Communication Strategy

[Jonathan Bryant]

You can play with words but it is what it is. You can call me a member, but if I do not have voting rights and no direct representation and if I need to pay to get services from the ECF....

Well, your dissatisfaction with this state of affairs is entirely to the point. A member? No that doesn’t seem quite right either, I agree. But, 'customer'? No. Not, at least, in any meaningful sense of the work in a free market society.

Your Tax Office example is just another example (albeit in a different way) of the misuse of 'customer’ that has become more and more frequent since I was an undergraduate. I can give you another - when I was working as a Social Worker there was for a brief time (mercifully) a fad for referring to the people who used social services as 'customers'. This was economically illiterate in the same way that referring to ECF 'members' as customers is:- no freedom of movement to alternative service providers, no (real) choice in whether or not they got to consume the service.

[Paolo Casaschi]

You can play with words but it is what it is. You can call me a member, but if I do not have voting rights and no direct representation and if I need to pay to get services from the ECF....

Well, your dissatisfaction with this state of affairs is entirely to the point. A member? No that doesn’t seem quite right either, I agree. But, 'customer'? No. Not, at least, in any meaningful sense of the work in a free market society.

I guess you either suggest an more appropriate termthan "member" and "customer" or we'll have to create a competitive organization to the ECF in order to make the term "customer" appropriate.

[Michael Flatt]

The use of jargon words like customer or stakeholder doesn't really cut the ice.

As Michael Farthing noted many posts earlier 'member' remains the most appropriate term.

[Roger de Coverly]

As Michael Farthing noted many posts earlier 'member' remains the most appropriate term.

I would have thought player, competitor or participant was the appropriate term. It's necessary to pay an annual fee to the ECF to be allowed to take part. The ECF terms it "membership" but it doesn't give any rights to participate in the governance of said body, which the term member sometimes or even usually implies.

Rather than being inwards looking to the 10,000 who annually pay it a fee, or even the 15,000 who play at least one graded game a year, why should the ECF not be looking to the several million, that at least some, including a current director of the ECF, believe are out there playing chess?

[Brian Towers]

You can play with words but it is what it is. You can call me a member, but if I do not have voting rights and no direct representation and if I need to pay to get services from the ECF....

Well, your dissatisfaction with this state of affairs is entirely to the point. A member? No that doesn’t seem quite right either, I agree. But, 'customer'? No. Not, at least, in any meaningful sense of the work in a free market society.

Your Tax Office example is just another example (albeit in a different way) of the misuse of 'customer’ that has become more and more frequent since I was an undergraduate. I can give you another - when I was working as a Social Worker there was for a brief time (mercifully) a fad for referring to the people who used social services as 'customers'. This was economically illiterate in the same way that referring to ECF 'members' as customers is:- no freedom of movement to alternative service providers, no (real) choice in whether or not they got to consume the service.

This is another example of the widespread contagion of conflation, driven by the politically correct, which is trying to turn our language into 1984-style "Newspeak".

[Paolo Casaschi]

This is another example of the widespread contagion of conflation, driven by the politically correct, which is trying to turn our language into 1984-style "Newspeak".

What I'm arguing is that calling chess player as members when they do not have the basic member's rights (voting rights) is even more 1984-style "Newspeak".

Maybe "subscriber" is a better term than "member" and "customer"...

[Clive Blackburn]

Maybe "subscriber" is a better term than "member" and "customer"...

I would suggest "service user" but unfortunately that term is already in common use to refer to those using health and social care services.

[NickFaulks]

I remember when I played my first FIDE event (in France) I had been registered by mistake as Belgian and I had to argue to get this corrected. Ultimately I got the impression that nobody checked any nationality claim at the time. They might be stricter now.

That's a different issue. Incorrect initial registrations can be a problem, and the player is generally given the benefit of the doubt - though it is irritating when players take part in six rated events over three years before "noticing" that their federation is wrong.

In your case, if BEL didn't want you, ITA did, and to cap it all you have an Italian sounding name, I wouldn't have expected much resistance.

[Michael Flatt]

The ECF system of Governance follows the Parliamentry Model.

Individual players are represented on the ECF Council (i.e the ECF Parliament) by their elected County representatives. Leagues, Congresses and Regional Chess Unions also have representatives on Council .

The CEO and management Board are appointed by Council.

[Paolo Casaschi]

In your case, if BEL didn't want you, ITA did, and to cap it all you have an Italian sounding name, I wouldn't have expected much resistance.

My impression from that episode was that I got changed to ITA only because I complained, otherwise nobody would have bothered about me being BEL (why would they anyway? )

[John McKenna]

Maybe "subscriber" is a better term than "member" and "customer"...

I would suggest "service user" but unfortunately that term is already in common use to refer to those using health and social care services.

In chess speak 'customer' is somewhat derogatory since it means a player against whom one invariably wins and hardly ever loses. In that sense we are all 'customers' of the ECF. When things get bad 'customers' become 'punters' and when they get really bad 'marks' or 'mugs'.

