+- 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: AGM proposals (/thread-1287.html)
Re: AGM proposals - Phil Thomas - 02-08-2015
George,
I invite others to make comparisons.
Private e mails on this topic have already been sent but without meaningful replies to date.
It has frequently been established that one does not have to be a member of CS to post on this board.
Re: AGM proposals - George Murphy - 02-08-2015
Quote:I invite others to make comparisons.
To achieve what effect?
Quote:It has frequently been established that one does not have to be a member of CS to post on this board.
Doubtful grounds if your only purpose is to make mischief.
George
Re: AGM proposals - Ianbrownlee - 02-08-2015
WBuchanan Wrote:The slanging match started much earlier, in fact on the second post.robin moore wrote:Thanks Andy, Looking forward to the noticeboard discussion on these proposals. Incidentally, I have now realised how hard it is to type when you are laughing so much my lunchtime coffee is running down my nose.Some of the points in Andy's original post are now being discussed, showing that constructive criticism is better than ridiculeWalter
IanThe slanging match started much earlier, in fact on the second post.robin moore Wrote:Thanks Andy, Looking forward to the noticeboard discussion on these proposals. Incidentally, I have now realised how hard it is to type when you are laughing so much my lunchtime coffee is running down my nose.Some of the points in Andy's original post are now being discussed, showing that constructive criticism is better than ridiculeWalter
I know. As I already stated I'm keeping a close eye on it. As usual It's a fine balancing act between allowing discussion and stopping the usual suspects taking pot shots. If it veers any more towards the pot shots end then I have to stop it but I agree the constructivism criticism is healthy. I also agree the usual mischievous posts are present but I'm sure most people can see past that. With regard to the lack of communication from the ED , please remember he has ran away with the membership director on a much needed holiday in Ireland after a particular gruelling stint at the Scottish.
Re: AGM proposals - Andy Howie - 02-08-2015
Phil Thomas Wrote:George,
I invite others to make comparisons.
Private e mails on this topic have already been sent but without meaningful replies to date.
It has frequently been established that one does not have to be a member of CS to post on this board.
Thanks to Ian for making me aware of this. Taking advantage of a quiet morning today before we go out for the rest of the day to have some family time.
It completely hacks me off that I can't even get a simple 2 weeks with my family away from chess and the usual politics. You want a meaningful reply then please have the decency to let me enjoy the rest of my holiday with my family and wait for me to come home. I am not going to sit out here and worry about emails and noticeboard threads so speculate away until I return.
Given a second person checked the names, If I have made a mistake, at least I have the satisfaction of knowing it was an honest one
Re: AGM proposals - George Murphy - 02-08-2015
Ian
I accept that you are the arbiter in these matters and that we must abide by your rulings, but it’s a disgrace that Andy (H) should be pestered in this way while on holiday.
Phil’s two posts earlier this morning were disingenuous and did not deserve to be accorded such respect. Please note that his second post did not specify to whom he had addressed his private emails. He was careful to infer it was the ED. In fact, as a non-CS member, Phil has no call on any CS official. Andy H was under no obligation to respond to Phil’s private emails - all the more so if these concerned criticism of CS business, which certainly is what Phil implied in his posts addressed to both Andy (M) and to me. His criticisms need to be correlated with those voiced in another thread. Phil is not alone.
If Phil is sincere in his implied criticism of the SGM, there is no need for him to post to this effect on this Board. All he has to do is coordinate with another “dissenter” by private email so that a motion can be raised at the AGM - if time still permits. Instead, he chose to “wave a flag”. Why would he do that if not to draw attention to himself? By what right does he ask other readers of this thread to do his unsavoury work for him? Let him sling his own stones!
On this Board, we respect and tolerate pedants. At times we even laugh with them! But, pedantry as a means of snide criticism is unwarranted.
George
Re: AGM proposals - Ianbrownlee - 02-08-2015
George Murphy Wrote:I accept that you are the arbiter in these matters and that we must abide by your rulings, but it’s a disgrace that Andy (H) should be pestered in this way while on holiday. Phil’s two posts earlier this morning were disingenuous and did not deserve to be accorded such respect. Please note that his second post did not specify to whom he had addressed his private emails. He was careful to infer it was the ED. In fact, as a non-CS member, Phil has no call on any CS official. Andy H was under no obligation to respond to Phil’s private emails - all the more so if these concerned criticism of CS business, which certainly is what Phil implied in his posts addressed to both Andy (M) and to me. His criticisms need to be correlated with those voiced in another thread. Phil is not alone.
