is not one of the options we are voting on. Simple as that, so has no relevance to the vote, so saying that will happen and that the C selection document for Euro Teams will completely change is clearing mis-informing the membership as it 1) is not on the document & 2) has not been agreed by the committee. It is just an idea..

    If it is one of the options, please copy and paste that section, so I can see what you are reading.

    I will be in full support of the memberships vote when it is collated, but will be against immediately fundamentally changing the complete basis of what people voted on (especially selection schemes), as why then bother with the vote in the first place.

    Key point - The options are as in the distributed documents
    Chris,
    You are correct that the statement on the website does link to the selection system for 2015, however we should examine the whole statement not just take parts of it-

    Option C -Revert to the previous system of a BVF Championships (Nationals) and an Age Group Championships selection competitions i.e. a single Age Group Qualifier based on poule unique with the top 3 automatically selected for the World Championships plus the highest placed fencer in the BVF Championships.

    The crucial part here is the ‘ie’ this explains that what the ‘previous system’ referred to, is the Age groups plus the Nationals being used for selection to the Worlds with numbers etc, but there is no mention of timing or selection for the Europeans. Hence there is no need to stick to the previous timing or selection process for the Europeans as it is not mentioned. (We clearly could not change the selection system for the Worlds).

    In practice I believe that only a very very small minority of members would have followed the links, hence the vast majority of members were only voting on what was written up on the website.

    There clearly is some ambiguity here, but I am convinced that we should be organising the timing of the competitions and selection for the Europeans in the way that maximises the benefits for members, provided it falls within the statement above.

  2. #62
    Chris Howser cesh_fencing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    East Northamptonshire - Yarwell
    Posts
    5,180

    Default

    The links are where the important information is and is what all members should read, else why would the committee include it. It has already been confirmed that we are working off the published documents, not anyone's personal opinion of what they fell could happen. This is very clear.
    Oundle, Peterborough & Stamford Fencing

  3. #63

    Default

    What an advert for Veterans fencing!

    It's a wonder more people don't get involved in BVF.

  4. #64
    Chris Howser cesh_fencing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    East Northamptonshire - Yarwell
    Posts
    5,180

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FencingMove View Post
    What an advert for Veterans fencing!

    It's a wonder more people don't get involved in BVF.
    Is it not right to ensure people are not mis-informed

    This is not bvf, just what I would feel for any vote.

    Just like corbyn's wiping out student loans debt was just mis-information, to sway a vote.
    Oundle, Peterborough & Stamford Fencing

  5. #65
    Senior Member max's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Sheffield
    Posts
    395

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cesh_fencing View Post
    Is it not right to ensure people are not mis-informed

    This is not bvf, just what I would feel for any vote.

    Just like corbyn's wiping out student loans debt was just mis-information, to sway a vote.
    You state that you are merely ensuring people aren't misinformed then repeat the misinformation regarding student debt. I was following both sides in this debate but you have now lost all credibility.
    A problem shared is one more person to laugh at you.

  6. #66
    Chris Howser cesh_fencing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    East Northamptonshire - Yarwell
    Posts
    5,180

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by max View Post
    I was following both sides in this debate but you have now lost all credibility.
    You missed the tongue in cheek intention of my post.

    I could have put "£650 Million to the NHS' to push away portion of the population and 'Emergency budget if the vote is to leave' to take out the rest.

    All in all spin is spin, the published official documents from the BVF is what I wanted people to work from as that was what the vote was on, not spin people are shouting out that has no substance in fact. Just the 3 options proposed.

    Anyway the vote closes in an hour so I suspect this thread will have run its course.

    An option will have been chosen, which I suspect will be option C and we will see what happens in the forthcoming seasons.
    Oundle, Peterborough & Stamford Fencing

  7. #67
    General care taker kingkenny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,228

    Default

    I suspect this thread will have run its course.
    Please please please
    Leon Paul Fencing Equipment
    Anyone who thinks video games cause violence should be dragged into the street and shot.

