Yorkshire vs ECF disparity

[Roger de Coverly]

I am sorry if anybody misunderstood what Andrew Farthing said at the Yorkshire AGM

The Yorkshire minutes are clear and unambiguous on questions asked and replies given.
http://yorkshirechess.org/yorkshire-agm-minutes/

The discussion was then opened to the floor to ask questions both of the membership scheme and the ECF.

• It was confirmed that ECF members’ games would be graded even if they played in a league or event which was not ECF-affiliated. Whilst all games played in non-affiliated leagues are sent for grading only those of ECF members would be counted.

The problem was that wasn't what the rest of the ECF thought had been voted for. Those present at the Yorks meeting may have an opinion as to whether the minutes reflect what was said.

(edit) This topic was covered back in the summer. For example
http://www.ecforum.org.uk/viewtopic.php ... 2&start=15 (/edit)

[Sean Hewitt]

The Yorkshire minutes are clear and unambiguous on questions asked and replies given.
http://yorkshirechess.org/yorkshire-agm-minutes/

The discussion was then opened to the floor to ask questions both of the membership scheme and the ECF.

• It was confirmed that ECF members’ games would be graded even if they played in a league or event which was not ECF-affiliated. Whilst all games played in non-affiliated leagues are sent for grading only those of ECF members would be counted.

The problem was that wasn't what the rest of the ECF thought had been voted for. Those present at the Yorks meeting may have an opinion as to whether the minutes reflect what was said.

Andrew Farthing was clear in his report to the board (sent before the YCA minutes were published) about what he said. His account does not concur with the minute quoted above.

[Alan Burke]

If Mike Gunn is now saying that the statements on the ECF website may need to be re-worded to avoid confusion, that shows the current statements are not totally clear, which therefore brings us back to my point that some current ECF members may have signed up on the understanding that all their games would be graded and not just those in certain events - and so why should they suffer when the ECF did not make clear the exact terms of membership ?

It also appears that Sean Hewitt doesn't think the ECF have done anything wrong in this matter and that anyone who signed up as member should have known that playing in certain events would not have counted towards their grading.

By trying to get certain chess communities in this country to "toe the line", the ECF are making some of their own members the scapegoats - surely the wrong people to target ?

[Sean Hewitt]

If Mike Gunn is now saying that the statements on the ECF website may need to be re-worded to avoid confusion, that shows the current statements are not totally clear

No...it...doesn't.

I've already said (twice) that we will make amendments to the website to make it even clearer, even to those who only want to read some of the information. It does not mean that we think there is anything wrong with the information that is there already.

I hope that's clear.

It also appears that Sean Hewitt doesn't think the ECF have done anything wrong in this matter and that anyone who signed up as member should have known that playing in certain events would not have counted towards their grading.

I've said no such thing. I can't speak as to what members did or did not know at the time they joined, any more than you can. What I can say is that the correct information was there if members wanted to check in advance.

[Bill Porter]

There's no point in acting all surprised about it. All the planning charts and demolition orders have been on display in your local planning department in Alpha Centauri for fifty of your Earth years, so you've had plenty of time to lodge any formal complains and it's far too late to start making a fuss about it now.

[Roger de Coverly]

Andrew Farthing was clear in his report to the board (sent before the YCA minutes were published) about what he said. His account does not concur with the minute quoted above.

On the other hand, the contemporary debates on this forum do concur, for a while, with the minute.

http://www.ecforum.org.uk/viewtopic.php ... &start=595

[IanDavis]

What you can say is that the information was there, but it was not as clearly presented as it should have been. Making announcements intended to clarify the situation, but making them without linking them to one another, is not very clever. Trying to say people are selectively quoting the information is just childish.

[Sean Hewitt]

Trying to say people are selectively quoting the information is just childish.

You've got a little bit muddled up there me old china. Selectively quoting information is foolish. You almost always get found out.

[IanDavis]

Sorry, but what are you trying to say there? The information presented was, as you've admitted, somewhat lacking. Not hugely inaccurate, or devastatingly misleading, but slightly so. If supplemented, by a hunt through the ECF website, that wouldn't be an issue. Obviously though, people don't usually indulge in that hunt. Are you really trying to say that this argument is "Selective quoting of the website"? Or are you just trying to be right?

