100,000 posts - time to assess the benefits

[David Sedgwick]

Given the prolonged rancorous exchanges that disfigure some threads on the forum, spreading distress in many directions, one could be forgiven for wishing to be less influenced, and less informed about the goings-on in English chess.

There will be more joy in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine righteous persons, who need no repentance.

[Ian Kingston]

One thing that I have observed is that some posters seem to feel that the ECF and its officials are answerable to this forum.

They aren't of course. The forum does though enable more questions to be asked than could be accommodated within a four hour meeting twice a year, particularly when these meetings have important formal business to transact.

The ECF or its officials or directors aren't obliged to answer, but if they don't either directly or indirectly, their version of events won't be heard. Other methods of communication by the ECF could be used, but silence is rarely a good way of getting your message and proposals across as illustrated by the non-election of the only candidate for the new marketing and membership post.

(edit) Martin Regan, for example, would send out emails "from the CEO" to all members explaining ECF policy. (/edit)

This forum just inherited topics that were mainstays of the sccu site.
See for example http://www.sccu.ndo.co.uk/0708/let.htm

You've amplified my thoughts rather neatly.

The question of whether two lengthy meetings of 40+ people is a sane way for any organisation to make decisions is really separate from a discussion of the usefulness of this forum, but the issues are certainly related.

I considered mentioning both the SCCU site and the Atticus forum as places where discussions used to occur. If Carl were to shut this forum down tomorrow, another venue would soon replace it.

[Carl Hibbard]

That thought did occur to me when Carl posted the figure of just under 2000 visitors a month.

No 2,000 a day not a month

[Ian Kingston]

That thought did occur to me when Carl posted the figure of just under 2000 visitors a month.

No 2,000 a day not a month

Whoops! Even better!

[David Robertson]

There will be more joy in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine righteous persons, who need no repentance.

Think not that I come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

[Malcolm Clarke]

A couple of months ago I looked at the posting statistics myself. At that stage Alex Holowczak had made more posts than Roger De Coverly, but having revisited this today I see that Roger has now comfortably overtaken him.

I have now been registered on the forum for two years and one day and exactly 100 people have made more postings than me.

What I personally like about the forum is that you can exchange chess experiences with people all over the world, and it is good to discuss a range of issues.

However my most recent posting related to the issue of recording draw offers on the scoresheet and I must admit that I was underwhelmed by some people's views on this subject.

[Ernie Lazenby]

Aside from the unpleasant posts that appear from time to time and a seemingly unwillingness by some people to accept the facts when they are plain to see this forum serves a very usefull purpose. If we go back to pre net days we the players/ECF members got to know that which our reps wanted us to know and there is little doubt the content could be quite selective.

This forum has allowed a free exchange of information, information that had it not been put into the public domain may have resulted in injustices against some hard working people.

Comment has been made about Andrew Farthing. I have this to say about his coming and leaving this forum.

One does not stand in front of a loaded shot gun when the trigger is about to be pulled unless of course one wants to be shot down. Andrew tried to be open about all he did in the early days before Sheffield and did a very good job of it. It was obvious to me that Sheffield and the aftermath was going to go toxic with talk of lawyers and litigation thereore he ought not to have stpped in front of the barrels because there was little doubt all hell was going to break out. By not stepping back he found himself being attacked and much good work was undone in the process.
It seems to me that the directors can post on here but refrain from doing so when unclear contentious matters such as Sheffield gate arises. Indeed whenever questions are asked about ECF matters I see nothing wrong in directors answering in a matter of fact way without getting drawn into bizzare off topic discusions with those who just want to cause trouble for causing trouble sake.

I dont know Sean other that from what I read on this forum however it seems to me that as a newly appointed director of the ECF and thus one of its public face reps his method of delivering his messages ought to be less confrontational when dealing with those who dont agree with him. Other than that I will wait to see how he can help the ECF move forward in the coming months. He has made it clear he intends to use this forum.

Someone has described this forum as poison well to me its only poison to those who seek to operate behind closed doors and in secret. Carl does well to provide it and although he says its getting harder to moderate it I am sure he will continue to provide this very usefull method of making sure we the fee paying chess players get to know what is actually going on.