Public Statements

Debate directly related to English Chess Federation matters.
User avatar
Carl Hibbard
Posts: 5849
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:05 pm
Location: Evesham

Public Statements

Post by Carl Hibbard » Fri Oct 12, 2012 6:50 pm

What are forum members thoughts on these CEO comments from Andrew Farthing?

About half of the Board, as well as other ECF officials, choose to comment on the English Chess Forum. On a practical level, this can be very time-consuming if one official finds himself having to deal with a sequence of comments by several individuals. Perhaps more importantly, it raises the question as to whether such comments by officials prolong discussion of controversies to the detriment of English chess and whether it would be better for the ECF to state its position officially and then stay quiet.
Cheers
Carl Hibbard

Krishna Shiatis
Posts: 667
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 1:08 pm

Re: Public Statements

Post by Krishna Shiatis » Fri Oct 12, 2012 7:32 pm

Carl Hibbard wrote:What are forum members thoughts on these CEO comments from Andrew Farthing?

About half of the Board, as well as other ECF officials, choose to comment on the English Chess Forum. On a practical level, this can be very time-consuming if one official finds himself having to deal with a sequence of comments by several individuals. Perhaps more importantly, it raises the question as to whether such comments by officials prolong discussion of controversies to the detriment of English chess and whether it would be better for the ECF to state its position officially and then stay quiet.
I find this very strange. For many reasons it does not really make sense. Anyone who comes to this forum does so of their own free will. Nobody is forced to reply if they choose not to and can reply if they choose to.

It seems bizarre because if anyone feels that a discussion is detrimental to the ECF, they can simply stop inputting to that particular discussion. There does not need to be a rule saying so - simply apply common sense.

This forum has helped the ECF in many ways in my opinion. It has allowed people to come and express their opinions and to be heard. If the officials of the ECF were to embrace the forum and come along and chat here occasionally they would not only enhance their profile but also be able to engage with some of the people they claim to represent directly.

It seems bizarre that there has been a lot of comments about how terrible this forum is, yet IMO a lot of good has come out from it. We found out about the legal case being made in our name against FIDE. We have been able to learn about the ECF and how it works. We learn about chess events and also matters pertaining to chess. It is a veritable mine of information and historical data.

The ECF is very much connected with all of the above either directly or indirectly. "Staying quiet" would seem to be a bizarre and disengaging approach.

I have heard mention that some people from the ECF wanted to engage with the grassroots chess people more - short of attending many tournaments up and down the country - what better way than to come here and talk to people?

IanDavis
Posts: 255
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2009 8:41 pm

Re: Public Statements

Post by IanDavis » Fri Oct 12, 2012 7:46 pm

Perhaps it is the Open Government principle. (The Yes Prime Minister version)

Angus French
Posts: 1697
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 1:37 am
Contact:

Re: Public Statements

Post by Angus French » Fri Oct 12, 2012 8:29 pm

I think the ECF needs to have some way of being accountable to its members. It is, after all, a membership organisation and pretty soon the vast majority of competitive players in England will be members.

I don't really see anything fundamentally wrong with using this forum. Sure it's a bit of a rabble at times but does that really matter? As Krishna says "Nobody is forced to reply if they choose not to and can reply if they choose to". Questions that are irrelevant, dumb or rude will reflect on the asker and can be calmly batted back or ignored. It's not a requirement to answer instantly either.

Sean Hewitt
Posts: 2190
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2012 8:18 pm
Contact:

Re: Public Statements

Post by Sean Hewitt » Fri Oct 12, 2012 8:55 pm

Angus French wrote:Sure it's a bit of a rabble at times but does that really matter? As Krishna says "Nobody is forced to reply if they choose not to and can reply if they choose to".
Whilst that is undoubtedly true, when Krishna effectively called Andrew a liar he was, I believe, compelled to reply. Similarly when she (and others) misrepresented what he wrote here. Silence in such circumstances would have been taken to mean acquiescence by some.

Angus French
Posts: 1697
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 1:37 am
Contact:

Re: Public Statements

Post by Angus French » Fri Oct 12, 2012 9:11 pm

Y'know, Andrew actually has a very good reputation and think that's in some part down to his contribution to this forum.

