Questions for Dave Perrott

Foosball chat / key issues and discussion
User avatar
davez
Posts: 4072
Joined: Sun Jan 19, 2003 11:17 pm
Real Name: Dave Ziemann
Location: London, UK

Re: Questions for Dave Perrott

Post by davez » Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:52 am

Dave,

A good point. Ideally it should be crystal clear whether a post is personal or committee. Not sure how to do that...
* two accounts for each committee member (impractical)
* a sig which says "These are my personal opinions" which could be removed for committee posts
* a distinct forum for all official BFA committee channelling of decisions/info to the public arena
...
Apostrophes never make plurals.Incorrect:Table's,Garlando's,DVD's,1900's.Correct:Tables,Garlandos,DVDs,1900s.

User avatar
Jonathan may
BFA Committee Observer
Posts: 3817
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 5:21 pm
Real Name: Jonathan May
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Questions for Dave Perrott

Post by Jonathan may » Thu Sep 03, 2009 11:10 am

Custom add-on to the forum with a checkbox when Committee members post saying "This is an official Committee opinion" which colour-codes the post...?
--
Manager, TeamGB.

User avatar
shovie
Posts: 2696
Joined: Sat Jan 25, 2003 2:16 pm
Real Name: Alex Shovelton
Location: Bristol
Contact:

Re: Questions for Dave Perrott

Post by shovie » Thu Sep 03, 2009 12:08 pm

How about an "Announcements and Important Information" section. Oh look... there it is.

Obviously it's my personal opinion, and Mike/Dave, PERSONALLY I still think it's a pathetic excuse.

I refuse to put a disclaimer at the bottom of every one of my posts purely because people are stupid enough to think my blurbs could possibly possibly be considered official BFA statements.

Alex

User avatar
Mogwai
Posts: 2024
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2003 10:59 am
Real Name: Dave Morgan
Location: Wokingham
Contact:

Re: Questions for Dave Perrott

Post by Mogwai » Thu Sep 03, 2009 2:56 pm

It's not that often that the committee needs to give its official position. When it does we have a log in for that. For the purposes of this forum it should be a given that the posts are personal opinions unless expressed otherwise. In general people on the committee will stick up for the committee (although not always) but it is still a personal defence unless stated otherwise.

User avatar
Mase
Posts: 6587
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 11:49 am
Real Name: Ben Mason
Location: Bristol - UK

Re: Questions for Dave Perrott

Post by Mase » Thu Sep 03, 2009 4:11 pm

Mike A wrote: Many good and sensible things plus a letter
Those of you that have been involved in any issues since this have been approached in thsi way when i took over the disciplinary procedure. It is a shame that there was no procudre in place like the one i have used for complaints since.

Mase

User avatar
shovie
Posts: 2696
Joined: Sat Jan 25, 2003 2:16 pm
Real Name: Alex Shovelton
Location: Bristol
Contact:

Re: Questions for Dave Perrott

Post by shovie » Thu Sep 03, 2009 5:37 pm

It is a shame that there was no procudre in place like the one i have used for complaints since.
Mase! As Richard has stated this is just not true. We have had a good disciplinary procedure for some time now, please don't unnecessarily blow your own trumpet at the expense of fact.

Alex

User avatar
Mike A
Posts: 771
Joined: Mon May 05, 2003 11:14 pm
Real Name: Michael Amsden
Location: London

Re: Questions for Dave Perrott

Post by Mike A » Thu Sep 03, 2009 7:00 pm

Fact: The Havelock disciplinary process failed to provide any witness statements.
Fact: No attempt was made to contact potential witnesses other than a post on this discussion forum.
Fact: Subsequent disciplinary processes have succeeded to obtain witness statements.
Fact: The investigating officers for those investigations made direct contact with potential witnesses.
Fact: Dave P has been an invaluable volunteer, assisting the BFA and tournament organisers at personal cost, time and effort with little or no reward.

So, is it more likely that following the Havelock investigation.....

