Toxic?

[Roger de Coverly]

As one of the contributors pointed out, the objectively unimportant issue regarding the nominations for "player of the year" has become one of the most commented items on the English Chess Federation's Forum. But as another contributor commented, when else does the ECF directly solicit the opinions of those now required to finance it?

[David Sedgwick]

The offending set of minutes has now been removed from the ECF website.

Would anyone who had the foresight to save a copy be willing to post it here?

[Roger de Coverly]

We wait to see whether non-views expressed by un-persons will be removed.

As per David Sedgwick's post, there they are, gone. Will they also remove all references from their forum to these minutes as first published ?

[Carl Hibbard]

I have a copy and will post when I get home.

[Carl Hibbard]

The offending set of minutes has now been removed from the ECF website.

Would anyone who had the foresight to save a copy be willing to post it here?

Here you go.

Minutes-of-the-93rd-Board-Meeting-toxic-version.pdf

[John Philpott]

As if often the case when something goes wrong at the ECF, "conspiracy" is not the correct explanation. Having uploaded the minutes to the website myself in the first instance, I was as surprised as anybody to learn from David Sedgwick's post that these had been taken down. After investigation I established that nobody else had taken a deliberate action to remove the minutes: all that had happened was that in transitioning to the new location of the website, an earlier version of the minutes page had gone across.

The minutes of Board Meeting 93 have now been restored to the minutes page, in precisely the same version as first appeared.

[Carl Hibbard]

We are killing the other place so yet again I would thank people for their support.

[John Upham]

We are killing the other place so yet again I would thank people for their support.

Perhaps "they" do not have competitive aspirations and who can blame "them" for that?

[John McKenna]

Yes, they do not harbour "competitive aspirations" - this is kill or be killed, i.e. total war.

It's gone quiet because 'they' are regrouping and trying to find new strategies and tactics after their initial offensive failed.

[Gareth T Ellis]

Their next plan of attack ??

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j ... 8LbVu91EBQ

[JustinHorton]

Perhaps "they" do not have competitive aspirations

Well we could believe the other site was set up with no intention of supplanting this one, but why would we?

[John Upham]

We could also believe that new forum was established regardless of the existence of the original one.

The ECF wanted their very own forum and why on earth should they not have one?

There are few parallels with Area 51.

[JustinHorton]

We could also believe that new forum was established regardless of the existence of the original one.

We could, but it might well be a belief of convenience.

[Ian Thompson]

We could also believe that new forum was established regardless of the existence of the original one.

Why would anyone think that when the ECF board meeting minutes of 20 March 2015 (attached above) say:

"The Board was reminded of the reason for launching the forum: the unofficial forum was toxic and displayed an unprofessional, unregulated image of English chess which would deter potential sponsors; the need to communicate was essentially secondary."

[Mike Truran]

...... forgetting the golden rule of minute-taking: that minutes should record what should have been said, not what was said.