Posts: 1,003
Threads: 101
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation:
1
Having received the motions from Andy Muir last night, I read them and then discussed them with a few people on here whose opinions I regard highly.
I don't intend to post the motions for a couple of reasons.
Firstly, I don't think they are in any real way a positive step towards progressing chess in Scotland,
and secondly, I don't see anything in them that would prevent Robert Montgomery (the proposer of the motions) or Andy Muir (the seconder) or anyone else for that matter, from posting them themselves, so therefore there is no need for me to do so, particularly as I don't particularly agree with them!
I would say to them though, that there are far better and more positive ways to word/direct the motion and would urge them to re-think their approach and raise their concerns under AOCB at the AGM in a more constructive fashion.
Regards,
Andy Burnett
Posts: 370
Threads: 16
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation:
0
"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."
Jim,
The one thing that the President has to do is listen. I would talk to those who are bickering with an open mind.
For reconciliation to happen, both sides in the argument have to be open minded. If either side went into talks with a set position, then the talks will be doomed to failure and the arguments will go on and that will hurt the whole of the chess community. I would not be prepared to talk if I had to take a set position beforehand. You have to be open minded about things.
The officers of CS have to be focus and authority of all chess in Scotland and be respected
I do endorse a lot of what Kenny, Duncan and Kevin have said in their postings
Posts: 408
Threads: 39
Joined: Aug 2011
Walter
I make no claim to any real truth in my observation - it was just a thought based on a flying visit - and it was certainly not meant to deny many of the genuine past and present grievances that underlie the troubles.
However I understand from my parents, who have visited N Ireland on a regular basis over the last 50 years, that the vast majority of the troubles were (and are) in, and between, the poorer areas - the more well to do areas being less involved.
I generally agree with the points you make about bias etc but is there any actual proof of significant actual bias? My fear is that many people assume bias simply because a case went against them. They have judged matters based on a one sided view of the facts, which may not even be first hand. I hasten to add here that I do not know whether they are actually right or wrong nor anything about the rights or wrongs of the specific case.
If it does highlight weaknesses in the system then the evidence must be presented and action should certainly taken to correct them.
One problem I think you will always have in such a small community, where everyone knows everyone, it will be almost impossible to find a group of people who do not know those involved in the complaint and handle be open to an accusation of bias. Perhaps the best one can achieve is hope that the various biases of individual SC members cancel out so that in some respect the committee as whole is unbiased!
I was going to suggest that there might be a need for a completely independent person (lawyer) to act as court of last appeal, however a. that would be expensive and b. I believe that it would not solve the over all problem of the lack of trust in the system.
Posts: 207
Threads: 12
Joined: Jun 2013
Reputation:
1
Hi
good to see manifesto's coming through (Callum)
It would be good if they were all in one place so we can see it taking shape and see the gaps are - Not sure who to ask to do this?
Also does Hamish post and/or use the forum himself - if not why not? (Sorry if he has - I am still learning how to use posting etc)
Posts: 408
Threads: 39
Joined: Aug 2011
Derek,
Quote:Surely it's up to the AGM to decide whether they are competent, and it should not be up to individual members at any level to make that decision and not give the AGM its place?
I would assume that it is part of someone's job spec. Someone has to decide whether a motion is competent, otherwise what would be the point of having rules to define what is competent and what is not?
Posts: 289
Threads: 7
Joined: Aug 2011
Alex Gillies Wrote:Also does Hamish post and/or use the forum himself - if not why not? (Sorry if he has - I am still learning how to use posting etc)
I don't believe Hamish has an account, no. I think it's definitely something that any CS director, and especially the President, should have - in his defence, this is truer now than it ever has been before, since there has been a very sizeable uptick in forum activity recently (it's also our first contested presidential race in I do not know how long). Despite my occasional moans about some of the things being said, that is a very good thing. It's also nice to see a number of new names joining the more established active posters. Hopefully Hamish himself will become part of this wave in the near future!
Random, disconnected thought - is it possible that the members-only status of the noticeboard has, perversely, increased poster activity? The possible justification for that - if you have to log in to read the forum, you're already closer to being able to reply and perhaps feel slightly more invested in the proceess. No idea if that's true or not, obviously.
Posts: 408
Threads: 39
Joined: Aug 2011
Robert
I agree. when rejecting a motion I would have thought it a good idea to explain the reason inorder to allow it to be made compliant and to be seen to be above board.