1) Witnesses disliked Dave P so much that they refused to provide witness statements and conspired to make sure the disciplinary process failed.
2) Witnesses had such a higher opinion of name deleted than Dave that they decided that they couldn't possibly say anything that incriminated name deleted.
3) People were afraid that name deleted would seek revenge against them.
4) Witnesses couldn't be bothered to provide support to Dave as they didn't think he was worth the effort.
5) Witnesses were confused by the request and didn't understand their obligations.
6) Witnesses didn't view the request for witness statements since it was so poorly communicated.
7) Witnesses didn't appreciate that even partial, unclear and apparently useless witness statements were of value to the process, and decided to leave the witness statements to those who could provide an accurate recollection.
8 ) Witnesses quickly returned to their normal busy lives and since they were not approached directly regarding the matter they quickly forgot the discussion board post had even existed.

We could go on and on, but essentially it seems clear to me that numbers 1-4 are much less likely and numbers 5-8 are much more highly likely.

Alex, I am not for a second suggesting that I or any other regular players/in crowd thought your post was an official BFA announcement. However, this discussion board is increasingly the voice of the BFA. As long as you have 'BFA Committee' under your name, statements you make could be regarded by new players, site visitors, any one who doesn't know you, as an official line. This goes for Webmasters, Newsletter Editors or any other official title. It is simply naive to consider that you can retain these titles alongside statements about the player base without there being any repurcussions.

Richard's comment about the disciplinary process is not entirely true either. The process failed because it wasn't communicated properly. Communication is part of the process and this is where Mase made it work and Richard didn't.

User avatar
Messiah
Posts: 1520
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2003 4:12 pm
Real Name: Dan Gallon
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Questions for Dave Perrott

Post by Messiah » Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:42 pm

Original request for information stickied at the time:

http://forum.britfoos.com/forum/viewtop ... php&t=4373
Still going....

User avatar
tom_k
Site Administrator
Posts: 854
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2003 9:32 am
Real Name: Tom King
Location: Oxford

Re: Questions for Dave Perrott

Post by tom_k » Fri Sep 04, 2009 1:34 pm


User avatar
Richard
Posts: 1703
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 3:50 pm
Real Name: Richard Thomson
Location: London

Re: Questions for Dave Perrott

Post by Richard » Fri Sep 04, 2009 2:06 pm

Mase wrote:The process obviously wasnt that good as it failed. Since then when a complaint is made the witnesses re properly canvassed for their opinion and the appropriate communications entered into. FACT
The facts i am aware of are as follows:
- Mase you were part of the committee that determined what action to take against name deleted.
- The only metric against which you are measuring failure is the fact Dave has not let this drop after 3 years.
- The issues at the time were dealt with in a discrete manner without "airing dirty laundry". It is the current committee of (which i think you may still be a part of) that has been almost totally ineffective at preventing the spiralling comments on this topic over the last 2 years.

Tell me this - given you seem to be appointed to take decisions re complaints can i ask - have you sought to reopen this case and seek out witnesses? Given Dave continues to make the case that he was badly done by, all he needs to do is email you saying "i would like to complain" and then with your new role you could reconsider all the evidence. Most of the witnesses that were are still on the scene, a name deleted ban would be pointless but probably very popular, and i suspect watching the soap opera unfurl would be genuinely interesting.

In fact, let me get the ball rolling.
Dear BFA Committee,

I would like to formally complain about the decision reached in relation to what everyone knows as "The Havelock Incident". I demand that, as a BFA member (admittedly a non-paid up member, but for the sake of £5 what the Bloop i will send in a postal order), the BFA fully reopens the case and examines what has - by both popular vote and committee members' personal views - already been deemed a failure of process.

I simply cannot believe that someone who insulted and threatened a referee could not have received a life ban. I dont really care that the referee in question did not think it was a big deal, or that no witnesses came forward at the time, but the simple truth of the matter is that

Kind regards
Richard

User avatar
Messiah
Posts: 1520
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2003 4:12 pm
Real Name: Dan Gallon
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Questions for Dave Perrott

Post by Messiah » Fri Sep 04, 2009 3:11 pm

Poor old name deleted - found guilty by mass acclaimation as usual even though the 2 witnesses that did respond having been directly contacted (both senior and respected players within the foos community) both apparently played down the significance of the events that had happened.

