Forum Members

[Roger de Coverly]

If you want a forum accessible only by ECF members

That isn't the stated intent, which is that it is open to anyone interested in chess.

I still don't really know what the underlying intent is, unless it's to drive Carl's forum out of use. We might recall that the ecforum effectively replaced the atticus forum some years ago.

The discussion on games played at the British Championships contains 47 pages and counting. Should the "official" forum be looking for a similar level of interest? If so, then it needs a sub-forum for discussion of events and games in progress.

Given the apparent paralysis in deciding on responses as suggested in a post by Mike Gunn, there isn't going to be much coming from ECF directors whether they owns the forum or not. I suppose the October elections might make a few people up, particularly if any are contested. At almost every election there are questions about the role expected to be played by non-Exec directors. Keeping the wider chess community informed about the ECF's activities doesn't seem to be part of this, despite what was said in election statements.

[Jonathan Rogers]

If you want a forum accessible only by ECF members

That isn't the stated intent, which is that it is open to anyone interested in chess.

I still don't really know what the underlying intent is, unless it's to drive Carl's forum out of use. ...

I think it extremely likely that this is the case; and this is why many of us have not posted there, out of loyalty to Carl who has invested goodness knows how much of his own time and capital in making this site a success.

Clearly the official site has been an abject failure, no matter what its official objectives might have been; and as a member of the ECF I am annoyed that funds are wasted on it (presumably?) and hope that some searching questions about it will be asked at the AGM.

[Steve Rooney]

If you want a forum accessible only by ECF members

That isn't the stated intent, which is that it is open to anyone interested in chess.

I still don't really know what the underlying intent is, unless it's to drive Carl's forum out of use. ...

I think it extremely likely that this is the case; and this is why many of us have not posted there, out of loyalty to Carl who has invested goodness knows how much of his own time and capital in making this site a success.

Clearly the official site has been an abject failure, no matter what its official objectives might have been; and as a member of the ECF I am annoyed that funds are wasted on it (presumably?) and hope that some searching questions about it will be asked at the AGM.

The comments of David Eustace at the live Q&A support this idea that the new forum was created because of the frustration of some board members that they couldn't control everything that was published about English chess. His position sounded a bit Canute-like, wanting to wish away the modern age of rolling news and social media, while Phil Ehr was much more diplomatic in his responses.

I fully understand the reasons why individual board members might decide not to engage in a forum and that is entirely their prerogative - as long as they have some other means of ensuring they are communicating with the members who they represent.

I am very puzzled, however, by the wall of silence from most of the ECF board in recent weeks. A number of them were regular contributors here and they have not even engaged to any degree on the new forum either, or answered direct questions promptly, if at all.

[Andrew Zigmond]

To be fair it is now the last month of the membership year and clubs and leagues are mostly in recess - so activity in chess is slightly limited at the moment. When the new season begins and we start looking towards the AGM in October I think we may see a spike in activity. I know for a fact that the Home Director has been putting in twelve hour days in Aberystwyth and the International Director is probably similarly busy with the Olympiad so it's perhaps unsurprisingly that they are not currently active on any forum.

I think this `battle of the forums` has been rather blown out of proportion, not helped by the comment about aliases which I have expressed dissatisfaction with on the ECF forum. When the time comes for elected officers to seek election/ re-election there will be public Q&As and I think these belong best on an official forum where obvious abuse and insinuations can be removed. That said, while Carl is not accountable to the ECF and has criticised the odd decision, I can't think of any example where he has taken an anti ECF line. In fact moderation has mainly been required on here when contributors have repeatedly raised historic disputes and allegations or been overly vocal in criticising certain ECF officials (I'm thinking of the two known banned users) - something I can hardly see being tolerated on the ECF forum.

EDIT - spelling

[Roger de Coverly]

When the time comes for elected officers to seek election/ re-election there will be public Q&As and I think these belong best on an official forum where obvious abuse and insuations can be removed.

I think the point will be made, forcefully if necessary, that it's unsatisfactory to come onto an open forum presumably seeking votes, particularly professing a supposed mandate of openness and then maintain silence for the rest of the year.

What happened to extending the franchise to give individuals more say in the election of officers? I rather suspect a proposal by the MCF (?) Representative kicked it into the long grass, particularly as the Director most keen on the idea has resigned.