Moderators moderated?

[Derek Howie]

I see nothing about critism, only personal attacks.

What I'd call criticism, the moderators call a personal attack (depending who it's about, of course) and delete the posts.

Any form of criticism can be viewed as a personal attack.

[Andy Howie]

Would it be wrong to say, for example “I am not happy with Andy Howie as Exec Dir as he has not done this…” Of course it is not. If you were to say “I am not happy with Andy Howie as Exec Dir as he is a fat useless waster" then that is a personal attack.

I think the two are different, well they are in my mind. I think there is a clear difference between the two and it is the latter we are trying to eradicate. We probably have been oversenstive recently which has made it worse but if people are willing to try and use constructive critisim then where is the problem with that?

We need to get away from the idea that we are protecting Chess Scotland. Well we are but you know what I mean. Is it wrong to say that there are failings in the running of Chess Scotland then go on to list those failings? I would say no it isn't. Is it right to accuse people of being corrupt?? I would argue that this is not really the place for that as it is attacking someone personally.

Any posts removed will have an explaination for the removal publically in the place so people who have read it will understand. We will get it wrong, of that I have no doubt but that is where we need the understanding of the members of this board that we will try to get it right most of the time. If we get it wrong, then it is a trivial matter to put the post back up.

[Mike Scott]

Any form of criticism can be viewed as a personal attack.

Derek,
I refer you to my post regarding the "Tommy Lennox" post.

I would also highlight that the original post was clearly critical of the establishment - be that the moderators or others - and yet was not removed! Why not?

The problem is at the moment one can not see the wood for the trees: there may well be valid points being made that are getting lost in the dross around them and the manner in which they are being presented.

[Matthew Turner]

The approach outlined by andy Howie has to right and is the basis for moving forward. We all recognise that there are occasions when the difference between genuine criticism and personal attacks are somewhat blurred, but actually when we think about it we also know that in the vast majority of cases we know which one it is.

We do not want this forum to be over-regulated or over moderated so we have to be (fairly) sensible. I would like to suggest a few things that we should be able to say.
1. It is unhelpful if you join ChessScotland just before an AGM, just so you can have a vote.
2. We want people to join ChessScotland and there must be a very very good reason for denying somebody membership (the fact they might be awkward or annoying is simply not sufficient).
3. If you have arranged a meeting with someone it is impolite not to turn up.
4. It takes time to write a written apology and if you have received one, don't worry too much if it didn't arrive the exact second you hoped for.

Hopefully, that condensed summary annoys everyone - compromise means nobody gets entirely what they want, but then we move on.

Now for moving on. I believe that we will have young, dynamic candidates for the junior posts at the AGM. If they are succesful they have the potential to take ChessScotland forward, but they might need some help and they certainly don't need the current antagonism. Whoever is elected to the junior posts in August should be able to listen to advice and be able to ask for advice, but they should also be able to rely on support whatever direction they choose to take ChessScotland forward in.

[Derek Howie]

1. It is unhelpful if you join ChessScotland just before an AGM, just so you can have a vote.

Just to clarify that CS members who are not members of Council do not have the right to vote at a Council meeting, and would generally not be allowed to even contribute at the meeting unless invited to by Council. =)

[Derek Howie]

Any form of criticism can be viewed as a personal attack.

Derek,
I refer you to my post regarding the "Tommy Lennox" post.

I would also highlight that the original post was clearly critical of the establishment - be that the moderators or others - and yet was not removed! Why not?

Not sure I can answer that without it being potentially viewed as a personal attack.

The problem is at the moment one can not see the wood for the trees: there may well be valid points being made that are getting lost in the dross around them and the manner in which they are being presented.

A good point, Mike.

Perhaps if there are issues with the way that things are being presented then the issues can be highlighted and the authors could be invited to resubmit their points in a more concise, presentable or acceptable manner.

[Mike Scott]

Derek,

without it being potentially viewed as a personal attack

Don't understand your comment. I was pointing out that here was a posting that was clearly critical of the 'establishment' but which has not been removed. My question was why not? Well because it was being critical without being personal.

The OTT response to it has been censored/moderated because it was clearly a personal attack on the original poster.

What I find so unreasonable is the assumption that people who disagree with them must be corrupt or part of some great conspiracy. You can not accept judgements only when they come down on your side.

[Andy McCulloch]

I attended the recent Council meeting as an ordinary CS member. I was well aware that I was only allowed there as an observer. As I understand the rules, non-members are not allowed entry.