J T Melsom wrote: ↑Thu Jul 28, 2022 9:47 pm
… when I suggested his (sic) compromise motion was dishonest this shoehorning of stuff that was debateable into a composite motion was exactly what I objected to.
J T Melsom wrote: ↑Fri Jul 29, 2022 4:41 pm
I reflected on the previous exchanges and am satisfied that presenting what seems to be a false prospectus or argument might reasonably be regarded as dishonest. Dishonesty is a more nuanced charge than bare faced lying, and I've no grounds to suggest that.
I was unaware of any significant difference of meaning between “dishonesty” and “lying”, so I consulted a dictionary. It failed to enlighten me.
People frequently make compromises about motions being put before meetings in order to maximise their support. In this instance, the text above found favour with the ECF Council by 21 votes to 3.
The allegation that such a process is dishonest strikes me as palpably absurd. It might be a different matter if anything in the motion were factually incorrect, but I can find nothing which is.
Nevertheless the allegation could have very serious consequences for me. An arbiter who loses his reputation for integrity will not get work for very long.
Fortunately for me, the officers of the Grand Chess Tour, which provides the bulk of my income from arbiting, have too much sense to be influenced by a small minority of members of this Forum. I also have no reason to think that the members of the FIDE Arbiters’ Commission have any doubts as to my continuing worthiness to hold Category A status.
Nevertheless, being made to feel, not for the first time, like a crime suspect being interrogated under caution is not an experience that I wish to repeat.
I have no regrets about my involvement in the preparation of the resolution put to Council. But I do regret mentioning it on this Forum. On a future occasion I shall be more circumspect.