AGM proposals

[Jim Webster]

Point 3 - contradicts Jim Webster's post of 7 July.

Which one?
How?

I was a busy chappie that day.

By the way, I'm not going to enter into a discussion on this, just curious to how you arrive at your conclusion.

[George Murphy]

Derek
You are entitled to your opinion. Meanwhile, I refer you to the Moderator's Post of yesterday's date, and in particular to this excerpt:

"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 one forum member to another will be tolerated."

If you think my quotes from Gerald's post were inaccurate or inappropriate, I suggest you take up your objection with him.

George

[Derek Howie]

Derek
You are entitled to your opinion. Meanwhile, I refer you to the Moderator's Post of yesterday's date, and in particular to this excerpt:

"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 one forum member to another will be tolerated."

If you think my quotes from Gerald's post were inaccurate or inappropriate, I suggest you take up your objection with him.

George

LOL. It was you that used it and gave your opinion on it as being "gospel" but when I give my opinion on it I should use another thread? Not sure why you shouldn't apply that logic to yourself.

[Derek Howie]

All the proxy voters listed at the SGM were current members of CS at the time of the meeting (July 14th) as they are now on the most updated list (July 14th) except for one which is probably a voting parent.
No mistakes were made and everything was completely in order.

There's 3 that I don't see on the list of members, but as you say, they could well be parents.

Robin has suggested one of the three could be a spelling mistake and one could be an incorrect first name, which could well be the case.

[Derek Howie]

Point 3 - contradicts Jim Webster's post of 7 July.

Which one?
How?

I was a busy chappie that day.

By the way, I'm not going to enter into a discussion on this, just curious to how you arrive at your conclusion.

This quote.

Now for the personal opinion bit-
I'm sure some "constitution lawyers" are going to have a field day and try and use this as an attempt to bring the whole thing down as unconstitutional but surely extenuating circumstances in best interests of the membership can prevail.

[Jim Webster]

Jim Webster wrote:
Now for the personal opinion bit-

Since when was a personal opinion any thing other than that?

Surely it can in no way be construed as anything close to an official statement, action or anything else on behalf of the CWP, or CS (and I'm not a spokesman for CS nor have I ever claimed to be), for that matter.

And it's goodbye from me on this.

[Ianbrownlee]

OK guys I'm locking this thread no more posts on this thread

[Ianbrownlee]

this topic is now unlocked as I have now taken the appropriate action

[George Murphy]

Hi Ian

I promised on a related thread to come back with some ideas as to how the Forum might operate.

Following is simply a sketch to help others to focus on ideas/pointers:

First, the Forum should serve both CS Members and non-members (i.e. members of the public).

Second, the Forum, I think, should fulfil three broad functions:

(a) Publicity;

(b) Information (not necessarily the same as Publicity); and

© Debate/discussion

Publicity would encompass data that would be of interest to all: for example, Live Games (how to gain access) Tournaments (details, including venue, dates, progress etc., as well as pointers to availability of further information etc.), Availability of Coaching, Training, Results, Performance, etc. [Some of this would be available on, for example, the Home or other Pages. Much appears already!]

Information would be focused more narrowly towards CS Members, but - depending on the particular activity - could also provide for members of the public.

Debate/Discussion is perhaps the more “meaty” part, facilitating the exchange of views. This part would require to be Monitored in order to maintain order. The functions to be embraced could (would?) be quite wide-ranging in order to gauge the desirability or otherwise of a particular or proposed project or reform. Constitutional change is one recent example. Another would be to gauge support for, or ideas about how to improve the Forum. These are instances, but there could be innumerable others. A touchstone would be to decide to what extent - if at all - non-CS Members would be allowed to access, or contribute to this “Debate/Discussion” section of the Forum. This could be very sensitive. Are non-CS Members really entitled to “eavesdrop” on all CS business? Is there not scope to restrict access? But, how? Quite recently, one poster suggested that a means be devised to distinguish a non-CS Member from a CS Member in order to avoid confusion or potential embarrassment on the Forum: who would want to wear heart on sleeve in such an uncertain scenario? So, this might point to a halfway house arrangement, or if that were judged impracticable or too risky (i.e. undue risk of embarrassment to individual or CS itself), then separate Forums according to purpose or objective. We don’t want to exclude potential members, but nor do we want to wash our laundry in public? Finally, do non-CS Members have any right to discuss or contribute to the formulation of CS business?

To sum up, these are ideas to kick start a discussion:

(a) Is the Forum OK as is?; or

(b) Do we need to restrict access by non-CS Members to (i) the Forum or (ii) to parts of the Forum?

Much of the foregoing applies already to the existing Forum, so we should regard this new look - if adopted - as a refinement rather than an innovation.

George

[Derek Howie]

To sum up, these are ideas to kick start a discussion:

(a) Is the Forum OK as is?; or

(b) Do we need to restrict access by non-CS Members to (i) the Forum or (ii) to parts of the Forum?

Much of the foregoing applies already to the existing Forum, so we should regard this new look - if adopted - as a refinement rather than an innovation.

George

I think I'm largely on the same page as you in all this.

I had previously suggested the following:

Suggestions:
1. .....not relevant to this thread
2. Move all existing forum sections to the public area
3. Create new private areas for General and Junior where contentious matters can be raised or threads can be moved to by moderators if they start to get contentious.
4. Create a new section in the private area for CS related matters.

CS related matters should be for members only but other than that, I don't see why the other areas can't be public, and it should help generate more publicity for tournaments and chess in general if it's open to all.