Hi George
It was me who pestered Andy whilst on holiday as I felt this thread could take a much darker turn and needed both to inform Andy and seek his advice. I know Phil is not on his own with this and other matters. I have always believed up until now that non members could post on CS matters on this forum but now I'm not so sure. Perhaps the time is coming when only CS members can post on this forum or at least on CS matters. Perhaps we should split the form into CS and non-CS members and not the present setup of forum members and non forum members. This forum in general takes pedantics to a whole new level. If mistakes are made then so be it , there is no maliciousness in it. I make mistakes so do we all. However I have to judge (with all moderators) what can be allowed and I have to also take transparency into account. what really annoys me personally is when I hear time and time again chess players whether or not they are CS members is that they would like to participate in debate but don't want to due to the frequent dark tone of the thread. This impression of the threads is what I am trying to stop. However we also need transparency and accountability within the workings of Chess Scotland which is why some posts have survived when possibly they should have been deleted. I am guided by the rules and guidelines imposed by Chess Scotland e.g. username must be easily recognised by the actual name of the member.
I can be easily contacted outside of this forum. I would be happy to discuss further by either telephone or email.
Perhaps if this forum is believed to be abused then it should only be for Chess Scotland members since it seems to be only Chess Scotland issues that are argued about. Or maybe we should have CS members only threads. Maybe a discussion is in order at the AGM or maybe I'm over reacting.
Re: AGM proposals by - Phil Thomas - 02-08-2015
Ian,
Most of the CS members I know do not post on the notice board because of the high levels of abuse for anyone who sticks their head above the parapet.
I guess that I have a thicker skin than most. While the notice board rules allow a non member to comment on any chess related matters then I am not breaking any rules.
It should be disturbing to the average reader that responses to my postings led so rapidly to the word disingenuous. I have just gone to Google and found a few synonyms for that word. There is is Dishonest, Dissembling. Untruthful, Mendacious to name a few.
No wonder so few members of this notice board actually post on here.
..
Re: AGM proposals - Ianbrownlee - 02-08-2015
|Phil
Phil Thomas Wrote:Most of the CS members I know do not post on the notice board because of the high levels of abuse for anyone who sticks their head above the parapet.I guess that I have a thicker skin than most. While the notice board rules allow a non member to comment on any chess related matters then I am not breaking any rules.
disingenuous
from google:
"not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does.
"this journalist was being somewhat disingenuous as well as cynical"
synonyms: dishonest, deceitful, underhand, underhanded, duplicitous, double-dealing, two-faced, dissembling, insincere, false, lying, untruthful, mendacious; More"
covers a whole apple cart of meanings I'm surprised with your thicker skin that you're upset with that word. This topic is now way off relevance. As of now any posts outside of the thread will be deleted and action taken. I am going to start a new thread on how the forum should be used now and in the future and what limitations should be on it e.g. should only CS members have access to it or not. No More personal comments from ome forum member to another will be tolerated
Re: AGM proposals - George Murphy - 02-08-2015
Hi Ian,
Noted.
I would be very unhappy to think that anyone would be motivated by malice to post on our website. No, I don’t think that’s it - though I suspect there is a wee streak of schadenfreude now and again! (What else on a Chess website?) At bottom, I think it’s politicking, but certainly it is calculated (not always, though).
In this particular instance, I don’t believe that the posts to which I took exception - and still do - were made unaware of the criticisms voiced on the New Constitution thread. Let me draw attention to the post by Gerald Lobley of 28 July (Page 37) and in particular these excerpts:
Quote:“A number of these problems arise from the lack of understanding by certain CS members on how General Meetings are properly conducted”
Quote:“ALL votes were registered and recorded.”
Quote:“All the above is proper procedure and although it can look a little unwieldy at times it does prevent major problems and avoids anomalies. Although this SGM was a CS meeting it must be firmly stated that none of the CWP would have allowed a non-constitutional approach as that would have been against the whole principles we have sought to enshrine in our suggested changes.”
I see no reason to query any of Gerald’s observations above. They can all be accepted as “gospel”.
You (Ian) write:
Quote:“Perhaps if this forum is believed to be abused then it should only be for Chess Scotland members since it seems to be only Chess Scotland issues that are argued about. Or maybe we should have CS members only threads. Maybe a discussion is in order at the AGM or maybe I'm over reacting.”
I think any Forum is open to abuse. That is why we need Moderators, who have a difficult role to fulfil. Even our much-vaunted national, “free” press practises its own form of censorship: Letters to the Editor, for example, and also their online websites. You should see the Glasgow Herald’s one on football!!
I’m not sure if we need to raise this at the AGM without prior ‘rehearsal’ on the Forum here. Let me have a think, and I’ll revert later.
George
PS I have only just noticed the two preceding posts, which I have still to read. Other priorities come into play at present.
G
Re: AGM proposals - amuir - 02-08-2015
Phil
why don't you become a CS member to vote and propose at AGM ?
there are a lack of hamilton players at AGM vor voting purposes.