Tuesday, January 18, 2011

For the Record

Not that this does anything much, but since I saved the evidence in anticipation of what actually did happen, I am just going to post this anyway.

Initially, Raymond Siew made an accusation that I had lied with this paragraph:

"Rationality, Chess Ninja and IM Jimmy Liew. You now have to back your accusations with proof. Don't try to twist this around. Your lies are going to be exposed. Deleting your postings is not going to help."

I replied to his comment. You can still see that in his post. Now, view the picture below for his reply and my counter-reply.

He has deleted my counter-reply as you can clearly see from the post right now.

He has added the following three sentences to twist the context:

"Rather it is an admission of guilt. By now huddling together this further shows complicity. Check with your lawyers." 
Plus, my request for evidence was merely out of good faith. If possible, I would not take this to the next level. If he can prove that I have lied, I will gladly admit it. But then again, if he could do it, he would already have done so. Now, he is twisting his words to say that I have promoted Rationality's "lies".

I am going to repeat my post here so that you can be the judge on whether I have done what he claims I did.

No "Like" Button

There are two things that are missing on Rationality's blog currently. First, there has to be a "Like" button on your blog. How else are readers going to "Like" it when you write something that makes sense?
Secondly, you should also enable sharing so that users can also "repost" and share your posts.
Since I am unable to do both of the above, I suppose the best I can do is to link it:
P/S: You should probably allow comments as well. 

Raymond has now twisted his words to say that I have to furnish evidence on the "accusations that I promoted". Now, leaving Rationality aside, I want to see Raymond prove that I have promoted any accusation or lies. AT BEST, I have encouraged more people to read what Rationality wrote.

Now, does that mean that I have to verify the truth in every single article that I read before I can share them? Or else, I would be promoting lies. How scary is that? This act of stupidity has completely destroyed whatever remnants of reputation Raymond thinks he has left. You think you can bully other people into bending over backwards for you?

And you guys, beware. Those of you who have clicked the "Yes" button below Rationality's posts are also vulnerable now. You are next! Because you are also promoting his lies by showing support. You lend credibility to his argument by "Agreeing". In fact, I am not even sure if you don't click "No", maybe you are all also guilty of supporting Rationality. Global disaster is looming.

Of course, this post appears to be only defending me. I guess you can even consider that if I tried to defend either Jimmy or Rationality, Raymond will then accuse us of "huddling together" and "showing complicity". So of course at the moment, it would appear that I have tried to dissociate myself with Rationality and what not. You are free to make your own assumptions.

If you are devious enough, you may even deduce that this is all part of Raymond's evil strategy. He could be intentionally accusing all three of us in a lame attempt to "divide and conquer". Maybe he even hopes that Jimmy and I dump Rationality and discredit him to distance ourselves from his "lies". Well, all I can say is that, initially, I had shared the article so that more people can read what he wrote. Currently, Raymond is doing the job for me. He is directing all the attention to what Rationality wrote. Oh no, does that mean you are also promoting his "lies"? Oh... this is getting too complicated. I am getting a headache.

Now, we all know who to thank for destroying Malaysian chess. Until then, please keep the votes coming in.

P/S: I don't care how many calls you received from chess lovers to get rid of Rationality. At the time of posting this, 20 out of 24 people think you have no case. Does that even mean anything? If it means nothing to you, then clearly, the number of calls you receive mean nothing. Stop blowing air into the wind.



    (On hindsight, looking at how toxic the situation has become, I should have asked for a longer period!)
    I have good news and bad news; the good news is I have not received a rejection as yet, but the bad news is that the green light to spend RM1 million on chess is way overdue!)

    Suddenly, while the decision hangs on the balance, I had become “an interested party” to the on-going “all-out-feud” between the four of you! If only there is a way I can diffuse it for the good of the Malaysian Chess Community.

    I had always maintained the stand that Chess is bigger than anyone of us, regardless. It is a game fit for Kings and paupers; and yet why are we standing by when four grown-up adults trying to “hijack it from the Malaysian chess community” by threats of police reports and lawsuits?!
    I must confess that I am ill-equipped to arbitrate especially when all information is not made available. But I can share “some experience” when the merits of the issue rest on “one particular case of sponsorship went astray”. Hope it will help!

