ECF voting arrangements

[Mike Truran]

"Mad Mike, the angel of death".

"The Joker (AKA Mad Mike)"

"Mad Mike, the silent assassin".

Message to the 4NCL captains. Be afraid. Be very afraid. Particularly those who don't pay their entry fees on time. You know who you are. And I know where you live.

[Simon Brown]

Mike, don't you mean "there" entry fees?

[David Pardoe]

Thats fine Mike...we know you are not accountable to us 4NCL baffoons...?
Cant even tell us how you conducted your consultations, if any, nor who was consulted, nor how you eventually allocated your power tokens to those NED delegates.
Its all a real big secret....???
As regards membership...we arent members, just paying baffoons.... who talk b****ks, according to some , and whose views can be discounted, because we dont represent the chess community, apparently?
And nor do those chess `bodies` (or should that be corpses), who hold various voting rights..in practice they mostly speak for a very small handful of selected people.
I thought that anyone could sign up to play for a 4NCL team at any time they wished??
Last time I signed up on the day of a match, handing my membership fees/taxes/penalty charges to the arbitor Might have been one of the dedicated Arbitors, that has served British chess so very well over many years, Roger Edwards....without whom, 4NCL and other events might fall flat on its face.
I`m currently in discussions as regards renewal, but if you want to ban me from playing..feel free.

[Roger de Coverly]

Cant even tell us how you conducted your consultations, if any, nor who was consulted, nor how you eventually allocated your power tokens to those NED delegates.
Its all a real big secret....???

I gather there's a 4NCL captains discussion mailing list, which one poster on here hinted was divided as to whether AP was the best thing since sliced bread or just a charlatan. The captains may know how the 4NCL eventually voted, there again they may not and for that matter whether any opinions were expressed on the NED elections. As far as I'm aware the 4NCL is a Company limited by shares and therefore only accountable in a legal sense to the shareholders.

[Mike Truran]

Actually limited by guarantee, and so accountable to its members.

I think a grand total of around three captains replied to the request for comments about the AGM. Which might support the contention that most people just didn't care.

[Paul McKeown]

Crystal meth or crack cocaine? Whatever you are smoking, David, just stop.

[John Swain]

Actually limited by guarantee, and so accountable to its members.

I think a grand total of around three captains replied to the request for comments about the AGM. Which might support the contention that most people just didn't care.

Well done on trying to get people's views. Three captains responding doesn't give you a lot to go on.

Putting aside what these particular three said, how do you operate when you have a limited set of opinions (or any set of opinions)?

Do you:
a) cast all your votes their way, if they were unanimous?
b) split your votes, so far as you can, in proportion, if they had diverging views?
c) trust your own judgment, which may well disagree with the views expressed?

[Mike Truran]

John

(c), in consultation with my fellow directors.

[Andrew Zigmond]

People should be free to ask there questions and raise concerns, and express there views...without the thuggish element firing off abuse in a vein attempt to cover there perceived villainy.
It comes to something when those with large block votes try to hide the voting that they cast for the NED elections..refusing to say how many votes were allocated to each candidate? We`re not even asking who specifically voted for each particular candidates.
Godd knows what these jokers were up to for the main election...??

And what has this delivered... fools gold, Frankenstein, and Ehr.....many might wonder??

I'm not going to dissect David's post in detail except to point out that the only person on this thread firing out abuse is David Pardoe, screaming, ranting and insulting anybody who dares disagree with him (ie pretty much everybody). Let me see if I get this through for once and for all - council elect the board, therefore the elections were perfectly legitimate. The system may well be flawed and need reform, that's why the rest of us are trying to have a constructive debate about it.

I can understand the reservations about Andrew Paulson - under OMOV he would not have got my vote although now we have him as President he will have to deliver and be judged on his record in twelve months time. What is getting my goat are the insults levelled at Phil Ehr by David Pardoe - Mr Ehr has been an extremely successful Junior Director and carried the Council vote almost unanimously after his opponent barely campaigned.

Ironically David's suggestion about how OMOV could be introduced and weighted according to turnout is actually quite interesting.

[Carl Hibbard]

I`m currently in discussions as regards renewal, but if you want to ban me from playing..feel free.

You do appear to be talking a lot of nonsense recently David so please either take some time over your thoughts or I might have to consider you taking a break for a while.

[Alex Holowczak]

I`m currently in discussions as regards renewal, but if you want to ban me from playing..feel free.

You do appear to be talking a lot of nonsense recently David so please either take some time over your thoughts or I might have to consider you taking a break for a while.

But Carl, don't you:

[...] realise that this forum is an `open` discussion platform, where people can freely express there views, and ask there questions for the benefit of our chess community.

[David Pardoe]

I`m currently in discussions as regards renewal, but if you want to ban me from playing..feel free.

You do appear to be talking a lot of nonsense recently David so please either take some time over your thoughts or I might have to consider you taking a break for a while.

Carl,
You can take me off your board any time you want. You`re entitlled to your views, but I suspect your example of my talking rubbish is an example of you not really undestanding what is being said.
Just try reading some previous comments before firing off your threats.

[John Upham]

your example of my talking rubbish

I have to admit being spoilt for choice but CH may feel more constrained.

[JustinHorton]

Members will have no direct say in the enabling of policies, if they are unhappy they just vote him out in the next election

Isn't that how democracy works

Well, not as such, because in between elections it's not abnormal for elected individuals to have to appear before other representatives bodies, to put their policies to those bodies and have them pass or reject them, and so on. Which may be clumsy, often, but is also often a means for the actions of individuals to be scrutinised and explained.

(In the instance of the CAS fiasco, for instance, I thought Council played quite an important role both in bringing to light things that should not have been hidden, and seeking explanations for them. I would not wish to see this function disappear.)