AGM today (Consequences for noticeboard)

[WBuchanan]

Walter, I don't think anyone disagrees that officers should be accountable. However, speaking from my experience when I was an officer of CS the forum is just a means for certain individuals (a minority) to have a rant and a moan about CS matters almost always without discussing with the officer concerned first. This approach just gets peoples' backs up and for me is why the forum should not be used as a means to hold officers to account.

Also, the response to Steve was perfectly fine and entirely factual. Why should the Management Board explain a motion that went to the AGM that wasn't proposed or seconded from any members of the Board? There is also no guarantee that the Management Board has a collective view on this, all four could have voted differently. The members who proposed and seconded the motion are in the text of the motion and readily available in the AGM documents on the website. That's hardly evasion!

I agree wrt. finding out why non members don't join CS.
Also, they aren't kicked off the forum that is misleading, they can still read posts they just cant post themselves.

Doesn't 'moaning' cut both ways? The backs are often very quick to go up, IMO. Case in point here David, and often true I think - unnecessarily defensive or piqued responses (to civil questions) that duck the issues raised and then try to make the issue the attitude of the questioner.

These reposnses create a kind of protective auto-shield of exaggerated beleaguerment - which is understandable when there is genuine 'fire and fury', but I haven't seen anything of that nature here for years, so that excuse is wearing a bit thin...

I didn't say 'management' should explain the motion, just that saying it came from the CS membership was misleading. I was misled myself until it was cleared up. I wouldn't I call it 'entirely factual' - it's 'nothing but the truth' but it isn't  'the whole truth'.

BTW I think it's often better for a question to be raised in public unless it's a of personal or inflammatory nature. People might not want to trouble an official, but there could be many who would appreciate the answer or clarification.

Cheers

[David Deary]

Walter, I think we'll have to agree to disagree tbh. I have no issue with asking a question in public or at a meeting but believe it should be civil. The forum is no exception to this.

Stating its "not good enough" "unrepresentative" et al is not the way things change. A few keyboard warriors need to actually volunteer and contribute for a change rather than sitting on the sidelines decrying everything.

For the record, I don't think you are one of these warriors you've just unfortunately engaged me on an issue I'm passionate about.

[WBuchanan]

Walter, I think we'll have to agree to disagree tbh. I have no issue with asking a question in public or at a meeting but believe it should be civil. The forum is no exception to this.

Stating its "not good enough" "unrepresentative" et al is not the way things change. A few keyboard warriors need to actually volunteer and contribute for a change rather than sitting on the sidelines decrying everything.

For the record, I don't think you are one of these warriors you've just unfortunately engaged me on an issue I'm passionate about.

It's never a misfortune to engage with you David...I understand your passion as you think the organisers are being unfairly criticized. If you read through it again I think you'll see that the 'not good enough' referred to an initial response that ducked the question.

Just to be clear on this point- if motion 4 does not reflect 'management' thinking, then there would be no point in discussing it privately with the proposer!

I agree with your passion and good manners do matter. But I think people being fobbed off also feel they are also not being treated with respect. This is bound to be compounded when they start to attract 'loyal' criticism just for pressing a question that has openly been ducked.

Your response suggests that members who might or might not 'contribute for a change' (a dig that is a case in point surely!?) can be treated with disrespect. I think this is misplaced (or one-sided) passion!

Cheers

[Douglas Bryson]

With regard to motion 4 there were at least two management board members spoke and voted against the motion.

This was not a motion put forward by the board - it was a motion put forward by a board member representing himself as an individual member. There was no previously agreed board view to support or contradict.

Perhaps motions should be tagged in future as being board generated to distinguish from individual member motions.

[StevieHilton]

Douglas,
Thank you for your further information with regards motion 4.
The problem is if they speak or propose motions as officials,
Then it would have to be discussed at board level.
only motion 6 seemed to be a  membership motion
The others from members who hold positions within CS.

Officials have the perfect to put forward motions, I have never
denied that but it must be made clear they are speaking as individuals or officials

[Alex Gillies]

We have a lot of folk who like stats. Do we have any rough stats on:
 

• Active players who are not CS members (to establish impact of converting a decent % of them to members)
  

• CS membership split into active players/non active players/non players etc  (to see level of membership support from non active/non players)
  

• Forum users who are not CS members and what category they would be in ( to see who is impacted by the new forum rule)
  

It might be useful to survey/ canvas  non CS members on their views.
 Then again I assume they are now blocked from answering surveys/ questions on the forum?

[Andy Howie]

With regard to motion 4 there were at least two management board members spoke and voted against the motion.

This was not a motion put forward by the board - it was a motion put forward by a board member representing himself as an individual member. There was no previously agreed board view to support or contradict.

Perhaps motions should be tagged in future as being board generated to distinguish from individual member motions.

On the rare occasion we do have motions from the Management or Exec boards, I agree we should.  I can think of a couple in the last 3 or 4 years, motions are almost exclusively Individual motions.  We had one referred from Council last year but it is very much the exception not the norm.

[Andy Howie]

Douglas,
Thank you for your further information with regards motion 4.
The problem is if they speak or propose motions as officials,
Then it would have to be discussed at board level.
only motion 6 seemed to be a  membership motion
The others from members who hold positions within CS.

Officials have the perfect to put forward motions, I have never
denied that but it must be made clear they are speaking as individuals or officials

Steve, 

I would expect that.  The people in positions can see the changes that are needed to improve things a bit easier as they are the ones that are active in those areas (Hamish for example with the changing the arrears date which affects PVG). The title on the Agenda was Motions from Members.  Going forward I think I will adopt Dougie's suggestion.  If anything it will show what I am saying, Board and Exec motions are very much the exception not the norm.

[Patrick McGovern]

""As a consequence, only Members of Chess Scotland can post in the forum. ""

Finally this has been passed, I recall vigorous "debates" around this issue several years ago. This is the best way to go, members pay the fee and therefore only members should be posting, rather obvious really.