Details of upcoming UK events, please provide working links if possible.
It might relate to this postCarl Hibbard wrote: You are not the only one so I have split the topic off
http://www.ecforum.org.uk/viewtopic.php ... 3&start=41 and the comment
.Michael J R White wrote:Andrew Farthing was able to launch an investigation into certain complaints I made about the London Chess Classic, so for him not to do so here would be inconsistent
Although what the complaints were about the London Classic is unstated even in the broadest terms, or even which year.
I split it out because it seemed off topic to the BCCA thread it was within, do you think that was wrong?Michael J R White wrote:So because you don't understand it, you have questioned it's relevance, split the topic off and given the thread a patronising title.
You are the author of this thread and can change the title to whatever you wish
I suspect most readers thought it was a light-hearted comment about the inability of the competitors at his event to find the facilities either without asking, or while ignoring his information board. Cryptic references to the London Classic and private correspondence with the CEO are beyond us.Michael J R White wrote: Alex Holowczak's comments around providing information to competitors and the observations he was making.
Because most or all of the forum readers don't have a clue what you are rabbiting on about. It's only because of a suggestion from David Sedgwick that we even know about a possible connection to the London Chess Classic.Michael J R White wrote: Why do you think my references are cryptic?
Private in the sense of conducted by email or PM. The CEO has been an infrequent contributor to this or any forum in recent months, so there's no recall of any exchange of views between yourself and the CEO about either the 2010 Classic or the 2011 event.Michael J R White wrote: At what point was the correspondence you refer to deemed to be private?
The London Chess Classic is not an event run by the ECF, so I'm not sure of the relevance of the private or public views of its CEO on the running of the event, except for its role as national body. Even there, it usually refrains from critical comment on individual events.
Not really no, why?Michael J R White wrote:Hi Carl Hibbard; would any of that need moderation do you think?Roger de Coverly wrote:Because most or all of the forum readers don't have a clue what you are rabbiting on about.
As a player in the London Chess Classic FIDE Open in 2011, I'm not aware of any issues around that event. But neither was anyone aware of the ECF's participation in legal action against FIDE, or doubts surrounding the administration of the sponsorship of the British Championships. So it surprises me that there was anything for the ECF to investigate, but not that it was kept secret.Michael J R White wrote: Many thanks for that. So for the ECF to launch a time consuming investigation into goings on at the LCC, in order to provide commentary and consider action points, would not be a relevant thing to do, in your view? If so, you may be surprised to hear that's exactly what they did.
The Home Director was a principal organiser of tournaments at the London Chess Classic such as the FIDE Open, but under his own name rather than the ECF's. Given the nature of the overall event, you might expect that CSC, the sponsor(s) or the entry fees paid expenses and perhaps more to those involved in running it. Directors of the ECF have also been in charge of the British Championship where they would expect to receive at least expenses. So I don't believe Directors receive payment for being directors but might get paid by the ECF or other parties for work on particular projects.Michael J R White wrote:I always thought directorship in the ECF was purely voluntary, but recently I read the Director of Home Chess would have been paid for the role.
- Posts: 4066
- Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2007 10:29 am
- Location: Cove, Hampshire, England.
Perhaps to help younger and less indigenous visitors to this place we might all benefit from an explanation of the verb "rabbit" as follows:Roger de Coverly wrote: Because most or all of the forum readers don't have a clue what you are rabbiting on about.
No, I didn't class the use of "rabbiting on" as offensiveMichael J R White wrote:Hilarious; you have no issues slicing and dicing, yet this doesn't sit on your radar.
Contrary to the impression you might get from a blog writer obsessed with termites, Stewart Reuben and using Egregious as a substitute for English, it would be an opinion that Carl is reluctant to intervene. I think he's quite right, you can cause more trouble with deletions than with leaving material in place.Carl Hibbard wrote: Not really no, why?
[quote="Michael J R White""]
And what about suggesting all the forum readers don't know what I'm talking about???[/quote]
Most of us don't. I don't for one.
The ECF, in particular the CEO, was involved in the aftermath of an attempted cheating case at a tournament some time back. Although the details were deliberately not made public, many Forum readers knew or could guess the context.
A passing comment from one individual suggesting that "something is not very interesting" is not a cause for moderation - members can read the entire thread and get an outline of the discussion can they not?Michael J R White wrote:And what about suggesting all the forum readers don't know what I'm talking about???
It's Carl by the wayMichael J R White wrote:This has all ballooned away from the original post I made, on the BUCA thread, due to the actions of de Coverly and Hibbard.
Good, it was a bit of a waste of my timeMichael J R White wrote:I'm done answering these questions for today. I have more interesting things to do.
That wasn't the intention. Rather it was to indicate that if you have a story to tell about the ECF, that you should tell it, rather than to make obscure comments on off-hand remarks by Alex H and moan about the thread being split.Michael J R White wrote: By combining the use of "all forum members" with "rabbiting", that one individual was suggesting that my post was, in general terms, tedious.
The verb "to rabbit" is slang for "talk about" as in http://www.peevish.co.uk/slang/r.htm. Perhaps I could have said "pontificate". Bottom line is that we're none the wiser about any problems with the London Chess Classic and what the ECF or its directors may or may not have done, written or said about them.