Krishna Shiatis
Posts: 667
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 1:08 pm

Re: Public Statements

Post by Krishna Shiatis » Fri Oct 12, 2012 9:24 pm

Sean Hewitt wrote:
Angus French wrote:Sure it's a bit of a rabble at times but does that really matter? As Krishna says "Nobody is forced to reply if they choose not to and can reply if they choose to".
Whilst that is undoubtedly true, when Krishna effectively called Andrew a liar he was, I believe, compelled to reply. Similarly when she (and others) misrepresented what he wrote here. Silence in such circumstances would have been taken to mean acquiescence by some.
Just for clarity, I did not call Andrew a liar.

I did not misrepresent what he wrote. In fact you Sean are misrepresenting what I and others have written. Many people on this forum have engaged with Andrew because he came along and spoke to us.

Andrew did eventually tell us that it was an undisclosed third party who paid for the Memorandum. This was told to us only after being asked several times about how it was funded.

It is actually a very good example in as much as Andrew could have actually not talked at all. Nothing would have been surmised by this. He could quite easily have said something like:

" I am not at liberty to discuss this matter further " or some such.

He did actually choose to continue and answer the questions for which I think many people have a lot of respect for him. It was clear to me that his hands were being tied and he wanted to tell us. The fact that he engaged us at all looked good on him and gained him a lot of respect despite what you Sean and others kept insisting.

Unbelievably Sean, I find that whilst you heavily criticised anyone questioning Andrew directly here and talking to Andrew, you did not have anything to say to/about other bloggers elsewhere who called Andrew some awful names and wrote truly awful stuff about him.

Sean Hewitt
Posts: 2190
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2012 8:18 pm
Contact:

Re: Public Statements

Post by Sean Hewitt » Fri Oct 12, 2012 9:52 pm

Krishna Shiatis wrote:Just for clarity, I did not call Andrew a liar.
I, and many others, do not share your interpretation of what you wrote. Andrew eventually got so sick of the likes of you that he abandoned the forum and it is all the poorer for it.
Krishna Shiatis wrote:Unbelievably Sean, I find that whilst you heavily criticised anyone questioning Andrew directly here and talking to Andrew, you did not have anything to say to/about other bloggers elsewhere who called Andrew some awful names and wrote truly awful stuff about him.
Two things strike me about this post. Firstly, I have only heavily criticised those, like you, who have said or implied that Andrew did not tell the truth. I stand by that criticism as it is entirely justified. If you can't remember what you said, I'm sure others can re-post your derogatory comments. Secondly, it is incredibly arrogant of you to assume that I have had nothing to say on the subject. You have no knowledge of my email correspondence. You have no knowledge of my Skype and telephone conversations. You have no knowledge of conversations that I have at tournaments. You might do better to stick to what you do know than to get involved in things you know little or nothing about.

Not everything to do with chess in this country is played out on this forum. Get over it!

Krishna Shiatis
Posts: 667
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 1:08 pm

Re: Public Statements

Post by Krishna Shiatis » Fri Oct 12, 2012 10:13 pm

Sean,

If anyone is writing derogatory comments, it is you. You have called people on this forum 'muppets'. You called someone else a 'prat'.

Your tone is rude and mean to anyone who disagrees with you. Actually it is you being arrogant towards anyone who has a differing opinion. The way you have dealt with Roger Edwards has in my opinion been shameful and nothing compared to me asking Andrew about who paid for the Memorandum.

I may not know as much about chess as you do, but I have every right to ask questions and you (and your pals) certainly can not censor me or anyone else on this forum from doing so.

Sean Hewitt
Posts: 2190
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2012 8:18 pm
Contact:

Re: Public Statements

Post by Sean Hewitt » Fri Oct 12, 2012 10:32 pm

Krishna Shiatis wrote:If anyone is writing derogatory comments, it is you. You have called people on this forum 'muppets'. You called someone else a 'prat'.
Indeed I have. The people I called muppets and a prat were muppets, and a prat, respectively.
Krishna Shiatis wrote:Actually it is you being arrogant towards anyone who has a differing opinion. The way you have dealt with Roger Edwards has in my opinion been shameful and nothing compared to me asking Andrew about who paid for the Memorandum.
Wrong on two counts. Count the first - I actually tried to help Roger to get elected, whilst at the same time ensure that he did not destabilise the ECF. I failed and rather than sit back, do nothing, and bitch on the forum I did something about. Count the second - you did not simply "ask Andrew about who paid for the Memorandum". You accused him of not telling the truth. You later softened it to "being economical with the truth". The latter label could easily be applied to yoru last post re what you said to Andrew .
Krishna Shiatis wrote:I may not know as much about chess as you do, but I have every right to ask questions and you (and your pals) certainly can not censor me or anyone else on this forum from doing so.
No one wants to stop you asking questions. Personally, I would like to see you apologise for your conduct with Andrew, for which I hold out no hope whatsoever, and stop making assumptions and jumping to conclusions. I don't hold out much hope for that either.

