Toxic?

[Angus French]

... In practice a Board votes on proposals (to set up a forum, to close down a forum)...

Actually, there was no Board decision to set up a forum. I know this because I was a Board member at the time the ECF Forum was created (and I was annoyed and concerned about what seemed to me to be a lack of due process).

This is (in fact) an example of poor minute taking: minutes should record decisions made and not all all the discussion that takes place before those decisions are made.

Two points:
1. The minutes were presumably approved before they were published;
2. In my view it's often useful to record not only what decisions were taken but also why they were taken. This doesn't, of course, mean that all of the discussion has to be documented.

[Carl Hibbard]

I am still surprised the ECF admitting that communication with members was actually secondary to their now published true goal.

[Neill Cooper]

I think the EC Forum has been creative and a benefit to English Chess.

For instance in 2009 Richard James started a discussion on the problems of junior chess. This lead to a discussion about school chess and maths and Team Maths Challenge. It was in that discussion that I first thought of the idea of afternoon school chess events
3 years later I started Team Chess Challenge which has gone on to be a great success in schools.

[Carl Hibbard]

From the other place comes:

When the EC Forum is good, it is very good. The other side of the coin also exists, making the whole package more harmful than beneficial in the eyes of people new to English chess. The trouble is that ministerial staff and elusive sponsors are people who are perpetually new to English chess. They research and judge organisational character before investing. Similar judgments are made by professional people who consider volunteering with the ECF; and by parents of talented children who consider whether to entrust English chess with an influencing role in their children's development.

The ECF Forum was created to establish a forum just like forums hosted by reputable organisations elsewhere—to provide a place to engage in meaningful conversation, post official notices and canvas opinion. In general, people understand that harsh tones, half-truths and unsubstantiated claims on public fora represent the writer’s opinion and the forum owner's moderation policy, not the character of the whole community. One needs to be thoroughly indoctrinated into English chess, however, to understand--let alone accept--that the EC Forum is independent of the ECF.

Maybe we need to clarify the March 2015 minute’s use of 'toxic'. The partial sentence quoted in this thread excludes the context. In considering a motion to close the ECF Forum, the Board recalled the rationale for establishing it. That rationale was articulated in a May 2014 strategy discussion in which the word 'toxic' was used. At that time, we had just been through a period of ad homonym attacks involving ECF officials writing on a public forum that gave the impression that the ECF sanctioned such discourse. That refreshed recollection aided the Board’s decision against the motion to close the ECF Forum. The rather inflammatory word, 'toxic', was not necessary in the March 2015 minutes and did not reflect the Board's opinion of recent EC Forum threads. The Board was focused on the ECF Forum and communications generally.

My colleagues and I should have chosen a more effective way to record the Board’s May 2015 decision.

[JustinHorton]

One reason to keep the ECF forum would be to maintain the opportunity to read Phil's postings.

[Carl Hibbard]

One reason to keep the ECF forum would be to maintain the opportunity to read Phil's postings.

And yet the best way to support us is to ignore the place.

[Kevin Thurlow]

"At that time, we had just been through a period of ad homonym attacks involving ECF officials writing on a public forum that gave the impression that the ECF sanctioned such discourse."

Ad homonym? I know Mr Ehr can't speak English, now he can't speak Latin either.

[Carl Hibbard]

Do members feel it's even worth posting at the other place?

[Bill Porter]

From my last ever post in the other place as its existence draws peaccefully to a close.

Internet archiving forbidden, no persistent login, warnings from my browser about sites with dubious names....

If the plan is to get rid of the forum without making any opposable decision to abolish it, the ECF is well on its way to success.

It seems my post was insufficiently rude to receive a response over there..

Maybe someone wil read it here...

[Carl Hibbard]

I will quote this snippet from the other place:

These two forms of communication—conventional media (e.g., BCM, Chess, newspapers, radio, television) and forums (e.g., ECF Forum, Yorkshire Chess Forum, Quality Chess Blog, EC Forum, Chess.com Forum, etc.)—are distinct but share similar features. Only one of these examples bears the misleading identity as the ECF’s own. This is a legacy situation that appears to be on the road to correction. The ECF’s initiative to build its own forum with ECF officials' participation is part of the correction. The EC Forum’s tag also helps, “The independent home for discussions on the English Chess scene” (emphasis is mine).

This is one the key points from the ECF we are 'misleading' even though we have been around for 9 years.

It's hard work although competing with a site on an IP address amuses me

[Carl Hibbard]

Do we think that the ENGLISH CHESS PARENTS' GUILD is also misleading?

http://www.chessparents.org.uk

Although we are the main forum mentioned at the bottom - however watch it closely see if it changes.

Fun

[LawrenceCooper]

Do we think that the ENGLISH CHESS PARENTS' GUILD is also misleading?

http://www.chessparents.org.uk

Although we are the main forum mentioned at the bottom - however watch it closely see if it changes.

Fun

I suspect that they will also be keen to remove the UKCA judging by recent correspondence

[JustinHorton]

I will quote this snippet from the other place:

These two forms of communication—conventional media (e.g., BCM, Chess, newspapers, radio, television) and forums (e.g., ECF Forum, Yorkshire Chess Forum, Quality Chess Blog, EC Forum, Chess.com Forum, etc.)—are distinct but share similar features. Only one of these examples bears the misleading identity as the ECF’s own. This is a legacy situation that appears to be on the road to correction. The ECF’s initiative to build its own forum with ECF officials' participation is part of the correction. The EC Forum’s tag also helps, “The independent home for discussions on the English Chess scene” (emphasis is mine).

This is one the key points from the ECF we are 'misleading' even though we have been around for 9 years.

I confess that although I have read the "misleading identity" sentence many times I am unable to come to a conclusion about its meaning.

[Roger de Coverly]

I confess that although I have read the "misleading identity" sentence many times I am unable to come to a conclusion about its meaning.

I'm not sure it's so difficult. You have two forums with similar names and similar visual style. New posters, even when experienced in the world of chess, have been confused between the two.

The problem is that it's the ecforum that is the original and the Federation's forum the copycat. Let's also not forget the the ecforum was the "official" forum when first established and was "set free" by decision of the then ECF Directors, endorsed by ECF voting members, aka Council. It's only recently that there has even been a Board majority view that the ECF should have a forum, such artifices being previously regarded as works of the devil, allowing the unworthy to make criticisms of the anointed. Indeed if the ecforum were to close and the critics move en masse to the official forum, there would be calls to close that as well on the usual grounds.

[JustinHorton]

I confess that although I have read the "misleading identity" sentence many times I am unable to come to a conclusion about its meaning.

I'm not sure it's so difficult. You have two forums with similar names and similar visual style. New posters, even when experienced in the world of chess, have been confused between the two.

The problem is that it's the ecforum that is the original and the Federation's forum the copycat

Of course, but it's not clear to me which forum is actually the subject of the sentence, possibly because the sentence descends into gibberish at the end. I can't even tell if there's a word missing or if he's misusing the ones he's chosen.