    Sometime ago, I was fortunate to have access to a generous sponsor whose instruction was the simplest of all; organise one simultaneous chess match in each state and FTs in record breaking fashion (get the local “captain of industry” to sponsor any amount and he will take up the balance of the cost with or without his company images included) . To put money where his mouth is, he placed a large order of collapsible tables (that meet the simul requirement on minimum walking distance) to be trucked and ship across the width and breadth of Malaysia.

    Many would have remembered the KL66 and Seremban88 simul performed by CM Collin Madhavan. And the promise made by the sponsor in a press conference that we will see the World Record broken on Malaysian soil! That statement created a ripple in an overseas blog which I have to stand in to put the record straight among the International chess community (“the sponsor is a non-chess playing person and does not know what are the challenges involved in doing a World Record and should not be held responsible for his statement”)

    What lesson do we learn from it?
    1) Moral Hazard – It is always a joy to secure a sponsor but we must always be very careful to ensure we do not let our sponsor cross into “moral hazard grounds”. “A promise” in a business world is liken as gold and failure to hold that promise can ruin a whole empire. Safe-guide your sponsor from entering moral hazard ground and is prepared to extricate immediately if drawn into it unintentionally.
    2) Moral Responsibility – It then become the moral responsibility of that the person who sells the ideas and secured the sponsorship to ensure the image and goodwill of the sponsor is defended at all times; perceived, imagined, or “any situations deemed impairing the image of the sponsor”.
    3) Sponsorship or Partnership – The person that secure and now front for the sponsors must be very well aware of the thin line between “sponsorship” and “partnership”. Never (never, never ever) cross this thin line for an easy going “Win-Win” formula will become an entangling “Lose-Lose” nightmare. If it has changed into a partnership as the sponsorship progresses, identify it as such and call a spade a spade!
    4) Benefits of the doubts – Communicate (and more communication with all parties; friendly or otherwise). Always err on the safe side and draw no undue attention (Example of wrong language used; to “throw-a-game” when the hand-phone rings as compare to “have-a-game-forfeited” for an oversight do make a world of difference)

  2. With the above statement made, can I now try to be as neutral as possible? To maintain neutrality is a task deemed extremely difficult but I will still have to try...

    a) As I remembered then, when one parent of a chess player bring up the issue of a “sponsorship” that was “too good to be true” and seek my view on having his child signing-up, I clearly give him the liberty to decide on his own as “I personally will not touch it with a ten-foot pole (even though I do not know nor have any run-in with the person whom is organising it). The parent walks away without asking me the reason behind that statement.
    b) Few weeks later, he came back and said that MCF has endorsed it and what is my view? I had given him the same answer! Again he did not ask for the basis of that statement.
    c) Hindsight is always 20-20! But how could I have seen the “messy entanglement” since last year?
    d) It all rhythm with what I have written above.
    e) Dear Raymond, “in his zest to do something he perceive to be good for chess has made some elementary opening errors” and “our unforgiving chess fraternity had not given him any benefit of the doubts”.
    f) If it is a true sponsorship, it’s free. If “any monetary payment is due”, it had crossed over in a “bundled-service-provider” territory aka “partnership” and Raymond “should have paid a “legally-binding” One Ringgit Malaysia for each ticket provided and build his plans around it.
    g) As in chess, a simple flaw in an opening move can be terminal, true too is in the real world. Is it so wrong when some chess players “smell a rat” and “attack it repeatedly? Where are Raymond’s friends or counsels to lend him a hand and diffuse the crises?
    h) And to made matter worse, we are unfortunate to be in an unforgiving world.
    i) I will never accuse Raymond of deceit on this account but that of an error of judgement, failing to see he has moved from his past “multi-million ringgit commercial ventures” environment into a “of public interest domain” framework that he is very unfamiliar with.
    j) GENTLEMEN! You guys definitely need to take this off line and settle this affair in the most amicable way. Hijacking the “Malaysian Chess Community” of its clean, beneficial and joyful Chess is definitely not the way forward.