It is discussions like this that will prevent ECF Directors from posting here I'm afraid. At this rate, soon all you'll have is me. You have been warned :-)

Mike Truran
Posts: 2392
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 3:44 pm
Contact:

Re: Public Statements

Post by Mike Truran » Fri Oct 12, 2012 10:54 pm

At this rate, soon all you'll have is me.
So it will be you rather than the Grand Panjandrum who finally turns the forum lights off?

:lol:

Neill Cooper
Posts: 1247
Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Croydon
Contact:

Re: Public Statements

Post by Neill Cooper » Fri Oct 12, 2012 10:58 pm

Over the past few months the combination of the forum becoming more active and there being more personalised comments, I have become much less inclined to post comments. I can come home in the evening and find 15 to 20 threads have had posts during the day. I may skim through a few that I am interested in but I don't read them all. I assume that if anyone wishes to raise an issue with me they might post it on the forum but they would then also draw it to my attention by an email or PM.

Krishna Shiatis
Posts: 667
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 1:08 pm

Re: Public Statements

Post by Krishna Shiatis » Fri Oct 12, 2012 10:59 pm

Sean Hewitt wrote: Indeed I have. The people I called muppets and a prat were muppets, and a prat, respectively.
Still Sean, you write derogatory comments. Justify it to yourself however you will, but it does not change what you are doing.

I can not believe that you are demanding apologies when you are doing exactly what you are accusing others (unfairly) of doing.
Sean Hewitt wrote: I failed and rather than sit back, do nothing, and bitch on the forum I did something about.
Um, interesting interpretation. You told everyone to vote for 'none of the above' rather than vote for Roger (because he disagreed with you - how dare he???) Effectively Sean you are 'bitching' about Roger on the forum.

Roger, whom I might add is standing for being President when no one else (currently) is. You are being mean to a potential President - yet that sits perfectly well with you.
Sean Hewitt wrote: It is discussions like this that will prevent ECF Directors from posting here I'm afraid. At this rate, soon all you'll have is me. You have been warned :-)
Yet more threats. Still attempting to censor anyone who dares to disagree with you.

Edit: Thank you Rob and Paul sorry meant to write President not CEO - it is late for me
Last edited by Krishna Shiatis on Fri Oct 12, 2012 11:10 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Rob Thompson
Posts: 757
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 12:03 pm
Location: Behind you

Re: Public Statements

Post by Rob Thompson » Fri Oct 12, 2012 11:05 pm

Krishna Shiatis wrote: Roger, whom I might add has put himself forward for being a CEO when no one else has.
No he hasn't. That is quite simply untrue.
True glory lies in doing what deserves to be written; in writing what deserves to be read.

Bill Porter
Posts: 145
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 12:20 pm

Re: Public Statements

Post by Bill Porter » Fri Oct 12, 2012 11:24 pm

Sean Hewitt wrote:
Angus French wrote:Sure it's a bit of a rabble at times but does that really matter? As Krishna says "Nobody is forced to reply if they choose not to and can reply if they choose to".
Whilst that is undoubtedly true, when Krishna effectively called Andrew a liar he was, I believe, compelled to reply. Similarly when she (and others) misrepresented what he wrote here. Silence in such circumstances would have been taken to mean acquiescence by some.
Sean
I note you were the first person to derail this thread from a general discussion of Andrew Farthing's comments by yourself providing a comment of the type about which
Sean Hewitt wrote:Silence in such circumstances would have been taken to mean acquiescence by some.
You bring others down towards your level and those who respond soon find themselves wasting their time.
Once they decide to stop responding to your ill considered repetitive points you say something like
Sean Hewitt wrote:Ah, the time old resort of the person who has lost the debate.

Sean Hewitt wrote:It is discussions like this that will prevent ECF Directors from posting here I'm afraid. At this rate, soon all you'll have is me. You have been warned :-)
As an ECF director, you could score a very good debating point and set an example to the other directors by boycotting this forum. :twisted:

Post Reply