ECF Membership - a (summary) reply to the Proposal

[Roger de Coverly]

Not necessarily. In the main, new players are just looking for games of chess and to get that first grade, and wouldn't really be put off by a separate section for non-members. This is what they do in the USA.

You cannot grade a tournament containing 100% players without previous results with any reliability.

I agree that you might simply divide the tournament into two, sections for members only and non-members. That does little to raise revenue for the ECF. You may not even know about the non-member section, is their an incentive to submit the results for grading?

[Adam Raoof]

You cannot grade a tournament containing 100% players without previous results with any reliability.

I didn't say that the non-members would necessarily be ungraded. Moreover, yours is a subjective judgement about reliability. Of course it is possible, it happens all the time.

I agree that you might simply divide the tournament into two, sections for members only and non-members. That does little to raise revenue for the ECF. You may not even know about the non-member section, is their an incentive to submit the results for grading?

You can't agree with something I haven't suggested. My tournament would have the normal sections appropriate for a weekender, plus a section for all the non-members. You would know about the section because it would be advertised on the entry form with the other sections.

[Andrew Farthing]

Is it not possible that a Bronze member will decline to upgrade if they see that they have to pay £ 6 more as the entry fee than a non-member?

I don't understand this at all. The possible variations are:

1) Non-English player pays entry fee + £6 'Pay to Play';
2) English non-ECF member pays entry fee + £6 'Pay to Play';
3) Bronze ECF members pays entry fee + £6 to upgrade to Silver;
4) Silver and Gold ECF members pay entry fee and no fee.

Categories 3) and 4) would receive a published ECF grade; categories 1) and 2) wouldn't. How could the Bronze members in 3) possibly interpret this as paying £6 MORE than a non-member? What's more, second time around (within the membership year), the Bronze member will move into category 4) and will pay £6 LESS than the non-member. Categories 1) and 2) will keep paying £6 extra each time (or not receiving the £6 Silver/Gold discount, if this is how it's presented).

The organiser can apply various sanctions like restricting prize money for non-members, Is this where the ECF want Congress organisers to go?

Organisers already do this for ungraded players in grade-restricted sections. In this respect, it's nothing new.

[Roger de Coverly]

1) Non-English player pays entry fee + £6 'Pay to Play';
2) English non-ECF member pays entry fee + £6 'Pay to Play';
3) Bronze ECF members pays entry fee + £6 to upgrade to Silver;
4) Silver and Gold ECF members pay entry fee and no fee.

5) Non-member (could be English or not) pays entry fee

so compare 3) to 5)

It comes down to whether 5) is permitted. In other words whether the ECF is selling "licence to play" or bans acceptance of entries under 5) as a condition of the Congress becoming an ECF member and having games graded.

It's a practical solution to divide your tournament into two, particularly if it's a once a year rapid-play.
So you have
(a) Silver and Gold only
(b) Bronze and non-members.



If the ECF are going to send bills, you don't tell them about the (b) section.

(edit) I thought option 2) English £ 6 one off fee had been ruled out. Or is it that you want tournament organisers to collect this but without publishing any grading as a result? (/edit)

[Paul Cooksey]

I could and do get discouraged - less by the off-topic intrusions which are an ill-mannered fact of life in forums like this - but by the reluctance/refusal of many posters to engage in constructive critical dialogue. They prefer instead to grandstand their own 'bee in the bonnet' rather than work with others towards a viable solution. And of course, they drag things off-topic

I sympathise a bit. But only a bit. David presented a vision including membership. So no surprise those who are opposed any form of membership make an arguments which are not specific to his proposal.

I assume the core of David's proposal is tiers for political rights. Maybe game fee for bronze, and membership for voting rights would only be a minor change from his perspective.

I hope he clarifies which elements are on-topic, before we get told off again,

[Andrew Farthing]

1) Non-English player pays entry fee + £6 'Pay to Play';
2) English non-ECF member pays entry fee + £6 'Pay to Play';
3) Bronze ECF members pays entry fee + £6 to upgrade to Silver;
4) Silver and Gold ECF members pay entry fee and no fee.

5) Non-member (could be English or not) pays entry fee

so compare 3) to 5)

It comes down to whether 5) is permitted. In other words whether the ECF is selling "licence to play" or bans acceptance of entries under 5) as a condition of the Congress becoming an ECF member and having games graded.

It's a practical solution to divide your tournament into two, particularly if it's a once a year rapid-play.
So you have
(a) Silver and Gold only
(b) Bronze and non-members.



If the ECF are going to send bills, you don't tell them about the (b) section.

(edit) I thought option 2) English £ 6 one off fee had been ruled out. Or is it that you want tournament organisers to collect this but without publishing any grading as a result? (/edit)

As I envisage things at the moment - and stressing once again that these are proposals for consultation purposes, not the final word - there would be no option 5) as described above (unless the congress was willing to finance the 'Pay to play' fee itself). The ECF would invoice congresses for each non-Silver/Gold member.

I don't know why you would have thought category 2) had been ruled out. I referred to it in the previous post:

If an English player is not a member at all, I have NOT said that he or she cannot play in congresses. What I've said is that the player would not receive a published grade based on the games played at that congress (or anywhere else). I had left open whether the £6 Pay to Play fee would be payable in such cases, but my view is that it should be.

If a player wants a published grade, he or she would need to be an ECF member at the correct level for the events played in.

[Roger de Coverly]

The ECF would invoice congresses for each non-Silver/Gold member.

Aside from why that's any different in processing terms from Game Fee, would a Congress submit results of non-members or Bronze members, particularly if it had pushed them into a separate tournament? Would the same apply to international events like e2e4 or Gibraltar where the recent decision not to charge Game Fee at all for FIDE rated events gives these events free membership of the ECF?

