English Chess Forum

I dare say the policy is badly written, but written it is. If it is the ECF's policy, then they should either adhere to it, or change it. Of course, there are idiots in all walks of life, people we don't want to deal with, other than taking their money of course. Provocation is there, but given the ...

Maybe a poll on whether the code of conduct is a good thing or not would be in order?

Indeed, but doesn't 3.1 indicate that not only ECF publications are within scope?

http://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-conte ... icials.pdf seems to be it. (?)

Various points are covered there. Describing somebody as being unable to win or engage in an intelligent discussion does seem, at least to me, to clearly breach those guidelines.

People use calendars to tell them what events are available. If they know that this isn't what the calendar does, this creates dissatisfaction. That isn't to say that it is wrong to charge people for a service, but to highlight how easy it is to set up a rival calendar that has more complete informa...

A question on that rule: "Without the permission of the arbiter a player is forbidden to have a mobile phone or other electronic means of communication in the playing venue, unless they are completely switched off. If any such device produces a sound, the player shall lose the game. The opponent sha...

The information presented was, as you've admitted, somewhat lacking. I haven't 'admitted' anything of the kind. You must be confusing me with someone else. Are you really trying to say that this argument is "Selective quoting of the website"? What I'm saying is that quoting one section of a web pag...

Sorry, but what are you trying to say there? The information presented was, as you've admitted, somewhat lacking. Not hugely inaccurate, or devastatingly misleading, but slightly so. If supplemented, by a hunt through the ECF website, that wouldn't be an issue. Obviously though, people don't usually...

What you can say is that the information was there, but it was not as clearly presented as it should have been. Making announcements intended to clarify the situation, but making them without linking them to one another, is not very clever. Trying to say people are selectively quoting the informatio...

It is obvious if you use your pre-existing knowledge of how the system works. You can imagine mechanisms for rating games other than the one you know to already exist. It is trivial to add the extra details.

Quite right, I take it all back.

Sorry David, but if the message is completely obscured then you can't have a reader for it.

I fail to understand this attitude. It is perfectly obvious that the points in green, do not unambiguously lead to the conclusion in red, from the information presented on that page. So why not just say, yes, we could easily clarify that a little better, and then do just that? and the reason not to ...

and the reason not to mention this on the membership page is what exactly?

I am not sure what point you are trying to obscure Sean. Unless I have completely misunderstood something, this post should be referenced on the main membership page, or, some clever little piece of wording relating the same thing should be on it. Note, that the post I mention above is in itself poo...