Hinckley Visit
-
- Posts: 6028
- Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:05 pm
- Location: Evesham
Re: Hinckley Visit
Nothing sinister to report just a few suggestions as to a way forward some bloody silly but proposals none the less.
Cheers
Carl Hibbard
Carl Hibbard
Re: Hinckley Visit
Is that what's called a non-denial denial?Carl Hibbard wrote:Nothing sinister to report just a few suggestions as to a way forward some bloody silly but proposals none the less.
Very good point, Ian, and a timely reminder that the ECF did indeed try to maintain their stranglehold on national team events and sabotage the early 4NCL competition. They were forced to retreat in the face of its sheer popularity and size, of course.Ian Thompson wrote:If you're right, then the 4NCL has improved its status with the EC over the years. In its early years, the BCF tried to set up a rival to it, to usurp it. The rival league never got off the ground. Does that remind you of any current activities by the ECF?John McKenna wrote:Of course, the 4NCL will not loom large there very often since I don't think it is regarded by the ECF as a brother organisation, to be celebrated, but a bastard one to be tolerated, but that's just in my view of it.
For years the ECF never had any kind of forum. Some of its executives and officials made regular and extensive use of this august one. So, what was it that led them to decide to, belatedly, create their own, and who were the main movers and shakers behind it? (I fear that will probably remain an unanswered question.)
Edit - I see that, below, Roger has provided an answer to my question - thanks for that.
Last edited by John McKenna on Tue May 05, 2015 11:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 21301
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm
Re: Hinckley Visit
The early years of the forum saw it as a semi-official forum, indeed the moderators were Carl and the then ECF CEO. It was proposed at an ECF AGM that the ECF should cut its links with the forum. The assertion being that the Forum had jeopardised sponsorship, principally with the Chess in Schools project. It's covered by the SCCU meeting reports for 2008.John McKenna wrote: For years the ECF never had any kind of forum. Some of its executives and officials made regular and extensive use of this august one. So, what was it that led them to decide to, belatedly, create their own, and who were the main movers and shakers behind it? (I fear that will probably remain an unanswered question.)
http://www.sccu.ndo.co.uk/0809/bcf.htm
It would be my belief that the new Commercial Director regarded establishing a discussion forum as important. That is at least a change of view from those elected as Directors or voting members on the ECF Council who would prefer forums to be uninvented and had little or no desire to debate their decisions with all and sundry.SCCU report on 2008 meeting wrote:English Chess Forum. This is the "outrageous" item. It was not actually on the printed agenda; it came up under President's Report. It was reported that Holloid had been less than amused by certain postings on the Forum. Also (and it's a thing you can never seek evidence for) that the Forum had cost us potential sponsors. It was said, moreover, that defamation could be an issue. We know now, but did not then, that the Board at its morning meeting had considered severing all connections with the Forum there and then; but had decided, since Council was expected along any time, to put it to Council instead. It was proposed that the Forum link on the ECF (no, Federation) front page be removed, and the Forum be asked to stop using the bcfservices domain name. This proposal was carried by a large majority. (Only two voted against, and if you've been to the Forum any time in the last three days you will know who they were.)
-
- Posts: 2073
- Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2011 9:23 pm
- Location: Harrogate
Re: Hinckley Visit
I think that's a tad unfair due to the numerous personnel changes the ECF or BCF as was have had in the time since.Ian Thompson wrote: If you're right, then the 4NCL has improved its status with the ECF over the years. In its early years, the BCF tried to set up a rival to it, to usurp it. The rival league never got off the ground. Does that remind you of any current activities by the ECF?
While I've added my voices to those criticising the war of the forums I've never felt the ECF were unreasonable in setting up their own forum for the purpose of consulting their members while maintaining a measure of control over the discussion. For those spouting wild conspiracy theories about censorship on the other place a) there's little actual evidence of that and b) if the ECF were to start censoring discussions it's pretty obvious where the debate would move to.
Controller - Yorkshire League
Chairman - Harrogate Chess Club
All views expressed entirely my own
Chairman - Harrogate Chess Club
All views expressed entirely my own
-
- Posts: 21301
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm
Re: Hinckley Visit
That's completely reasonable. What isn't reasonable is the implied or even stated objective to bury unofficial forums.Andrew Zigmond wrote: I've never felt the ECF were unreasonable in setting up their own forum for the purpose of consulting their members while maintaining a measure of control over the discussion.
Please also bear in mind, that interest in English chess isn't confined to the subset of ECF members.
-
- Posts: 6028
- Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:05 pm
- Location: Evesham
Re: Hinckley Visit
The best way to support us since we will always remain strictly independent is just to continue to post here
Additional links back to here if you advertise your site, congress or services is of course very welcome.
