English Chess Forum

Given that the new Forum might be referred to ECFF and that Carl's excellent offering as ECF, I would not be surprised if Carl were to receive a request to change the name.

Would forumites consider such a request reasonable?

Michael Flatt wrote:Given that the new Forum might be referred to ECFF and that Carl's excellent offering as ECF, I would not be surprised if Carl were to receive a request to change the name.

Would forumites consider such a request reasonable?

No. I doubt Carl would either.

If the other forum is too highly moderated, it will be uninteresting. If it isn't, the ECF will distance itself again when something controversial comes along - can you imagine what that forum would have been like during t-shirt-gate or the like?

I think that it is inevitable that some Board members may demand strong control over the new Forum should anything controversial be raised.

The other choice would be for the ECF Board to disassociate themselves from it as I believed happened to this Forum in its formative years.

Everybody likes to copy a good idea but the copy rarely achieves the same success as the original.

The only benefit that might accrue is if ECF Officers responded directly to any comments. I suggest that this most unlikely to happen since any topics discussed by the Board in Committee tend only find their way into the Public Domain after a significant delay.

Roger de Coverly wrote:

Andrew Zigmond wrote:I hope you agree that it's preferable to a system where there was no mechanism for giving feedback on official announcements.

I see there's to be a discussion of a proposal to make county eligibility more restrictive. Should I go there and tell them that it's a stupid idea and that the Lancashire attitude that players are property who shouldn't be allowed to choose their own teams should be shot down.

The key question is whether the ECF actually intend to enforce the eligibility rules, as there doesn't seem to have been any checking in the past

Lancs want eligibility to be made more restrictive, but I doubt they want affiliation to be removed, as that's the easiest method they use to get players from Urmston, Rochdale, Atherton, Heywood and Tameside Juniors in their county teams

Some nice new spam posts over on the new forum.

Carl Hibbard wrote:Some nice new spam posts over on the new forum.

I guess that's what happens if you allow free registrations. It does not take much experience with phpBB to plug the hole though.

Mick Norris wrote: The key question is whether the ECF actually intend to enforce the eligibility rules, as there doesn't seem to have been any checking in the past

Given an attitude of mind that you default a player in an Open Competition for not having an estimated grade cleared in advance, it would seem plausible. They could demand that match captains fill in a tick box for each player stating how they were eligible.

Michael Flatt wrote:I think that it is inevitable that some Board members may demand strong control over the new Forum should anything controversial be raised.

Well, God forbid that anything controversial should be raised.

"I’m also not sure if the real problem is people discussing 'x' rather than 'x' happening in the first place, but it’s certainly true that (some) (sensible) people believe this forum is problematic. Maybe that’s true."

But many people do think that discussing "X" is more important than "X" happening in the first place. When I reported (entirely accurately) events at one tournament, an ECF official said I should be charged with "bringing the game into disrepute", for reporting it. When Alex Higgins said that certain snooker players took drugs, a WPBSA official was outraged and said Higgins was the only problem in snooker. Sadly, the official was one of several players who then failed a drug test. When Vinnie Jones released a video of horrendous tackles in football matches he was disciplined for publicising the tackles. The fact they had happened seemed irrelevant!

I am surprised that the new forum made the basic mistake of allowing anonymous posters. Surely, anyone starting a new forum (e.g.) should steal all the good ideas from existing fora?

Has anyone over there asked about prompt publication of "Minutes"?

Kevin Thurlow wrote: But many people do think that discussing "X" is more important than "X" happening in the first place.

Agreed.

Kevin Thurlow wrote: Has anyone over there asked about prompt publication of "Minutes"?

Yes.

Oh dear - the ECF site is suffering a major spam attack for what appears to be polish dietary tablets!

Neil Graham wrote:Oh dear - the ECF site is suffering a major spam attack for what appears to be polish dietary tablets!

I think enlargement of body parts may come into it.

These Polish attacks happened after I posted just to test and see the layout.

I'll get the blame....I usually get the blame for everything.

It's all Geoff's fault.