ECF Code of Conduct

[Roger de Coverly]

The code of conduct exists to try and silence this forum

It's an attempt to silence critical comment in general, rather than just this forum. But critical comment is what you get when you say one thing to a meeting of the ECF as a whole and something totally different to a regional subset.

[Andrew Zigmond]

Carl could do a lot worse than state that this forum will abide by any formal ruling under the code of conduct and will not allow further discussion on here.

Not a chance I might not agree with the ruling

My worry is that the forum might be filled with threads from cranks who, unable to get the response they want from the ECF, bring the argument on here. If nothing else, these are the threads that tend to turn acrimonious and require moderation.

[Andrew Zigmond]

There's the perpetual moan that existence of forums such as this one can put off potential sponsors. If true, which I doubt, it also applies to notorious bloggers, particularly those who mock English chess.

The code of conduct exists to try and silence this forum but yes it might all have been triggered from comments regarding last years British presentation

I'm not entirely sure how the Code of Conduct affects this forum, except that it might make ECF officials even more reluctant than they already are to post here. And without imput from senior figures in English chess the ECF Matters section could just as well be renamed the Petty Infighting section.

[Roger de Coverly]

I'm not entirely sure how the Code of Conduct affects this forum, except that it might make ECF officials even more reluctant than they already are to post here. And without imput from senior figures in English chess the ECF Matters section could just as well be renamed the Petty Infighting section.

"Senior figures" in the ECF have a habit of believing they are correct in their assertions regardless of evidence or opinions to the contrary. The problem with forums in particular and the Internet in general is that senior officials can no longer get away with telling one audience what they want to hear and another audience the opposite. You had that example with the ECF Council and the Yorkshire AGM. The ECF council were invited to support the proposition that member only grading had been withdrawn and that it would be £ 2 per head per game for all non-members whilst the Yorkshire AGM was told that member only grading for local Yorkshire leagues could continue.

[Andrew Martin]

Andrew Zigmonds post at 1246 am should be read and reread, just to grasp the significance of it.

[David Sedgwick]

I'm not entirely sure how the Code of Conduct affects this forum, except that it might make ECF officials even more reluctant than they already are to post here. And without imput from senior figures in English chess the ECF Matters section could just as well be renamed the Petty Infighting section.

The Code potentially affects what ECF officials can say on this Forum. It doesn't affect what other people can say.

I can't speak for "senior figures", as I'm a very minor ECF official.

However, since 13th October I've felt obliged to refrain from making posts on here that I would have made prior to 13th October.

It is of course a matter of opinion whether that is a bad thing or a good thing.

[IanDavis]

I suppose that it ought to be the case that ECF officials are able to be polite on the forum. This may result in them making fewer posts than they normally would.

[Roger de Coverly]

However, since 13th October I've felt obliged to refrain from making posts on here that I would have made prior to 13th October.

How long was the discussion about the Code at the AGM? I get the impression it was waved through as one of the items in the last fifteen minutes of the meeting. Voting members of the ECF have the privileged position of being able to raise issues for debate at ECF meetings, so the Code could be revisited with more time for debate. A motion to suspend or scrap it would suffice.

[JustinHorton]

I'm not entirely sure how the Code of Conduct affects this forum, except that it might make ECF officials even more reluctant than they already are to post here. And without imput from senior figures in English chess the ECF Matters section could just as well be renamed the Petty Infighting section.

"Senior figures" in the ECF have a habit of believing they are correct in their assertions regardless of evidence or opinions to the contrary.

Some have been known to be. Others less so, I think. And besides, it's not obvious that senior ECF officials are much more prone to pigheadedness than are other human beings.

[David Sedgwick]

How long was the discussion about the Code at the AGM? I get the impression it was waved through as one of the items in the last fifteen minutes of the meeting.

It wasn't waved through. My recollection is that it was discussed for about ten to fifteen minutes. I think I spoke in opposition for about three minutes.

More time would certainly have been useful. I had to curtail my intended remarks substantially.

However, I don't think that a longer discussion would have affected the outcome.

[Mick Norris]

Andrew Farthing's report of the AGM mentions considerable discussion

"• To adopt the Standards of Conduct for ECF Officials and Complaints Procedure. This proposal emanated from me, having been put before Council in April and referred for consultation, partly due to shortage of time at that meeting. I felt strongly that the ECF had suffered from the absence of these documents in the previous year. After considerable discussion, both documents were approved. In the case of the Complaints Procedure, minor amendments were made."

For the record, the MCF Delegate reported:
"Proposal by the Chief Executive on standards of conduct and complaints procedure *
17.1 That the Standards of Conduct for ECF Officials as set out in Appendix A to the enclosed paper be adopted with immediate effect
There was unhappiness from a delegate (I did not capture his name) that 3.3.2 reproduced below would prevent factual reporting of someone’s religion; for example that John Robinson (who left us the legacy which is the John Robinson Youth Trust) had been church warden.
3.3.2 ECF publications are not to be used as a forum for polemics on non-chess related subjects. For example, statements and discussions about religion, politics, race, sexual orientation, etc., are prohibited.
I explained that this was a misreading of 3.3.2. The second sentence had to be read as a clarification of the first sentence. The key word in the first sentence was polemics. Accordingly there was nothing in the text of 3.3.2 which would restrict the ECF from mentioning in my obituary, should the wish to publish one, that Mohammed Amin was a Muslim.
This appeared to satisfy the delegate who had been concerned; he asked the Minutes Secretary to ensure that my comment was included in the minutes.
The paper was adopted on a show of hands 21-5. I voted in favour as mandated.

[Roger de Coverly]

It wasn't waved through. My recollection is that it was discussed for about ten to fifteen minutes. I think I spoke in opposition for about three minutes.

More time would certainly have been useful. I had to curtail my intended remarks substantially.

However, I don't think that a longer discussion would have affected the outcome.

Ten minutes counts as waved through. There would have been no time for line by line consideration or how it would operate in practice. So the voting would have been on whether there should be a Code almost regardless of what it said and the likely practical consequences.

[Mick Norris]

You just can't stop being critical no matter what evidence anyone produces, can you?

There may have been a feeling that a Code was needed and anything was better than nothing, who knows what the individual voters thought

[Roger de Coverly]

There may have been a feeling that a Code was needed and anything was better than nothing,

It was entirely predictable that a Code would be used for trivial score settling, particularly in the absence of any method of filtering. It was also noticeable that unlike David Sedgwick, some members of the Board appeared not to have noticed that as written it curtailed the manner in which they expressed themselves.

[Martyn Harris]

Going back a page or two, I would have thought that a refundable deposit should indeed be lodged when making a complaint. However the norm should be that the deposit is refunded regardless of the outcome of the complaint, except where the complaint is deemed to be merely an attempt to pursue a personal vendetta or is frivolous in some other way.