AGM Candidates

[WBuchanan]

I'm seeking a bit more transparency within CS as the murky fug of the last year has been interminable, and now that decisions have to be made at the AGM, some clarity is required. It could be that the CS decisions have all been proper and correct, but so far it's impossible to tell for 'outsiders' like myself.

As I say, I think posting the said motion would breach forum posting rules. But in general terms, I agree with Andy B here.

BTW Andy, sorry you didn't opt to run for that HD post you asked about (presume too late now?) I think you'd have done it well, and been a good addition to the team.

[Alex Gillies]

Hi

Andy kindly sent me the two elusive posts

The motions come from frustration over the transparency and communication in the process . The AGM is where these should now be discussed.

I am happy to add my own views:

Motion 1 Its a bit late in the day for this. If it was to happen it should have happened at the time the standards ruled - should the policy be reviewed or clarified - perhaps

Motion 2 Its unfair to raise this now- the standards have ruled and as far as I know the issue was not part of the official complaint-I assume time barred. We do need a general policy on this issue going forward though as we should have one - I'm sure it will be raised under AOCB

[andyburnett]

Just to note, I have PM'ed both Alex G. and Walter B. about this matter but the messages seem to be taking forever to leave my outbox!

[Patrick McGovern]

Alex Gillies;

Motion 2 Its unfair to raise this now- the standards have ruled and as far as I know the issue was not part of the official complaint-I assume time barred. We do need a general policy on this issue going forward though as we should have one - I'm sure it will be raised under AOCB

this was discussed in some detail at the last Council meeting and a specific policy has been agreed and will be drawn up and applied to future events.

[KMcGeoch]

It may not be my place but having followed chess scotland agm etc I have to admit that I'm starting to get quite concerned about the state of chess in scotland. I'm not really into any chess politics and as far as I'm concerned only things that I consider important from a personal viewpoint are that congresses can continue to be organised and that yearly grading is carried out. Being a member of chess scotland also helps with FIDE ratings.

I've no idea how long this has been festering but it seems like several active people have been flinging mud at each other and to be honest I don't think either side comes off well at end of it. To make matters worse it seems that half the fights concern issues that have been covered up or are confidential so that any neutral third party can see little else other than open hostility and glimmers of facts/opinions. Unfortunately as it's constantly being brought up efforts to cover it up probably ends up closer to Streisand effect and as incidents don't seem to be getting dealt with to satisfaction of both sides I'm unsure we've got an end in sight. I'm probably overly cynical but I tend to get suspicious and paranoid when things are covered up so while I'm completely ignorant of facts I'm not exactly reassured...

All this infighting to me seems rather toxic and if someone was considering funding chess in scotland they'd flee in an instant after browsing here. Admittedly I don't know all the facts and what I know is guesswork, although if I understand correctly most of problematic issues were things that were previously dealt with by SJCA. If reversing 2001 merger means problems are quarantined it might already be a start.

I'll be perfectly honest and say that I do not want to go to AGM. However I am unsure if I should actually come if things are as bad as they seem and even then I don't know if my presence would help in slightest. I'll also note that it's a shame we're having all this trouble since in other aspects scottish chess has actually done very good work such as getting commonwealth games, strong scottish championships, scottish blitz etc so it's a shame that good work is getting overshadowed. Hopefully at end of AGM whoever is elected will help bring about harmony and stability into game while being inclusive of all factions.

[Hugh Brechin]

BTW Andy, sorry you didn't opt to run for that HD post you asked about (presume too late now?) I think you'd have done it well, and been a good addition to the team.

I don't think it's too late is it? I'm fairly sure candidates have been nominated from the floor in previous AGMs, and as it stands I don't think we have an HD candidate at all. Agree entirely that having Andy on board would be a very good thing, although it would make identifying CS directors by name even more difficult.

[Duncan Grassie]

Whenever I go back to this noticeboard I keep having to remind myself that all this fervour and debate circles around a pastime involving people moving bits of wood/plastic around the board (and one I still enjoy very much).

It would be great if one year at the AGM we could just get some new faces in who haven't been poisoned by the previous set of protagonists. The only way I can see this happening is by those who have been propagating the nonsense over the past few decades to voluntarily step back and give some space to some fresh new parents/organisers who haven't had these prejudices bedded in. Then maybe people like myself might return to chess.

Since I posted this many of the protagonists I mentioned have piled in on topics that have nothing to do with chess but have much to do with historic point scoring. Do you think that 95% of our membership have a strong opinion on an incident which we were not present to witness or has very little to do with the playing, teaching or organisation of chess? Please take your argument to a darkened room somewhere, sort it out yourselves and let someone else get on with the job of organising chess in Scotland.

I hate to stifle debate on this noticeboard particularly when there is much to be said about the organisation of chess tournaments and actual discussion of chess but it seems like most people just fancy a punch up. Every time these punch ups happen, I consider wading in with a comment like this one and then I realise that I too would become part of the problem.

What needs to happen is that these people need to realise they are propogating the problem, take themselves out of the game voluntarily and give someone else without the baggage a chance to run things. And everytime they feel like opening their mouths to open old wounds they have to catch their own tongues and realise that if they dont, then another generation of juniors, parents, volunteers will have to suffer the same old prejudices. Maybe after a couple of years of dignified debate we may see more people coming forward to become foot soldiers.

If you want to get a quality Sunday morning out in the Pentlands get up to ESOCs long o event in Penicuik which I notice an A McHarg of Interlopers has entered. I would love to spend it one day playing allegro chess again.

[Duncan Grassie]

I honestly believe that 95% of the Chess Scotland community who read this stuff react in the same manner as Kenny McGeoch's post above. There was also a post from Kevin Campbell a few months ago that i saw which summarised it nicely. Get on with the organising and stop the bickering, then we can finally work out how to bring all the footsoldiers back!

[StevieHilton]

Duncan,
Please read point 4 in my manifesto. I said that Chess Scotland will not move forward until it stops it's infighting.
Steve

[Jim Webster]

Steve

Manifesto Point 4
All very fine words but....
What you do not say is HOW you plan to deal with this issue.

I think I would personally like to see positive proposals and actions rather than ideals. We all know this infighting and bickering has to stop, but so far no one has come up with a positive method of resolving the issue now or in future. I'm sure that talking to people early during the squabble can help a bit, but as has been seen here it doesn't actually stop them posting anyway.