[Alan Burke]

I have just returned from our weekly chess club night, where I asked all current adult ECF members if they knew that, despite having paid up to become a member of the ECF this season, some of their games might not be graded if they played in a league or a congress which was not sanctioned by the ECF.

Everybody - and I mean everybody (some of whom were 190+ grades) - was not aware of such a ruling and thought that, having paid their membership fee to the ECF, all their games would be graded. After explaining the situation to them, every person - and again, I mean every one of them - thought it totally out of order of the ECF not to at least grade the games of someone who had paid their membership even if the league/congress itself was in dispute with the ECF and the non-members' games were not graded.

Therefore, although the ECF heirachy might say that all the facts were laid infront of members before they signed up, it certainly seems that those I canvassed had not become aware of them - but, of course, the ECF are apparently saying that was the members' own fault and nothing to do with the Federation not having made everything clear.

[Sean Hewitt]

The information presented was, as you've admitted, somewhat lacking.

I haven't 'admitted' anything of the kind. You must be confusing me with someone else.

Are you really trying to say that this argument is "Selective quoting of the website"?

What I'm saying is that quoting one section of a web page but ignoring another because it doesn't support the case you are trying to make is not the smartest thing in the world to do.

[Sean Hewitt]

Everybody - and I mean everybody (some of whom were 190+ grades) - was not aware of such a ruling and thought that, having paid their membership fee to the ECF, all their games would be graded. After explaining the situation to them, every person - and again, I mean every one of them - thought it totally out of order of the ECF not to at least grade the games of someone who had paid their membership even if the league/congress itself was in dispute with the ECF and the non-members' games were not graded.

Interesting. I'm sure you presented the facts in a completely neutral manner. How many of these players currently play in unaffiliated leagues?

[IanDavis]

The information presented was, as you've admitted, somewhat lacking.

I haven't 'admitted' anything of the kind. You must be confusing me with someone else.

Are you really trying to say that this argument is "Selective quoting of the website"?

What I'm saying is that quoting one section of a web page but ignoring another because it doesn't support the case you are trying to make is not the smartest thing in the world to do.

I thought changing the information was something of an admission, but okay, I was wrong there then.

It's amusing that you stick to this childish line. What the website does is selectively present the information. Now granted, it may not have been intended to do so, but it does so all the same. The membership page does not give the appropriate linkage. That could be down to incompetence, the file storage practices certainly smell of that.

Anyway, I got bored of trying to explain this to you, and went on to reading another page. It smacked of cruft...

"In response to this significant development, the ECF’s member organisations decided to make major changes to way that the Federation is funded through individual membership and charges per graded game." - seems to be missing at least 1 word.

"These changes come into effect on 1ST SEPTEMBER 2012 and will affect everyone who plays or organises graded or rated chess in England." - what is the difference between graded chess and rated chess? I thought they were synonymous.

I then got to the "Read this First document". As it was actually the 3rd document I've read, the name annoyed me. It seemed to start by repeating information I'd already read in the previous 2 documents. So I got bored and stopped reading.

[Roger de Coverly]

How many of these players currently play in unaffiliated leagues?

Guessing that the club concerned is 3Cs and browsing a handful of their more active players, rather more than a club elsewhere in the country. Some members of 3Cs play across the border in the Yorkshire local leagues. Alternatively as 3Cs is something of a training centre, it attracts players based in Yorkshire.

[Alan Burke]

I am glad Sean Hewitt is sure the facts I gave to members of our local club were presented in a completely neutral manner - I trust he will let us all know if there is any other way in which he feels I might have asked the question ?.

I am unaware of how many players compete in unaffliliated leagues, however, anyone of them could enter a congress at anytime (and in fact may have already done so) without realising that their games might not be graded.

Actually, as this debate began following a posting on the ECF website by the ECF Director of Home Chess, Alex Holowczak on 5 November, I would actually much rather get a response from him on the subject rather than someone else.

However, it should also be noted that in that posting regarding unaffiliated events, Alex H does state "Players in these events may not be aware of this, and this notice is designed to bring their attention to this."

Therefore, if that notice on 5 November was to bring players' attention to the situation, it would appear that he knew that many members would not be aware of the facts - and if it had taken until 5 November to inform those players then are their games at least until that date going to be graded ? Furthermore, what are those players supposed to do for the remainder of the season having already committed themselves to playing for a certain team in a particular league in 2012-13 ?