So the position is that the ECF would like a £ 6 per head non-member tax on every player who is not the right type of member or not a member at all. For leagues, non-members won't be published in the grading list, but there's no tax.

[Paul Cooksey]

So the position is that the ECF would like a £ 6 per head non-member tax on every player who is not the right type of member or not a member at all..

For perspective. Was just looking at going to see Bobby Fischer against the world. 90 minutes, £11. Or £22 if I can talk the girlfriend into seeing a chess film.

[Roger de Coverly]

For perspective. Was just looking at going to see Bobby Fischer against the world. 90 minutes, £11. Or £22 if I can talk the girlfriend into seeing a chess film.

Game Fee is £ 1.35 per head for a 5 round rapid play. A price too high for some Congress Organisers.

[David Robertson]

I sympathise a bit. But only a bit

OK, I'll settle for any

David presented a vision including membership. So no surprise those who are opposed any form of membership make an arguments which are not specific to his proposal

If they'd engage with my alternative, fine. But take a look at the adjacent posts just now

I assume the core of David's proposal is tiers for political rights. Maybe game fee for bronze, and membership for voting rights would only be a minor change from his perspective

The core of my proposal is a large, engaged, elective membership for ECF, of which tiered benefits (including but not only political rights) are a manifestation of entitlements and rewards of membership. Your suggestion is interesting; it's the sort of thing we should be exploring here. I disagree with it, as things stand, but would like to hear the case.

I hope he clarifies which elements are on-topic, before we get told off again

Easy. Everything is off-topic that doesn't address my points specifically. There's another thread for the Farthing proposal itself. That's why I started a new thread in order not to muddy the waters there. Silly me

Anyway, it's all a total waste of time. Groupthink is now operating. We'll get the Farthing proposals, followed by a short silence. Then the roof will fall in.

Ring me in four years time. I'll bring my shovel

[Mick Norris]

I could and do get discouraged - less by the off-topic intrusions which are an ill-mannered fact of life in forums like this - but by the reluctance/refusal of many posters to engage in constructive critical dialogue. They prefer instead to grandstand their own 'bee in the bonnet' rather than work with others towards a viable solution. And of course, they drag things off-topic

I sympathise a bit. But only a bit. David presented a vision including membership. So no surprise those who are opposed any form of membership make an arguments which are not specific to his proposal.

I assume the core of David's proposal is tiers for political rights. Maybe game fee for bronze, and membership for voting rights would only be a minor change from his perspective.

I hope he clarifies which elements are on-topic, before we get told off again,

Paul

I think you have an interesting idea, and maybe if the debate had been shaped differently it could have been considered

I don't think game fee for bronze would work, simply because I don't think game fee works, but feel free to expand on your idea

[Matt Harrison]

I think the bronze/silver/gold tiering has some merits, but I don't see the benefit in tieing it to types of tournaments played. It seems to me that the goals should be:

1. To encourage mass membership
2. To provide an entry route for new/casual players (pay to play)
3. To provide a route to a better governance structure for the ECF

I really think David's proposal to link the tiers to voting rights is a better proposal than the existing proposals. It might be possible to look at the FIDE rating being linked to higher tiers.

The membership needs to be set at a decent level. The income has to be in excess of the costs of collection and administration. People moving between membership classes during the year to play in different events will have an administrative cost. Having a smaller electorate to communicate with for voting purposes would cut down on admin costs.

[Paul Cooksey]

The core of my proposal is a large, engaged, elective membership for ECF, of which tiered benefits (including but not only political rights) are a manifestation of entitlements and rewards of membership.

I don't think game fee for bronze would work, simply because I don't think game fee works, but feel free to expand on your idea

I also believe Membership is better than game fee, mainly on practical grounds. But if we (over)simplify David’s tiers to:
Bronze – Player
Silver - Elector
Gold – Executive
I think how revenue should be collected from the players is determined by the same factors being discussed in other threads. I can assume it is membership, Roger can assume it is game fee. If we park the discussion on players, we can concentrate on the new elements in David’s proposal.

I would expect relatively little difference in the determination of the candidates for the executive. A person could now buy a place on the ballot, whereas in the past they would have had to advance through the activist structure. But I think only someone with a good record as an activist, or attributes that would also shortcut the existing process, would be elected.

So the interesting tier for me is the silver one. I think key questions are:
1. Would this be a significant revenue stream?
2. Would this make the structure of the ECF more legitimate?
3. Would the ECF be better run as a result?

Point 1 I have not formed an opinion on. It is even difficult to decide how much I would pay.

Point 2 I am unconvinced on. It seems to me David is introducing democratic legitimacy as he intended. But I believe the activist structure has some merit. I think my ECF Representative is accountable to me, and my respect for him legitimises the ECF’s request for funds. (At least my county rep who I know, but that is another thread).
( I realise I may have brought a knife to a gun fight in disagreeing with David on the legitimacy of political structures, but never mind )

Point 3 I do not have enough information to decide on. I’ll repeat my observation that reading minutes on the ECF over a long period left me with the feeling more could be achieved. But I am not yet convinced government by referendum is workable.

[Roger de Coverly]

But I am not yet convinced government by referendum is workable.

I doubt it either. If you can define an electorate and run the ballot at minimal cost, you should elect the directors directly. I suspect you need a Council structure to handle routine matters and act as a check on the directors. The extent to which that needs direct election is conditional on who the Council is supposed to represent. If the ECF continues to be a federation of chess organisations, the organisations might consider that they should be represented. But so should the players. It's wrong when the Council contains members who neither play, organise or are active arbiters.