Still as long as Britfoos gets to have its say....
Still going....

User avatar
Boris
BFA Treasurer
Posts: 9447
Joined: Sun Jan 12, 2003 10:15 pm
Real Name: Boris Atha
Location: Liverpool
Contact:

Re: Questions for Dave Perrott

Post by Boris » Fri Sep 04, 2009 4:48 pm

Mike - we did receive a number of witness statements, most of those directly affected, and from a few bystanders. The name of the offender has been kept out of the public domain although in practice most people know his identity.

Richard - as you were part of the decision-making process you cannot appeal against a decision you yourself made. The matter is concluded and any deadlines for appeal have long expired. The offender was found guilty of one charge, received the appropriate (at the time) punishment, but was found not guilty/not proven of the more serious charge.

Dave P was not the victim of the offence, although he was a participant in the match during which the offence occurred. The victim of the offence accepted an apology from the offender which was taken into account on sentencing.

If the ITSF disciplinary code had been in force at the time the offender could have expected to face a ban.

User avatar
Messiah
Posts: 1520
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2003 4:12 pm
Real Name: Dan Gallon
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Questions for Dave Perrott

Post by Messiah » Sat Sep 05, 2009 1:27 pm

Boris wrote:Mike - we did receive a number of witness statements, most of those directly affected, and from a few bystanders. The name of the offender has been kept out of the public domain although in practice most people know his identity.
So even though the BFA disciplinary process found someone guilty of a charge (and innocent of a more serious charge), this can't be made public now, even though it has previosuly been made public on a number of occasions, and is still referenced in the public domain on the Britfoos forum?

Boz, I'll helpfully list below a few more threads you can go and moderate to remove reference to anyone you feel appropriate:

http://forum.britfoos.com/forum/viewtop ... f=2&t=4521

http://forum.britfoos.com/forum/viewtop ... f=2&t=4558

http://forum.britfoos.com/forum/viewtop ... f=2&t=4525
Still going....

snakecharmer

Re: Questions for Dave Perrott

Post by snakecharmer » Sun Sep 06, 2009 2:55 pm

Boris wrote:Mike - we did receive a number of witness statements, most of those directly affected, and from a few bystanders.
That is not what I was told at the time. I was told categorically the BFA recieved no replies to the request for witnesses. Something else that has appeared to change overtime is the offender stated any action taken against him would be seen as racial discrimination and legal action would be sought. I was told by 2 BFA C'ttee members then that this threatened action had stopped them taking any serious action. This has since been denied. That means that I was either lied to then or later. With "facts" changing over time I know there is zero chance of anything constructive ever happening. I had a lot of the original correspondence saved from various forums, that has been deleted by others. I do still have some C'ttee forum posts saved elsewhere, and interesting reading they are.
I don't associate with liars, or those who don't honour debts. I keep my word. I said I'd leave the game until I was satisfied with some resolution to the issue, foolishly thinking this would force it forward. I am happy to be no longer in the game and associating with some people, many I had deemed friends and stand up guys. I do still get annoyed at being hung out to dry by them though.
As ever, the issue gets lost in political semantics, as has happened in this thread. There seems to be more interest in figuring out how to approach witnesses and deal with future problems than deal with the original topic here. It was paid lipservice then used as a springboard to launch other political debates. As ever, there will be discussion, then more of it, but no action.

User avatar
Richard
Posts: 1703
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 3:50 pm
Real Name: Richard Thomson
Location: London

Re: Questions for Dave Perrott

Post by Richard » Sun Sep 06, 2009 9:40 pm

I was not aware of any witness statements, other than from DZ and Jude. I think boris asked the promoter, and we emailed Tich for his side of things but he did not reply. I did not know who the other witnesses were.


The racism bit was never part of my thought process, but it did result in the following paragraph being put into the formal warning letter:
Finally, your accusation of racism against the BFA was viewed by the committee as a very serious matter indeed, and would provide grounds for expulsion and / or a ban if such accusations had been made in a public forum, and would provide basis for legal action for defamation (libel) in the courts.

