02-09-2011, 10:04 PM
Jim Webster Wrote:I think I have a rather simplistic view, but if the 'real name' policy was passed at an AGM why are we having this discussion? The only way now to change that policy is to go back to a future AGM and "repeal" the motion on the books.
I'll be sad to see J*R stop posting as he usually makes good discussion points, but the democracy of the AGM must take precedence I think.
A fair point, but as we've seen above, the AGM did not pass a "real name" policy. All it did was specifically reject an "anonymity permitted" policy.
We have never operated what I would call an "anonymity policy" unlike some blogs, for instance "Who'd be an arbiter (or other Chess Volunteer...)"
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://whodbe.blogspot.com/2011/07/scottish-championships-day-9-there-can.html">http://whodbe.blogspot.com/2011/07/scot ... e-can.html</a><!-- m -->
As can be seen, this particular blog allows anonymous comments.
We have operated a pseudonymity policy. Leaving aside the point about whether constitutionally the AGM has any jurisdiction over the noticeboard, we now have a situation where there is limited guidance from the AGM, and the administration is seeking unilaterally to implement a new policy.
I can't help feeling that if J*R had not shared his initials with a former British Champion, and had instead been born "Gerald Nossiter", for example, we wouldn't be having this discussion.