+- Forums (https://www.chessscotland.com/forum)
+-- Forum: Members Only (https://www.chessscotland.com/forum/forum-16.html)
+--- Forum: General Chess Chat (https://www.chessscotland.com/forum/forum-3.html)
+--- Thread: Freedom of Speech (/thread-499.html)
Re: Freedom of Speech - Andrew McHarg - 15-02-2013
George Thomson Wrote:The edit button has disappeared again.
There is a time limit of five minutes after posting something within which it can be edited.
Re: Freedom of Speech - ronniewallace - 15-02-2013
David Deary Wrote:Ronnie, do you not have a private forum? Surely, simply making the topic private to Cumbernauld members would have made more sense? Personally, I think it’s an important issue and one that should be discussed within your club. If it had been my post that was deleted and I was told to speak to a team Captain I would have reacted in a similar way to George.
George knows as a team captain himself that selection matters are devolved to the respective team captains. He chose to post a rant on the forum rather than contact the team captain in the first instance.
David Deary Wrote:I personally play league chess for the social aspect. I play in a team with friends - two members I went to school with (have known for at least ten years and played alongside them for that period), my younger brother is another and two good personal friends are on the remaining boards. I play in that team because I get on well with everyone and we have a good laugh. I would not replace these players for some 2200s because it wouldn't be as much fun. My SNCL team is the exact same. Chess is supposed to be fun and it’s not all about winning.The GCL captain has subequently explained to George the reason for his non-selection for this particular match.
I'm not saying that’s why Cumbernauld have brought in Dunfermline players to simply to attain a competitive advantage it sounds like they have a genuine player shortage. However, these things need to be handled delicately. Fundamentally, I don't think its fair to permanently replace players who won promotion with a whole new team.
Re: Freedom of Speech - ronniewallace - 15-02-2013
George Thomson Wrote:Ronnie, whether or not the players "become" members is not the issue. Even if new members join the club the team which earned promotion aught to receive their reward.
I and some of my fellow Cumbernauld Chess Club players INVESTED a lot of time, effort and money in order to EARN promotion. We should be playing in the Division one matches.
This seems to only be an issue because you yourself have not been picked for the team for this match.
For example our SNCL team has players that would not consider Cumbernauld
as their first club (although they are paid up members), yet since you are getting
to play in that team your protests about fellow Cumbernauld players being
disadvantaged has let's say been somewhat muted.
George Thomson Wrote:I raised this issue way back at the AGM and was told more or less, the Team captain does what he likes, he picks the team. I disagreed then and I disagree now and should have the right to do so even if it is in public. we are real people discussing real issues why should it have to be private, I have nothing to hide, and am not embarrassed for having this opinion.As you have said you brought this up at the AGM and as far as I recall it was agreed by everyone present excluding yourself that team selection is a matter for the particular captain.
As I recall you seemed to be of the opinion that there were a host of highly rated players clambering to join the club to take your place as we had that year attained promotion to GCL1!
George Thomson Wrote:Ronnie your attempt to make me look bad for posting a JOKE about asylum seekers is rather comical.You have brought this item into the open, therefore for clarity it is only fair that the full transcript of our dialogue be displayed, it is up to the readers to decide for themselves whether the text makes either of us look bad.
I'm sure that 90% of the people who read this post would having taken it as perhaps a poor taste satirical quip.
The others would perhaps see me as A FASCIST or an Adolf Hitler type figure. This is the danger of trying to have a bit of fun. Some people see it as fun some do not.
Re: Freedom of Speech - George Thomson - 15-02-2013
Regarding the SNCL. The opportunity for Alan Grant to play for Cumbernauld came about because no Cumbernauld player wished to participate in the SNCL.
Last Season Kevin Mayo came on board as a result of Ralph Stirrat deciding not to play anymore.
However on this occasion there was I believe a Cumbernauld player (John Pearston) willing to play. In my unimportant opinion John should have been given first choice. Again the Team Captain seemed to have his way. I apologise if this is indeed not the case.
Re: Freedom of Speech - David Deary - 15-02-2013
ronniewallace Wrote:George knows as a team captain himself that selection matters are devolved to the respective team captains. He chose to post a rant on the forum rather than contact the team captain in the first instance.