  8. #68
    Chris Howser cesh_fencing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    East Northamptonshire - Yarwell
    Posts
    5,180

    Default

    For anyone interested

    Result as predicted

    Option A - 106
    Option B - 37
    Option C - 114

    Vote for not using old system split between the 2 other options, so C wins through with well under 50%..

    We revert back to the old system and selection schemes.

    At least the discussions on the options are over.

    Can the thread be closed???
    Oundle, Peterborough & Stamford Fencing

  9. #69
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Lancashire/London
    Posts
    395

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cesh_fencing View Post
    For anyone interested

    Result as predicted

    Option A - 106
    Option B - 37
    Option C - 114

    Vote for not using old system split between the 2 other options, so C wins through with well under 50%..

    We revert back to the old system and selection schemes.

    At least the discussions on the options are over.

    Can the thread be closed???
    It was not a vote for not using the old system.
    It was a vote to find a new system that was better than the old system.
    The result showed that the options put forward were deemed to not improve on the old system.
    Perhaps next time the committee will publish all options put forward by the membership instead of a subset decided by too small a group. The membership can then vote and the top 3 should then be put to another vote.
    We may then get the system the membership actually wants.
    Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfils the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things.
    Winston Churchill

  10. #70

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cesh_fencing View Post
    For anyone interested

    Result as predicted

    Option A - 106
    Option B - 37
    Option C - 114

    Vote for not using old system split between the 2 other options, so C wins through with well under 50%..
    A completely false analysis of the vote. The membership were given 3 choices. Because of the way the vote was organised, (it should have been taken by a transferable vote), we can have virtually no idea what would have been the second choice of the members who voted for B.
    The only thing that can be deduced is by looking at Options B & C which were identical except for the use of the Nationals for 1 selected place. Over 3 times as many voted for C compared with B. This is close to the ratio from the feedback sent to the working group, which I made 4 members against including the Nationals and 14 probably for including them. This is in stark contrast to the working groups assertion that the majority of fencers did not want to include the nationals.

  11. #71
    Chris Howser cesh_fencing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    East Northamptonshire - Yarwell
    Posts
    5,180

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by graham paul View Post
    A completely false analysis of the vote.
    I have my analysis, you have yours. Depends on your initial point of view.

    Main point that it is a real shame that no option took over 50% to stop any forward running griping about the situation.
    Oundle, Peterborough & Stamford Fencing

  12. #72

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cesh_fencing View Post
    I have my analysis, you have yours. Depends on your initial point of view.
    Chris,
    I am afraid that it is not a matter of opinion or an initial point of view. It is a question of applying logic and an understanding of statistics to the facts. Something that neither you nor Duncan on Facebook appear willing or perhaps capable, to do.
    Incidentally, be careful on Facebook. Censorship of the Veterans group is still being applied and already a post critical of a key protagonist in the debate has mysteriously disappeared.

  13. #73
    Chris Howser cesh_fencing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    East Northamptonshire - Yarwell
    Posts
    5,180

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by graham paul View Post
    Chris,
    I am afraid that it is not a matter of opinion or an initial point of view. It is a question of applying logic and an understanding of statistics to the facts. Something that neither you nor Duncan on Facebook appear willing or perhaps capable, to do.
    Incidentally, be careful on Facebook. Censorship of the Veterans group is still being applied and already a post critical of a key protagonist in the debate has mysteriously disappeared.
    You have the result you wanted, but allowing other people to have an opinion is also allowed.

    I respect your opinion, though may not always agree with it, I wish you would allow others to also have an opinion or supposed logic that does not agree entirely with yours.

    Anyway, I have no idea what you are talking about on Facebook, however 'mysteriously disappeared' could just as easily have been the person posting the comment deciding to delete it, as to what you are implying. But as I say I have not been watching the page especially as have a new term to prepare for, so have not seen what you are talking about.

