English Chess Forum

post by JustinHorton » Fri Apr 23, 2021 5:18 pm

Once again, there are often reasons why anonymity is acceptable but I cannot see how any of them apply here. We have no idea of the provenance of these emails and to produce them here, anonymously, as you have done is a pretty dirty way to play a campaign.

Justin,

John Reyes should have been copied in as the other Silver rep, so I'm sure the emails are genuine

Were you John?

Good to have that validation. I have to admit that I was starting to worry Tim had been targeted by a Kremlin spambot.

Michael Farthing wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 23, 2021 5:41 pm

Were you John?

Hi all

I have just finished work and i was going to email Tim with the people who have message me with their names

I have received a list from Tim wall with all the comments and it up to tim to highlight it.

However there is no names on the people, so I don't know their names or email address, as well as if there are a Silver member or not.

Does that answer your question?

You'd also want to know - has Tim received permission, from the people who apparently sent them, to use their emails in this way? Did he ask each person whether it was OK to reproduce them here, and whether or not their names should be attached?

I note Tim Wall's of 3:55

The phrase 'the inertia of incumbency' is mine, used in an e-mail of 21 April to both Tim and to John Reyes, lobbying them on how to vote at Council (I am a Silver Member).

My use of the phrase should not be used to make assumptions about my particular views.

PB

An excellent turn of phrase, if I may say so; but I will just say I think Mr Truran does an excellent job.

To be fair Tim's approach is not new as a former bronze member's representative took a similar approach. While he didn't bring responses from his constituents on to this forum he did publish them in a spreadsheet that was then placed in the public domain. It is important for members to be represented and for their voices and opinions to be heard.

However I stand by my point that the issue about director's terms is being blown out of proportion. Directors are being term limited (which they weren't before), the articles of association need amending for that to be possible, and a vote of council is needed to ratify it. It could very probably be dispatched quickly at the actual meeting.

We're also being told that the ECF should do more to develop chess (or restart it after the pandemic) but it's noticeable that when the question of how they should actually do that is raised people suddenly go very quiet.

Andrew Zigmond wrote: ↑

Sat Apr 24, 2021 12:07 am

To be fair Tim's approach is not new as a former bronze member's representative took a similar approach.

I think this case has some differences. We are in the difficult situation where we do not know if the response are all from different people, and we do not know what dissenting views were shared.

Although it is a point on which I have very significant differences with Justin, I agree that generally if you are campaigning to get support for a controversial position there is an expectation of transparency. "Here are some interesting views from members" and "I have overwhelming support that some Directors should stand down" are two very different positions.

And there is also the question of whether or not the quoted people were asked whether their views should be used in this particular way.

Is it just me or is there always high drama around all of Tim Walls political manoeuvres? If he were to one day run the ecf, it would probably be via twitter and a press secretary (YOU'RE FIRED!)

Nick Burrows wrote: ↑

Sat Apr 24, 2021 8:36 am

Is it just me or is there always high drama around all of Tim Walls political manoeuvres? If he were to one day run the ecf, it would probably be via twitter and a press secretary (YOU'RE FIRED!)

The wailing Wall.

Paul Cooksey wrote: ↑

Sat Apr 24, 2021 6:27 am

Andrew Zigmond wrote: ↑

Sat Apr 24, 2021 12:07 am

To be fair Tim's approach is not new as a former bronze member's representative took a similar approach.

I think this case has some differences. We are in the difficult situation where we do not know if the response are all from different people, and we do not know what dissenting views were shared.

Although it is a point on which I have very significant differences with Justin, I agree that generally if you are campaigning to get support for a controversial position there is an expectation of transparency. "Here are some interesting views from members" and "I have overwhelming support that some Directors should stand down" are two very different positions.

I've already pointed out that the view that people holding high office should be forced to stand down after 4-6 years isn't one that's held in the business community. It's maybe also worth pointing out that, if that view were held by the wider UK population, neither Tony Blair nor Margaret Thatcher would have been re-elected, after 8 years, to serve a third term in office. Based on a rather larger sample - many million, in fact, as opposed to Tim's handful - it seems that more people are prepared to see others serve in high office for long periods than hold the opposing view.

"Those of us with longer memories will recall that while one former executive President did seem to wish to cling to office with limited accountability,"

Just the one?

As for the reported messages to Tim, how many different people do they represent? I recall a US chess forum, where someone used to post under loads of different aliases. That is only a casual enquiry, as the fragments of emails don't mean anything anyway, as already stated elsewhere.

The trouble with politics is that whether it's some sort of government or just a sports/social club, you get someone enthusiastically screaming that everyone has to what the screamer tells them.

Roger Lancaster wrote: ↑

Sat Apr 24, 2021 10:00 am

Paul Cooksey wrote: ↑

Sat Apr 24, 2021 6:27 am

Andrew Zigmond wrote: ↑

Sat Apr 24, 2021 12:07 am

To be fair Tim's approach is not new as a former bronze member's representative took a similar approach.

I think this case has some differences. We are in the difficult situation where we do not know if the response are all from different people, and we do not know what dissenting views were shared.

Although it is a point on which I have very significant differences with Justin, I agree that generally if you are campaigning to get support for a controversial position there is an expectation of transparency. "Here are some interesting views from members" and "I have overwhelming support that some Directors should stand down" are two very different positions.

I've already pointed out that the view that people holding high office should be forced to stand down after 4-6 years isn't one that's held in the business community. It's maybe also worth pointing out that, if that view were held by the wider UK population, neither Tony Blair nor Margaret Thatcher would have been re-elected, after 8 years, to serve a third term in office. Based on a rather larger sample - many million, in fact, as opposed to Tim's handful - it seems that more people are prepared to see others serve in high office for long periods than hold the opposing view.

When me and michael was silver reps, we have a list of which members sent it in to check and I will be sending the names to tim in a minute