I agree with those who have said 'players' is the best word to use, and to describe those who are registered with the official body 'registered players'. Just so nobody forgets 'fee-paying registered players' should fit the bill for those of us who foot the bill and should be used in all the ECF's official communications - e.g. Dear fee-paying registered player(s)... - and documents.

[Paolo Casaschi]

The ECF system of Governance follows the Parliamentry Model.

In order to make this work the ECF would have to enforce strict rules on their member associations for the election of the council members. At the moment, I'm supposed to be represented in the ECF council by my county/leagues/congresses representatives, however I do not necessarily have a clear say in the appointment of those county/leagues/congresses representatives.

an indirect representation model can work; for example in the governance model of the Italian Chess Federation all is much better defined:
- players are represented at the equivalent of council by their club representative
- in order to join the chess federation the clubs need to have governance model where their officials (including the representative at the council equivalent) are elected by the club members
- a player can only belong to one club
As a result, each player has one and only one clear representation path, with accountability.

[Michael Farthing]

I am not at all sure I agree with Paolo that members do not have members' rights in the ECF. I'm certainly not sure that such rights would be increased by OMOV. As well as considering the theoretical structure a democratic process must also be judged by the practical application.

Over the last three years the tiny aspect of OMOV already available has not been used once by the bronze and silver membership as no one has stood to be a direct member representative. Last year the Board appointed a member of Council in each of these categories: one of them a platinum life-member! This is not a ringing endorsement of having Council entirely selected by this means. If the OMOV was on a geographical basis with local constituecies there might be better success - but I think there might be a real danger of a very small Council - possibly consisting of current members who have swapped their organisation-based hats for a direct-member hat. And anyway, would these direct member reps really represent their constituents? Let's hope so - particularly any that may appear as a result of this year's forthcoming elections (or otherwise) for the position. At least one of them hopes to do so.

One of the big advantages of organisations being members of Council is that it roots the ECF structure as a federal enterprise of different chess playing fraternities. When central imposition of changes proves unpopular with the membership this generates discontent picked up by local organisers, who are highly involved with the game and frequently active players themselves. The current structure means that is this sort of person with direct influence on Council to bring about change. I do not think that the current structure of Council is ideal (by any means), but I think we underestimate the extent to which direct member views can be transmitted upwards through it. I agree that the structure of Council is far from ideal and I was pleasantly surprised by the quality of the Pearce report (which, I confess, I thought was going to be a pro Phil Ehr rubber stamp): in fact, it gives a very interesting analysis. The concern over proxies is an example of this - but even here one has to be circumspect. There is one collector of proxies whom I do not trust, but on the other hand, there is another whose attention to his sponsors' views cannot be any way faulted.

To my mind the essential problem is that we find it hard to get a choice of candidates for Board elections: perhaps because we are simply not prepared to pay enough for our hobby. If we want it run well we should recognise that paid officials are needed so that a choice of people will come forward to do the job. Similarly, if we want Council to be more effective, with a wider and larger participation of individuals attending, then money must be found for their expenses. Isn't this the real issues with proxies? A proxy with 49 other votes - that's only 1/50th of the expenses to be paid.

[John McKenna]

I am not at all sure I agree with Paolo that members do not have members' rights in the ECF. I'm certainly not sure that such rights would be increased by OMOV. As well as considering the theoretical structure a democratic process must also be judged by the practical application.

Over the last three years the tiny aspect of OMOV already available has not been used once by the bronze and silver membership as no one has stood to be a direct member representative. Last year the Board appointed a member of Council in each of these categories: one of them a platinum life-member! This is not a ringing endorsement of having Council entirely selected by this means. If the OMOV was on a geographical basis with local constituecies there might be better success - but I think there might be a real danger of a very small Council - possibly consisting of current members who have swapped their organisation-based hats for a direct-member hat. And anyway, would these direct member reps really represent their constituents? Let's hope so - particularly any that may appear as a result of this year's forthcoming elections (or otherwise) for the position. At least one of them hopes to do so....

Michael, if you insist on using the word 'member(s)' you should at least practise disambiguation by using appropriate adjectives - ECF member(s) and Council member(s).

Are you correct when saying -

Over the last three years the tiny aspect of OMOV already available has not been used once by the bronze and silver membership as no one has stood to be a direct member representative.

I thought that there had been some representation for those categories.

I agree that one good way forward would be to increase the number and hence the votes of Direct Member Reps (DMRs) by converting those Council members, such as the tournament organisers, who collect revenue directly from players into DMRs.

[John McKenna]

Further to my post above -

So it's true that "very few complaints of this nature have been received by these representatives", is it? Where exactly did that information come from? As it happens, many of the responses I got as a Bronze Members' Direct Representative for the Finance Council meeting suggested to me that the ECF is out of touch with ordinary league players. I know John Wakeham got similar responses as a Silver members' representative. During discussion at the meeting (of the proposal to increase membership fees) both John and I expressed concern on behalf of the members we represented.

For details see -

http://www.ecforum.org.uk/viewtopic.php ... ze#p164388