    However anyone who runs a facebook page/group has every right to remove posts if they want to, that is their choice, in the same way as admin on this forum can choose to clear items if they feel it would be best for that to happen. Does not happen very often, but if what is written breaks the group/forum ethics it is right to be taken down.

    If you wanted to you could start your own Veterans facebook page then you can decide what you want or do not want posted on it.
    Oundle, Peterborough & Stamford Fencing

  14. #74
    Chris Howser cesh_fencing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    East Northamptonshire - Yarwell
    Posts
    5,180

    Default

    Anyway, no point me commenting any more as the vote has happened and this thread should have come to an end after the results came out..
    Oundle, Peterborough & Stamford Fencing

  15. #75

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cesh_fencing View Post
    You have the result you wanted, but allowing other people to have an opinion is also allowed.
    I respect your opinion, though may not always agree with it, I wish you would allow others to also have an opinion or supposed logic that does not agree entirely with yours.
    Chris,
    I will try one more time.

    You and Duncan are of the opinion that the majority of vets do not want the Nationals used for selection. That is fine, it is your opinion, I have no problem with that.

    What is false and illogical, is to suggest that the recent vote supports this opinion. It does not. Quite the contrary, the numbers voting for B and C are strong evidence that approximately 3 out of 4 of members would prefer the Nationals to be part of selection. That is not opinion, it is a statistical fact.

    I agree with Carl Morris on Facebook about the dangers of using statistics and that it may be that the 2 of you are victims of ‘confirmation bias’. (Erroneously misinterpreting data to support your views).

  16. #76
    Chris Howser cesh_fencing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    East Northamptonshire - Yarwell
    Posts
    5,180

    Default

    Thread is closed in my opinion..

    No point commenting any further..
    Oundle, Peterborough & Stamford Fencing

  17. #77

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by graham paul View Post
    Chris,

    Incidentally, be careful on Facebook. Censorship of the Veterans group is still being applied and already a post critical of a key protagonist in the debate has mysteriously disappeared.
    As I have previously said, I am not regular Forum user but for public record:

    From BVF committee minutes:

    676 09 Jul 2017 Social Media: JRM proposed that the Committee has full confidence in Gillian as the Administrator of the BVF Facebook group. 2nd: JS all present entitled to vote agreed
    677 09 Jul 2017 BVF Committee: EvG proposed that following recent events the Committee confirms its full support and confidence in Gillian as Chairman. 2nd: MS all present entitled to vote agreed.

    There is no censorship by me on the BVF Facebook group unless there is contravention of the BVF Communications Policy and/or BVF Committee Protocol. (Both of these documents are published on the BVF website.) There have been no such occurrences that I have seen on the BVF Facebook group for some time, so I have not had any reason to delete any comments and haven't done so. If someone makes a post and then subsequently decides to delete it, then of course they are free to do so and no doubt will.

    Chris - the thread is closed as far as I am concerned too and I will not be making any further comments.

    Gillian Aghajan
    BVF Chairman

  18. #78

    Default

    It has been brought to my attention that it is possible that a person has been upset by posts in this thread. It goes without saying that I apologise for any offence caused.

  19. #79
    Chris Howser cesh_fencing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    East Northamptonshire - Yarwell
    Posts
    5,180

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by graham paul View Post
    It has been brought to my attention that it is possible that a person has been upset by posts in this thread. It goes without saying that I apologise for any offence caused.
    Not sure who would be offended, it is fencing forum and I do not think any derogatory comment were made about anyone.. Just a great discussion, as fencingforum should have..
    Oundle, Peterborough & Stamford Fencing

  20. #80

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cesh_fencing View Post
    Not sure who would be offended, it is fencing forum and I do not think any derogatory comment were made about anyone.. Just a great discussion, as fencingforum should have..
    Chris,
    You have given me a great problem. Normally when you reply to one of my posts I can disagree with you on every point you make. However in this instance I can only agree with you. Apologies it must be old age.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •