ECF Membership

[Matthew Turner]

Carol Williams wrote
"We have been asked by a member of the ECF board as to who is a member through necessity rather than choice so thought it wise to start a new thread - apologies it this is the wrong thing to do"

Carol, I'd be interested to know which Board member asked you to do this

The BCF once did a survey of members which asked "Why are you a member?" Tony Miles came up with far the best answer
"A brief moment of insanity".

[Andrew Farthing]

Carol Williams wrote
"We have been asked by a member of the ECF board as to who is a member through necessity rather than choice so thought it wise to start a new thread - apologies it this is the wrong thing to do"

Carol, I'd be interested to know which Board member asked you to do this

I believe that the correct answer is that no member of the ECF board requested this.

In the course of an exchange of correspondence with the Williams family, they made the statement that anyone who was a member of the ECF was a member through necessity, not choice. As a generalisation, this was clearly untrue, and I said so in my reply. I am an exception, since I chose to become a member and was not forced to by necessity, and I know many people within my own limited circle of chess-playing acquaintances who are the same.

It is true that I made the comment in my reply, "I would be interested to know what reliable published reliable data you have for such a claim." This was in response to a point made repeatedly by the Williams family earlier in the correspondence in which the same demand for "reliable published data" was made for opinions expressed by a third party. In the light of the standard applied to other statements of opinion, it is surprising that the assertion should have been made before the current attempt to gather data was initiated.

I was really just trying to make the point that it is human nature to express opinions without necessarily having scientific or academic evidence to support them and in practice it is necessary to accept this.

[Sean Hewitt]

We have certainly had this discussion before. There are three main reasons for joining

1) Necessity. To play in the British Championship or a FIDE rated event or other event which requires membership.

2) Financial. Players who play sufficient congresses where the discount essentially pays for the membership. This will also apply to many of the MO schemes.

3) Choice. Those people who believe that they should be a member and are prepared to put their money where their mouth is, or wish to make a financial contribution to the ECF.

I'm not sure which is the main reason, but I'm pretty sure 3 is the least common reason.

[Peter Rhodes]

Is it professional for an ECF officer to reveal correspondence in such a way ?

In answer to Carol's question I am a member by necessity, and like many others would never pay by choice.

The primary reason for this is that the ECF fails to recruit and retain the best talent to run it's organisation. Handing roles out to bus drivers for example.

If you want to build a good football team you need to recruit exceptional football players.
If you want to build a professional organisation you need to recruit exceptional people with a wide range of skills that I have listed elsewhere. You need people with a proven track record of competence in their career.

Can anyone name any successful professional organisation where private correspondence would be revealed in such a way, or where an officer would stoop to squabbles on a forum.

[Rob Thompson]

Is it professional to reveal correspondence in such a way ?

When said correspondence is twisted so dramatically, I'd say revealing the original serves some good to the debate.

[Ben Purton]

Whats wrong with being a bus driver.

[David Sedgwick]

The primary reason for this is that the ECF fails to recruit and retain the best talent to run it's (sic) organisation. Handing roles out to bus drivers for example.

Most of us seek to make chess more inclusive, not less inclusive.

You need people with a proven track record of competence in their career.

Indeed we do. A good example is our new Chief Executive, the man whom you are so eager to attack.

[Ben Purton]

Who even is Peter Rhodes?

[Peter Rhodes]

Withdrawn

[E Michael White]

Carol Williams's questions relate to the reasons why members remain members, not why they joined initially.
Andrew Farthings replies relate to why members joined initially. Andrew Farthing states he joined out of choice. However when he became a member of the ECF board was he not then required to be a member ?

In the light of the standard applied to other statements of opinion, it is surprising that the assertion should have been made before the current attempt to gather data was initiated.

So ECF board members research opinions adequately before publication ? Try revisiting the financial processes.

There is nothing wrong with giving an opinon based on views expressed by a small circle of chess playing associates as the statistical sample needed to be reasonably accurate is in this instance quite small. However a disproportionate number of arbiters, coaches and board members should not be included as they total only about 1-2 % of active chess players. Of course opinions which become part of published strategy need a little more research.

[Mike Truran]

Well, Peter has a grade of 131, having not played a serious game since 2005, and has no discernible involvement in chess organisation in England as far as I can see. None of that of course should get in the way of his constitutional right as a free citizen to have a pop at people like Andrew, who has at least made the effort to contribute (on an unpaid basis) to the game both as a player and as an organiser.

Peter seems to be a bit of an expert on bus drivers as well, despite (I gather from the dismissive tone of his postings) never having been one.

[Sean Hewitt]

Well, Peter has a grade of 131, having not played a serious game since 2005, and has no discernible involvement in chess organisation in England as far as I can see. None of that of course should get in the way of his constitutional right as a free citizen to have a pop at people like Andrew, who has at least made the effort to contribute (on an unpaid basis) to the game both as a player and as an organiser.

Peter seems to be a bit of an expert on bus drivers as well, despite (I gather from the dismissive tone of his postings) never having been one.

Whilst I too don't understand the apparent attack on Andrew Farthing, on a point of fact Peter Rhodes did play 69 graded games of chess in 2009-10.

[Peter Rhodes]

None of that of course should get in the way of his constitutional right as a free citizen to have a pop at people like Andrew

I think it's wrong to reveal private correspondence in a public domain. Especially when there is such an imbalance of power between the two parties involved. I hadn't realised that this value I hold is so out-of-touch with modern thinking. I apologise.

[Mike Truran]

Indeed. Although my implicit point was the several years of inactivity before the new grade, I could have been explicit in my post.

69 games though! Clearly it's either feast or famine with Mr Rhodes.

[Richard Bates]

None of that of course should get in the way of his constitutional right as a free citizen to have a pop at people like Andrew

I think it's wrong to reveal private correspondence in a public domain. Especially when there is such an imbalance of power between the two parties involved. I hadn't realised that this value I hold is so out-of-touch with modern thinking. I apologise.

If the original statement - that a member of the board (implicitly) asked that the thread be started - emanated from the referred to correspondence then surely it is wrong to suggest that it was Andrew Farthing who revealed it? If a misleading claim is made about said correspondence, then i don't see why he doesn't have a right to correct the record. Therefore the objection can only really be to the revelation of the fact of the correspondence, rather than its contents.

Potential for another obscure, endless argument anyway