tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post1753558898567926145..comments2023-12-28T02:11:22.501+00:00Comments on The Streatham & Brixton Chess Blog: Saying something IIITom Chivershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09850710685193416732noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post-70834905356742687832015-04-29T23:19:49.716+01:002015-04-29T23:19:49.716+01:00Regarding the status of Directors (and officers) p...Regarding the status of Directors (and officers) posting to the ecforum, Carl was content to allow one former director to post both under his own name when speaking for himself or the numerous organisations for whom he held the voting rights and also as an ECF Director but as a different user name.<br /><br />With most directors or officers also representing various organisations with voting rights at ECF meetings, allowing them to post both as themselves or organisation representatives and as ECF Directors or Officers is a reasonable compromise.<br /><br />RdCAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post-89912788619600909282015-04-29T20:07:22.306+01:002015-04-29T20:07:22.306+01:00Thanks to Roger and Mike for the correction, I'...Thanks to Roger and Mike for the correction, I've edited to acknowledge the error.<br /><br />I don't think there's any case for the ECF to have its own forum, simply because there's no demand for it. There's every reason why ECF directors shouldn't post on Carl's forum (or here for that matter) if they don't feel like it, it's a private site not an official one. And there's no doubt a case for having somewhere where ECF directors could engage in public correspondence, answer questions and so on, i.e. something much more limited than Carl's all-purpose forum.<br /><br />However....<br /><br />1. This is all rather moot given the habit of some board members, including the CEO, of ignoring questions they don't like answering. People who plainly don't <i>want</i> to respond to public questions don't really want to be saying how they want a forum in order to communicate with the public. It's a joke.<br /><br />2. The new forum was set up in order to try and close down Carl's forum. It was done as a hostile act. It wasn't an attempt to have two forums but an attempt to end up with one. ejhhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01582272075999298935noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post-77881630696389689982015-04-29T16:28:34.400+01:002015-04-29T16:28:34.400+01:00Roger is right about the £1,000, I think.
There i...Roger is right about the £1,000, I think.<br /><br />There is a case to be made for the ECF having its own forum. It is a reasonable method of canvassing the views of ECF members on proposed changes to its competitions, policies, procedures etc.<br /><br />There is (of course) a whole history to the relationship between the ECF (Board and Council) and Carl's forum. A significant part of the Board and Council has always regarded the forum as a bad thing (if not toxic) on the grounds that it could represent a source of (sometimes ill-informed) criticism of the ECF. The issue of individual directors posting on Carl's forum presented difficulties, too. When they did this would they be regarded as representing the ECF or just themselves?<br /><br />Of course, if the ECF controls the forum, then it is much easier to deal with these issues by removing troublesome posts. This means that that the ECF forum would not be a beacon of free speech and conspiracy theories but of course there is Carl's forum for that.<br /><br />So isn't there a case for having two forums (fora)?<br />Mike Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13237794157491746812noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post-90202212831888719392015-04-29T10:08:29.583+01:002015-04-29T10:08:29.583+01:00I believe the creation of the official ECF forum w...I believe the creation of the official ECF forum was an initiative of the then newly appointed Commercial Director supported presumably by at least some of the rest of the Board. If they were forced to have a forum, in their view it had to be one where they could delete comment hostile to the ECF, so it was always going to be moderated. They weren't going to be able to use Carl's ecforum because, rightly, he refused to accept ECF vetos on comment. I think the sequence was that they got the framework of the new Forum up and running first and then looked around for volunteers to be moderators. <br /><br />I'm puzzled by the £ 1,000 observation. Are you sure this isn't the cost of hosting the whole ECF site, not just the discussion forum which is a relatively small subset of the comment. <br /><br />RdCAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com