The BFA does not discriminate on grounds of race, creed, colour, disability or sexual orientation, and we are proud of our harmonious race relations. Please note that the World Cup team, as originally selected included 6 of 10 players who were of Asian origin or ethnicity [ ] - hardly the actions of a racist organisation.

If you feel badly treated in the past it was entirely because of your own behavious, not your ethnic origin. In particular, you were excluded from the Game-In TV competition in 2003 because of the racist remarks you had made to Dave Chow which led to your disqualification from the Black Horse tournament earlier that year. The BFA could not take the risk of any similar remark or behavious being aired on television. You only had yourself to blame.

I have also been reviewing old records, and came across this email that you wrote to me on 24 December 2006. It seems by your own unprompted words that when you were told of the outcome you accepted the decision. 100% of my hostile responses to your posts recently stem from the fact that you are blaming events which you accepted at the time for your current decision to stay out of the game. I dont know whether you can read the below and accept that perhaps things were not as you remember them, or whether even if this behind you that you would play foos again. I just dont want to be blamed (or the committee at the time blamed) for you exiting the game. I still dont really see why you have exited the game, and would urge you to just forget about this, and consider foos as something you play not write about.
Dave Perrott wrote:Re: BFA Formal Complaint‏
From: Dave Perrott
Sent: 24 December 2006 15:04:31
To: Richard Thomson

Thanks Richard. I am aware that the system itself has worked, within the limited parameters set out. I'm not so sure this is the first complaint with Kalsi, the BFA did apply some disciplinary measure once before, Re, Dave Chow/Black Horse and feel there must have been a complaint then for this to happen. Should I have made a complaint at the time, during the event? Glad I didn't. My actions were queried by the Promoter and TD in the "Responses" thread while those of the offender and silent witnesses were not. Had it been "dealt with" on site I would have been left no other avenue, and felt it best to go through the highest channels. Kalsis' behaviour has been a long term, though intermittent problem. It needs to be dealt with in the future, and will need whatever steps possible to make this happen. Although there were no players willing to stand up in this incident, I have recieved plenty of support from the many who've had enough of his outbursts and threats.
I have been asked by some to attend the AGM. I do not think this wise. All of this needs to come to an end. So it's unlikely we'll meet again. Good luck in whatever you do, and thanks for your time in foos. Oh, yeah, have a good Christmas.
Dave P..
----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Thomson
To: davep
Cc: boris; mase.com ; john; jude; daveo; webmaster
Sent: Sunday, December 24, 2006 11:59 AM
Subject: FW: BFA Formal Complaint

Dave,

The formal warning has been served against Kalsi. Despite previous altercations, this is the first formal complaint raised against Kalsi and hence the first formal warning issued against Kalsi.

Following your public comments on BritFoos on this matter, which undermined the BFA decision decision making process it is my view that the BFA Committee has little option but to keep the full contents of the formal warning letter confidential from you. Regardless you already appear to have a good idea of what is being said.

Finally, i want to reiterate that this has been reviewed in line with the BFA constitutional disciplinary process and not the Code of Conduct, which to all extents appeared to be followed (in absence of formal action on the day). Personally I do not consider this as the one that got away or that the disciplinary procedures have not worked.

Thanks,
Richard

snakecharmer

Re: Questions for Dave Perrott

Post by snakecharmer » Sun Sep 06, 2009 10:20 pm

I had accepted the decision and decided to walk away from the game completely, but there was one unpaid "moral debt" which I asked to be acknowledged as still standing. It was only once the BFA started denying its' existence (although it was on the C'ttee forum) that I decided to fight it all. I didn't even ask for it to be squared, just acknowledged. Had the BFA done the simple thing then we wouldn't still be here, but that is not the BFA way. There is a some need there to debate and argue everything from every possible angle for fear of offending someone, then only taking action when there is full agreement. And there never is. The fact that there is no worry about causing offence to me is neither here not there.
I have no interest in the game, and less in those that play it. The whole Havelock issue has made me understand a lot about those running the game, and many playing it. Believe none of what you hear and only half of what you see. People say one thing privately then do or say the opposite publicly.

