English Chess Forum

For the purposes of clarity and transparency may I confirm

Is there a currently operating edict from "on high" that forbids current ECF Directors from posting and answering queries from this place?

Does this edict also apply to ECF officials who are not directors or alternate directors?

Thanks for your help.

John Upham wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 08, 2021 4:34 pm

Does this edict also apply to ECF officials who are not directors or alternate directors?

Brian Valentine (Manager of Grading/Rating) comments from time to time, usually on grading/rating issues.

Hasn't Rob Willmoth (Membership Director) posted relatively recently?

So far as I can see, this was an issue last raised in the Board meeting on 28 August 2020 (No. 139):

11. Ecforum – MT

MT proposed that in line with previous guidance Board Members and ECF Officers reporting to
the Board or to a director must refrain from posting on Ecforum on ECF-related matters. Any
exceptions should be agreed with MT.

The proposal was approved with 7 in favour and 2 abstentions
.
It was noted that MF and NF were not officers reporting to the Board and that as such neither
of them was within the purview of the resolution.

AP 139/08 – MT to consider how the proposal for board members and relevant officers to
refrain from posting on ECF-related matters should be implemented.

John Swain wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 08, 2021 4:48 pm

AP 139/08 – MT to consider how the proposal for board members and relevant officers to
refrain from posting on ECF-related matters should be implemented.

This reminds me of the sort of thing that Eric Arthur Blair or Aldous Huxley might write about.

"Do not engage with the customers : keep them in the dark"

Roger de Coverly wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 08, 2021 4:40 pm

Hasn't Rob Willmoth (Membership Director) posted relatively recently?

I cannot for one moment imagine Rob W. allowing himself to be subjugated by an ECF gagging order.

Come to that, nor would I except for important matters covered by the Official Secrets Act which I was bound by in 2001.

Or you could look at it from another perspective. The forum is one of many places that discusses ECF matters. The ECF officers have a limited amount of time and need to choose the most effective places to communicate to reach members, many of whom are not members here. It would indeed be nice if they could cover all the bases, but I'm sure if you asked a question directly of an ECF officer, you would get a response. If the charge is that the ECF doesn't communicate with its members, that is a different matter to not choosing to do so in this place.

Might there be an easier explanation? Might it be that people don't think it's worth the hassle?

Alex H posted informatively for many years. Then he disappeared.

Moving away from officers, Danny G shone brightly but briefly. Gone with the wind.

Jonathan R also has not posted for ages.

Perhaps we should consider why we are losing good people.

J T Melsom wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 08, 2021 5:54 pm

but I'm sure if you asked a question directly of an ECF officer, you would get a response.

But not one in public, which can be the point.

The quality of private answer may be better. And I'm sure there are responses from officers that are then effectively in the public domain. Have you ever actually communicated directly with an ECF Director? Of course if all anybody wants to do is engage in repetitive debate over several pages, that may be a good reason for Directors to absent themselves.

John Upham wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 08, 2021 5:28 pm

... except for important matters covered by the Official Secrets Act which I was bound by in 2001.

I think you'll find you've been bound by it since 1960, even if you weren't old enough to know that and understand it until you were somewhat older.

Ian Thompson wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 08, 2021 6:14 pm

John Upham wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 08, 2021 5:28 pm

... except for important matters covered by the Official Secrets Act which I was bound by in 2001.

I think you'll find you've been bound by it since 1960, even if you weren't old enough to know that and understand it until you were somewhat older.

You are quite right. My nickname at school and in cubs and scouts was derived from this "person" :

Actually quite a good likeness.