My point was, don't you have a private forum? Deleting a topic because it looks bad in public is easily resolved by making it private. It would also never have led to this thread being created and ending up with a wider audience.
ronniewallace Wrote:The GCL captain has subequently explained to George the reason for his non-selection for this particular match.
As a captain myself, I would have informed the player of my decision and the reasons rather than have George (the player) approach me. Surely, thats just common decency? :\
ronniewallace Wrote:You have brought this item into the open, therefore for clarity it is only fair that the full transcript of our dialogue be displayed, it is up to the readers to decide for themselves whether the text makes either of us look bad.
The only person/entity that looks bad from this topic is Cumbernauld CC. This should have remained an internal Cumbernauld CC matter. Deleting the topic on the Cumbernauld forum was the wrong decision in my view and has led to this PR disaster. Also mentioning SNCL teams etc. is just going to open even more up to debate. :\
I think a bit of common sense wouldn't go a miss here!
Re: Freedom of Speech - ronniewallace - 15-02-2013
David Deary Wrote:My point was, don't you have a private forum?None of our forums are private.
David Deary Wrote:Deleting a topic because it looks bad in public is easily resolved by making it private. It would also never have led to this thread being created and ending up with a wider audience.He's not banned from the forum, he was perfectly entitled to repost after speaking
with the team captain. I could perhaps have explained this better to him.
David Deary Wrote:As a captain myself, I would have informed the player of my decision and the reasons rather than have George (the player) approach me. Surely, thats just common decency? :\Common decency imoh would be to approach the person you are annoyed at
in the first instance rather than mouthing off in a forum.
Perhaps the team captain did explain to George his decision
that resulted in him being upset, like I have said selection's at the team captain's discretion.
ronniewallace Wrote:The only person/entity that looks bad from this topic is Cumbernauld CC.No denying this!
Deleting the topic on the Cumbernauld forum was the wrong decision in my view and has led to this PR disaster.
Apart from I stand by my decision as forum moderator to delete his post.
Re: Freedom of Speech - George Thomson - 15-02-2013
I shall make one final comment and then shall say no more on this.
Ronnie said "has let's say been somewhat muted" in this case John Pearston should have been fighting in his own corner for his own position. Which coincidentally is exactly what I'm trying to do.
Re: Freedom of Speech - George Thomson - 15-02-2013
Ronnie Said.
"This seems to only be an issue because you yourself have not been picked for the team for this match.
For example our SNCL team has players that would not consider Cumbernauld
as their first club (although they are paid up members), yet since you are getting
to play in that team your protests about fellow Cumbernauld players being
disadvantaged has let's say been somewhat muted."
Apologies for bringing the name of John Pearston into this dispute.
This should probably read that the "fellow Cumbernauld players who are being disadvantaged" should be fighting their own corner.
Re: Freedom of Speech - George Thomson - 15-02-2013
George Thomson Wrote:Ronnie Said.Oh I forgot, if they tried to fight their own corner then they would probably have been subject to the strict censorship to which my original post was. I kinda get the feeling that I'm going round in circles here.
"This seems to only be an issue because you yourself have not been picked for the team for this match.
For example our SNCL team has players that would not consider Cumbernauld
as their first club (although they are paid up members), yet since you are getting
to play in that team your protests about fellow Cumbernauld players being
disadvantaged has let's say been somewhat muted."
Apologies for bringing the name of John Pearston into this dispute.
This should probably read that the "fellow Cumbernauld players who are being disadvantaged" should be fighting their own corner.
I best add a few smiley faces to make everyone aware that this is in fact a little tongue in cheek comment
Re: Freedom of Speech - Ianbrownlee - 15-02-2013
its spelt largactil ( I used to be a pharmacy technician)
seriously I have a bit of sympathy for George although |can see both sides. A bit of a history lesson here I know of a club whose A-team got demoted in the Lanarkshire division 1whilst the B-team got promoted to division 1 The members of the demoted A-team demanded and got their team mates places in division 1 the following year as the club has a responsibility to field their strongest players in the A team. However its always a tricky situation for the captain who to pick especially in situations such as this