It also features a picture of Joseph Conlon as one of the winners.Here's my entry for the free entry to the Northumbria Masters -
https://photos.google.com/share/AF1QipP ... VwYlJydWlB
http://chess-results.com/tnr472779.aspx?lan=1&art=1
It also features a picture of Joseph Conlon as one of the winners.Here's my entry for the free entry to the Northumbria Masters -
https://photos.google.com/share/AF1QipP ... VwYlJydWlB
What's your point, callerJohn Upham wrote: ↑Thu Jul 29, 2021 12:03 pmPerhaps these elections are inherently flawed and some other means of appointing / electing representatives should be employed?
Obviously, we don't want the wrong candidate to be elected.
At least the Silver members got to vote; the rest of us didn't get a choice of candidateJohn Upham wrote: ↑Thu Jul 29, 2021 12:03 pmRoger de Coverly wrote: ↑Thu Jul 29, 2021 11:51 amCompared to the number of Silver members, very few voted. That Tim Wall topped the poll isn't the cause for self congratulation and the mandate for change he makes out.John Upham wrote: ↑Thu Jul 29, 2021 11:45 amAre you explaining TWs election (that nobody wanted to happen apparently) on the basis that not enough people voted?
Perhaps these elections are inherently flawed and some other means of appointing / electing representatives should be employed?
Obviously, we don't want the wrong candidate to be elected.
He writes and acts the way he writes and acts regardless of how you personally may have interacted with him.Andrew Zigmond wrote: ↑Fri Jul 30, 2021 12:34 am. He is certainly not the "belligerent bully" described upthread.
It's true though, isn't it? The few years before that were distinguished by a whole series of scandals and disasters, exacerbated by the inability of English chess ever to spot a wrong 'un. And it might be as well not to reinforce the culture of refusing to see what is there right in front of our faces.Paul Cooksey wrote: ↑Fri Jul 30, 2021 6:15 amI think describing the ECF as inept in 2015 reinforces a culture where the right way to campaign is to play the man not the ball.
Not forgetting that they had two votes each.Paul Cooksey wrote: ↑Fri Jul 30, 2021 6:15 am168 votes out of 2300 silver member is a low turnout of course.
All silver members received a notification of the election by email with the election addresses attached.Kevin Thurlow wrote: ↑Fri Jul 30, 2021 8:58 am"Michael has said 90 members voted, so out of 2300 that's a very low turnout"
If only 4 % bother to vote, that's scarcely a ringing endorsement. On the other hand, most of the 2300 probably have no idea who any of the candidates is.
Despite the risk of an accusation of being a professional nit-picker (a former occupational hazard - I'm a retired teacher!) there were 3,076 silver members on 24 February 2021, so 90 members voting equates to less than 3%. The 2,300 figure doesn't include 772 Junior Free Silver Members. Of course, the figure for silver members in July is presumably greater than 3,076, so the percentage voting is lower still.Michael Farthing wrote: ↑Fri Jul 30, 2021 9:16 amAll silver members received a notification of the election by email with the election addresses attached.Kevin Thurlow wrote: ↑Fri Jul 30, 2021 8:58 am"Michael has said 90 members voted, so out of 2300 that's a very low turnout"
If only 4 % bother to vote, that's scarcely a ringing endorsement. On the other hand, most of the 2300 probably have no idea who any of the candidates is.
(EDIT: Obviously there may be errors and I believe a very small number where we do not have an email contact)
I don't want to "play the man not the ball" but my sole experience of the 2015 ECF CEO was having to go to FIDE in connection with a decision made at the previous year's British championships. The then CEO publicly claimed to have looked into the matter and to have decided everything was in order. When the matter came before FIDE, FIDE promptly amended the Laws of Chess so that no such decision could be made [whether by the ECF or anyone else] in future. I'm not in a position to assess whether the then CEO was a liar or simply lacked the intellect to realise he was being misled but, either way, the incident convinced me that he was not the man to lead the ECF. People are entitled to hold different views on the present CEO but I wouldn't expect a similar debacle to be allowed to happen under his tenure.Paul Cooksey wrote: ↑Fri Jul 30, 2021 6:15 amI disagree with Andrew of course. I think describing the ECF as inept in 2015 reinforces a culture where the right way to campaign is to play the man not the ball.
168 votes out of 2300 silver member is a low turnout of course. But it also isn't a particularly high profile position. If, say, 20% of members were willing to vote in elections for Directors I'd think that was preferable to Council.
If that's about whether it's possible to award players one and half points for a single game, a precedent had already been set at the 2010 British in the Major Open and it was regarded as an acceptable practice by British arbiters. The rules for qualification for the British the following year had already been changed to be based on absolute score rather than relative position. Had they still been based on position, anyone squeezed out by the award of extra points would have had valid cause for complaint.Roger Lancaster wrote: ↑Fri Jul 30, 2021 10:59 amThe then CEO publicly claimed to have looked into the matter and to have decided everything was in order. When the matter came before FIDE, FIDE promptly amended the Laws of Chess so that no such decision could be made [whether by the ECF or anyone else] in future.