User avatar
Boris
BFA Treasurer
Posts: 9447
Joined: Sun Jan 12, 2003 10:15 pm
Real Name: Boris Atha
Location: Liverpool
Contact:

Re: Questions for Dave Perrott

Post by Boris » Mon Sep 07, 2009 1:25 pm

There were 5x witnesses to the Havelock Incident who came forward and from whom statements were received:
Dave Perrott (complainant)
Dave Ziemann (match referee)
Pablo Chana (promoter)
Kalsi (defendant)
Tich Degun (involved in match as Kalsi's doubles partner).

As Kalsi has not sought to reopen this issue, the letter of warning which was issued to him in confidence will not be published. All witnesses who came forward received a copy of this letter and the terms of the judgement and were required to keep these confidential. He was given 21 days to lodge an appeal, no appeal was lodged and the matter is closed.

User avatar
Richard
Posts: 1703
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 3:50 pm
Real Name: Richard Thomson
Location: London

Re: Questions for Dave Perrott

Post by Richard » Mon Sep 07, 2009 2:15 pm

snakecharmer wrote:I had accepted the decision and decided to walk away from the game completely, but there was one unpaid "moral debt" which I asked to be acknowledged as still standing.
OK so finally you accept the Havelock is irrelevant in this.

Your gripe - which i think i identified in the my first post of this topic - is that when you asked a bfa committee of which i was not part to call in a debt that i was unaware of, you were denied.

Finally, a bit of closure for all of us.

Richard

User avatar
robmoss2k
Posts: 1682
Joined: Mon Feb 10, 2003 3:36 pm
Real Name: Robert Moss
Location: Bolton
Contact:

Re: Questions for Dave Perrott

Post by robmoss2k » Fri Sep 11, 2009 10:57 am

The main thing the Havelock incident brought to us all was the realisation that our disciplinary procedure had no real teeth, which is why it was subsequently and almost immediately changed. There is nothing really to be gained by going back and chasing people who were charged and acquitted under a prior disciplinary procedure - that's something that should obviously never be allowed as the potential for corrupt actions in such an environment should be quite obvious. But the lessons were learned and the rules were changed; if the same incident were to happen again at the next tournament the offender in question should be expecting at the very least a lengthy ban.

The main reason no serious action was taken at the time was down to people not coming forward with a statement "because others will" - to those people, and you know who you are, read this and remember it: others won't.
Image

User avatar
El Capitan
Posts: 3613
Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2003 4:14 pm
Real Name: John Worthington
Location: Wirral

Re: Questions for Dave Perrott

Post by El Capitan » Mon Sep 14, 2009 5:21 pm

robmoss2k wrote:The main thing the Havelock incident brought to us all was the realisation that our disciplinary procedure had no real teeth, which is why it was subsequently and almost immediately changed. There is nothing really to be gained by going back and chasing people who were charged and acquitted under a prior disciplinary procedure - that's something that should obviously never be allowed as the potential for corrupt actions in such an environment should be quite obvious. But the lessons were learned and the rules were changed; if the same incident were to happen again at the next tournament the offender in question should be expecting at the very least a lengthy ban.

The main reason no serious action was taken at the time was down to people not coming forward with a statement "because others will" - to those people, and you know who you are, read this and remember it: others won't.
Re: Havelock
I think no one envisioned things like this happening at what was supposed to be a fun event. And do bear in mind that a complaint at the time the incident happened would have been handled differently, as it did with a very similar incident (AFAIK) at the Crawley Open.

Re: Moral Debts
Dave P's suggestion was put to the committee, and was considered, but it was not felt appropriate at the time. I am making no judgement on that here, but my understanding is that (as Boris has said here), there was an Atha-related mistake, resolved in a few hours. I'm not sure which court in the land can decide what level of "Moral Debt" that confers. And also how many verbal or written debts does the BFA to the many tireless efforts of so many (me not included)? Does everyone get a chance to dictate BFA policy?
As Boris has said, the matter of a Hall of Fame / Lifetime members option is being looked into, and if that becomes a legacy from any of this, then good.

Locked