Posts: 56
Threads: 22
Joined: Dec 2017
Reputation:
1
Hi there,
I was involved in an interesting discussion last night regarding the Forum and different views on what constitutes an active Forum.
I am of the view that the Forum serves a practical function of those seeking to communicate with the Chess Scotland community being able to do so fairly easily and quickly. It is separate from any other web application so doesn't exclude anybody who isn't on Facebook, Twitter/X, Instagram etc.
I was interested in different views on the Forum - some of which suggested that the Forum is 'dead' - presumably by us no longer living in the days of openly castigating each other in debates that often got personal in a place easily accessible for all to see.
I'm happy with the Forum as it is but I thought I'd post this to see what other views on the Forum are out there in the wider Chess Scotland membership. What are your thoughts?
Posts: 979
Threads: 92
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation:
1
My silence is purely that I will get into trouble if I say anything.
Posts: 899
Threads: 124
Joined: May 2012
Reputation:
4
I agree with Jim sometimes it does appear to be a witch hunt when differing views are expressed. I'm not surprised people give up on the forum through frustration. |For example unless its personal name calling i always respect an opposing view, it may be wrong in my opinion but I still respect it!
Posts: 979
Threads: 92
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation:
1
I will stick my neck out and repeat what I said on facebook and get into trouble then.
The management board all want zoom meetings where one person is in charge and we have superficial conversations.
They should be reduced.
Let's return to face to face meetings where conversations are deep and meaningful.
The management board will then say I am a dinosaur who doesn't move with the times and therefore question my competence..
Posts: 430
Threads: 41
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation:
5
Andy, Any meeting should have a person in charge. There should be only one person speaking at a time.
However, where I agree with you is in the social interaction that occurs outside of the meeting. The tea-break can be the most important part of a meeting where informal chats take place and ideas can be exchanged. More importantly, it allows people to put faces to names and to form relationships.
Online meetings do allow for people from all over Scotland to take part. It is no fun to travel 3 hours each way for a 2 hour meeting. More importantly, the driver will be less refreshed so contribution may be limited. They can also allow those in poorer health to attend, and we do have an aging population!
I'm not sure what the right proportion of face to face v Zoom meetings is. Perhaps the face to face could be less formal to accentuate their advantages.
I held an informal meeting with parents at the Glorney, perhaps a similar style meeting at the Scottish would be useful.
Posts: 979
Threads: 92
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation:
1
Alex
I would argue that the AGM is the most important meeting of the year for those not on the Management Board to interact with those who are.
The most important chess tournament in Scotland each year is the Scottish Championship.
I hope you will agree that the Scottish Championship should not be online and that you will commit to next year's AGM to be in person too.
I sympathise with those who have a long way to travel or are unhealthy.
You and I have both travelled to Hastings so long distance is possible.
Options are hybrid meetings and proxy voting.
The resignations of Alan Tate and Ian Brownlee and the unfilled posts are not encouraging.
The juniors are doing well but an ageing adult team (three of the recent European Team players were record holders!) is also concerning.
The sponsorship gap between Scotland and England is also an issue.