Additional links back to here if you advertise your site, congress or services is of course very welcome.
Cheers
Carl Hibbard
Carl Hibbard
-
- Posts: 5821
- Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 12:28 pm
Re: Hinckley Visit
"For those spouting wild conspiracy theories about censorship on the other place a) there's little actual evidence of that and b) if the ECF were to start censoring discussions it's pretty obvious where the debate would move to."
However, individuals made statements which I regarded as falsehoods, and they then refused to withdraw them or attempt to justify them. Ignoring complaints is a form of censorship.
Ignoring complaints is the default position in chess!
However, individuals made statements which I regarded as falsehoods, and they then refused to withdraw them or attempt to justify them. Ignoring complaints is a form of censorship.
Ignoring complaints is the default position in chess!
-
- Posts: 1757
- Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2008 8:52 pm
Re: Hinckley Visit
The moderators in the other place seem to be quite liberal currently. It was the actions of one Director which has caused the trouble. His philosophy seems to be "Do as I say, not as I do!"Andrew Zigmond wrote:b) if the ECF were to start censoring discussions it's pretty obvious where the debate would move to.
This has left the ECF Forum open to accusations of hypocrisy.
Andrew in his quote above is quite correct. As long as this forum exists the ECF cannot stifle debate as it would simply move here. Unfortunately that can be seen as a very strong reason for the ECF wanting rid of this forum. If it had a monopoly then it could insist on a much stronger 'moderation' than currently happens.
-
- Posts: 6028
- Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:05 pm
- Location: Evesham
Re: Hinckley Visit
Their own code of conduct which is now official may limit this in the future.Kevin Thurlow wrote:"For those spouting wild conspiracy theories about censorship on the other place a) there's little actual evidence of that and b) if the ECF were to start censoring discussions it's pretty obvious where the debate would move to."
However, individuals made statements which I regarded as falsehoods, and they then refused to withdraw them or attempt to justify them. Ignoring complaints is a form of censorship.
Ignoring complaints is the default position in chess!
Cheers
Carl Hibbard
Carl Hibbard
-
- Posts: 5249
- Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 5:56 pm
- Location: Croydon
Re: Hinckley Visit
Andrew Zigmond wrote:... if the ECF were to start censoring discussions it's pretty obvious where the debate would move to.
That's only true so long as people are free to post here. There have been repeated suggestions that ECF Directors and Officers should not be and at least one Director clearly feels inhibited at present.Alex McFarlane wrote:Andrew in his quote above is quite correct. As long as this forum exists the ECF cannot stifle debate as it would simply move here.
It's all very well to say that people can resign if they find their freedom of expression is restricted, but it's not actually that easy. Some of us would like to continue to serve (elements of) the ECF membership and would find it hard simply to walk away. (Sorry for being pompous.)
That's why I have resisted, and will continue to resist, restrictions that would result in me and others being faced with that choice.
-
- Posts: 6028
- Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:05 pm
- Location: Evesham
Re: Hinckley Visit
It is only a matter of time before that restriction becomes mandatory I am sorry to say.David Sedgwick wrote:Andrew Zigmond wrote:... if the ECF were to start censoring discussions it's pretty obvious where the debate would move to.That's only true so long as people are free to post here. There have been repeated suggestions that ECF Directors and Officers should not be and at least one Director clearly feels inhibited at present.Alex McFarlane wrote:Andrew in his quote above is quite correct. As long as this forum exists the ECF cannot stifle debate as it would simply move here.
It's all very well to say that people can resign if they find their freedom of expression is restricted, but it's not actually that easy. Some of us would like to continue to serve (elements of) the ECF membership and would find it hard simply to walk away. (Sorry for being pompous.)
That's why I have resisted, and will continue to resist, restrictions that would result in me and others being faced with that choice.
Cheers
Carl Hibbard
Carl Hibbard
-
- Posts: 2069
- Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2014 1:28 pm
- Location: Morecambe, Europe
Re: Hinckley Visit
I'm puzzled by this. How can it be done?Carl Hibbard wrote:It is only a matter of time before that restriction becomes mandatory I am sorry to say.
A director posting here could be asked to resign. He could refuse. What then?
He cannot be removed from office as his authority comes from Council. Only Council can dismiss him. Is the Board going to call an EGM to do that?
Would it succeed? I hardly think so.
Of course, other officials are a different matter. But were one of them is courageous enough to say "Go on - sack me" then the Board has an equally difficult decision. Getting a replacement for someone of the quality of ***************, for example, would be (a) imperative and (b) impossible.