chess forum

[Ianbrownlee]

In view of various recent posts. I am inviting constructive comments on this thread as to where this forum in general should be going e.g. should it be chess Scotland members only or to what level of discussion should be allowed. Should the forum be used to generate proposals for meetings and/or what can of information should be displayed

[Phil Thomas]

Ian,

I have to pick up a point you misread on the other thread.

When I moved the topic onto the meaning of the word disingenuous I was talking about the typical member of this board. As a way of explaining why I think most of them don't bother to post. It was not the most serious accusation that has been made against me seen on this notice board.

I think we all want to see more people contributing articles on this notice board. I was trying to help explain the paucity of active posters.

If you decide to ban me as a current non member from posting that's AOK but criticising me for breaking rules that are not yet in force is rather bizarre

As to what is acceptable on the notice board I suggest that all posters should voluntarily adopt the following thought processes when they are about to post.

(1) would it pass muster as an advert = Legel/Honest/Decent/Truthful

(2)If push came to shove could you defend yourself against a libel action in court.

[Ianbrownlee]

If you decide to ban me as a current non member from posting that's AOK but criticising me for breaking rules that are not yet in force is rather bizarre

no I wouldn't ban you Phil. I didn't misread the thread . I know you and you know what I am saying but in case you're not getting me let me clarify on this thread.
Humans makes mistakes - I know I'm one of them (human not a mistake). How a post about the AGM agenda moves into the discussion we have now demonstrates what can go wrong. We all believe in free speech and we all basically sing from the same hymn sheet. We all want whats best for chess and in an ideal world we would all work together to achieve that goal. The reality is that in a forum there can be too much point scoring especially when there is any different point of view.

I honestly don't get where you think i'm criticising you for breaking the rules, ( BTW you broke the rule about going off topic (AGM agenda) but I have not mentioned that until now.) However this is a new topic specifically to discuss that and anything else on how the forum is conducted. You are not the only person to bend or break the rules but as well as being shot at , you seem to do some of the shooting

The rules as I see it are simple enough and I list some of them below
1. don't go off topic
2. don't get personal
3. Don't post anything libellous
4. don't swear
5. Remember adults, children and in fact all members of society use this forum so respect their opinions
6. post using a username that is easily recognisable (e.g. your name)

Where I think I do disagree with you (and forgive me for doing that) is that if there have been mistakes recently then they are exactly that and nothing deeper, no negligence, no conspiracy, nada. There may be work to improve the system but that is another matter. That is why there is a CWP for the constitution. That is why there are so many people working many hours to try and improve the constitution. That is why mistakes may be made in getting there. Make no mistake , we will get there.

Everyone has an opinion which is why discussions can get heated, which is mostly healthy as long as if doesn't get personal and even bitter. The problem with the written word is that the emotional message can easily get lost and misinterpreted. This problem can be overcome by verbal communication so at the end of the day, nothing like a meeting or a phone call is better to remedy this.

You and I both agree that potential forum members are being put off by some of the flak in the forum. This is precisely what I am trying to stop and I am sure we can all achieve this aim if we all genuinely work together.

[Patrick McGovern]

I, as an individual, feel that it is hypocritical to not be a member of CS yet seek to influence CS policy.

Given the enthusiasm with which people rush to comment I feel that the same energies would be better harnessed and used within the CS structure.

Many posters who are non members have shown in the past that they had the talent to be constructive and contribute positively when they were members. I would welcome them back with open arms and happily discuss /debate any issues they wished to raise.

I would suggest that it be discussed further at the AGM, someone to propose/second this perhaps?

[Phil Thomas]

Ian ,

Totally agree with your post.

More clarity was needed in my earlier post. Should have expanded the words along the lines of ......those who criticise for breaking rules not yet written. Agree with you that this did not apply to yourself.

[Derek Howie]

I totally disagree with having non-members excluded from the forum.

When I started off in the chess world as a non-playing parent, the forum was a great source of information. Preventing non-members from joining would prevent this and we could end up losing juniors because of it.

Keeping the forum private would also have a negative effect in this regard and that's why I'm keen to have large sections of the forum made public.

[robin moore]

This is a really tricky one and I am going to try and choose my words carefully.

There are two non ChessScotland members who are openly hostile to CS who have access to post on the noticeboard. If these two persons were permanently blocked from access, I am certain that 90% of the political bu****it would stop almost immediately.

Like Derek, I agree that the CS noticeboard can be extremely useful and helpful to all sorts of folk and could be particularly to new players and juniors, the folks that we want to attract and support.

It would be wrong to exclude all non-members because of the actions of two persons who have an agenda to destabilise CS but it's clear that even the most tolerant are rapidly losing patience.

[Ianbrownlee]

There are two non ChessScotland members who are openly hostile to CS who have access to post on the noticeboard. If these two persons were permanently blocked from access, I am certain that 90% of the political bu****it would stop almost immediately.

Unfortunately there are much more than two people who can be mischievous at least and downright abusive at most. There is no distinction between CS membership and non CS membership. Bans and warnings have been issued both in the past and recently. In two cases it was CS members who were issued either with a ban or warning. I don't think CS membership is the issue. It seems to be old scores resurfacing every so often. Once Andy is back I intend to have a discussion about what we should do. Don't get me wrong, the forum has got a lot better since I started as moderator, but I think we may have to tighten the rules a bit One possibility may be to make a section or sections open to only CS members and make a section for all forum members which is rigidly monitored. I personally don't like personal attacks or moaning in order to achieve some nefarious goal. As I said already I'll speak to Andy H.
I have also got to say that the vast majority of posters behave most responsibly.

[Phil Thomas]

This is a really tricky one and I am going to try and choose my words carefully.

There are two non ChessScotland members who are openly hostile to CS who have access to post on the noticeboard. If these two persons were permanently blocked from access, I am certain that 90% of the political bu****it would stop almost immediately.

Like Derek, I agree that the CS noticeboard can be extremely useful and helpful to all sorts of folk and could be particularly to new players and juniors, the folks that we want to attract and support.

It would be wrong to exclude all non-members because of the actions of two persons who have a

n agenda to destabilise CS but it's clear that even the most tolerant are rapidly losing patience.

Totally agree with you there Robin. 90 % of the bullshit would stop instantly. Because 90 % of the bullshit is you attacking me. Within the other 10 per cent is your vrecent failure to acknowledge that when a member has failed to renew by the scheduled renewal date he has ceased to a member. Isn't it time you grew up and started looking like a presidential candidate rather that spouting such disingenuous claptrap.

And now you can run off to the moderators crying your well rehearsed crocodile tears. Maybe you can get me banned for treating you the way that you treat anyone who does diagrees wiith you no matter how demonstrably incorrect you are.

[Ianbrownlee]

Really guys , do you really think I'm going to let this go by

This is a really tricky one and I am going to try and choose my words carefully. There are two non ChessScotland members who are openly hostile to CS who have access to post on the noticeboard. If these two persons were permanently blocked from access, I am certain that 90% of the political bu****it would stop almost immediately.

I've already commented on this but I wearily repeat there are members of CS who have been banned and warned, so making it a members only forum would be pointless in my view. I am going to take stronger action on this but i'm going to sleep on it first. I'm also locking this thread in the meantime .

And now you can run off to the moderators crying your well rehearsed crocodile tears. Maybe you can get me banned for treating you the way that you treat anyone who does diagrees wiith you no matter how demonstrably incorrect you are.

he doesn't have to Phil I'm watching this. It's called moderating a forum