PDA

View Full Version : Item # 11 - CFC Discussion Boards – Usefulness



Bob Armstrong
10-01-2010, 08:22 AM
Item # 11 - CFC Discussion Boards – Usefulness

Introductory Post - by Phil Haley

1. Members’ CFC Chess Forum - We [ should ] discuss having a joint discussion board with Chess and Math...I posted a comment on both the CFC board and the Chess and Math board...re the recent Canadian Open in Toronto...there were 4 responses on the Chess and Math board and zero responses on the CFC board...it seems to me that we would have more participation and more effective discussion if we combined these two boards.

2. CFC Governors’ Discussion Board - We would probably get more discussion if we simplified the governors discussion board.....many of the bells and whistles seem unnecessary...they may be fine for the computer experts but for the average governor they probably make using the governors discussion board more difficult to use.

Bob Armstrong
10-01-2010, 08:23 AM
As to Phil’s 2 points in the introductory post, I would respond ( items 1 & 2 below ):

1. Governors’ Discussion Board - I do not find the Governors’ Discussion Board difficult to use. One can view and post very simply, without ever even using any of the extra “ bells and whistles “ – they are not needed to just view threads, and to post threads/replies. So it seems that the bells and whistles that Phil is commenting on, simply don’t have to be used, if someone is not interested, or not sure how. And it doesn’t affect at all their participation on the Board. However, I assume Phil is having some difficulty, and maybe he could draw his specific problems to the attention of Chris Mallon, who could look into whether any simple adjustments might be possible.

The Governors’ Board has become a valuable resource for a core group of about 33% of the governors – they come regularly, and debate issues with each other, and with the new executive, many of whom do attend ( some more regular than others ). And the Board is now integral to the new Governors’ On-line Quarterly Meetings. So it is my view that regardless of anything else, the Governors’ Board should stay as is – it is valuable to the CFC.

2. Members’ CFC Chess Chat Forum – It is my experience, that the CMA board and the CFC Board have now developed in different directions ( and maybe have always had different agendas, a valid point raised by Lyle ). Definitely the CMA board is the more popular. But since the CFC board has come into existence, fewer and fewer posts on the CMA board involve CFC issues and policy. The topics there have become more general chess topics – and it seems that if there is a CFC issue thread, there is little response, and there can sometimes ( often ? ) arise a strong anti-CFC tone, and a kind of negativity. I believe that the CFC members attending the CMA Board ( and who do not attend the CFC Board ), are generally less interested in serious CFC policy considerations, with longer, more complicated posts. And this is OK – chess politics is not every chess players cup of tea. Those members who want to debate CFC issues seriously do come to the members' CFC Chess Forum.

What has simultaneously happened on the members’ CFC Board, is that it now raises most CFC policy and administrative issues. And the core group of governors/CFC members who do come and view the posts, and post initiating posts/reply posts, enter into serious and positive dialogue on the issues. There is a noted absence of the negativity and flame-wars that we see too often on the CMA Board.

So I think the two boards now serve the Canadian chess community in two very different ways. And I think they both deserve to exist, despite some overlap sometimes. And I think it is an obligation on the CFC that it provide its governors/members with a CFC forum where the CFC policies and issues are discussed in a positive and constructive manner, and where governors and members dialogue with each other – the CFC is a national chess organization, and it should provide such a service to its governors and members.

3. Issue of Board Duplication: A Principle for Posting CFC Issues on Chess Discussion Boards

I have had numerous discussions on the value of the 2 CFC discussion boards ( CFC Governors' Discussion Board; members' CFC Chess Forum ) over the years since they were revived, at my request, after having been mothballed for some time. And I have had debates on the duplicative nature of having 3 discussion boards ( the 3rd main one is the CMA ChessTalk ). So I have developed for myself, to rationalize my postings, a general principle I try to follow:

“ for CFC matters, post only on the members’ CFC Chess Forum, where possible “.

( this is based on the argument that CFC, as a national chess organization, should make available for its governors and members, a positive and constructive setting for governors/members to dialogue/debate with each other specific CFC policies, issues and administrative decisions; this does not negate the positive contribution of the CMA ChessTalk for general chess item discussions )

1. If it is an issue where the poster is not concerned about a lot of traffic seeing the post, and wants to encourage visits to the CFC members’ Board, do not duplicate the post on ChessTalk. Also, governor-posters should not duplicate it on the Governors’ Discussion Board, because most dialogue, even between governors, should be on the members’ board, where the members can join in. It is legitimate to invite viewers to come to the CFC board to discuss CFC matters.
2. Sometimes, if someone specifically wants more governors to know about the member’s post than usual, have a governor post a notice on the Governors’ Board, directing traffic to the members’ board thread. This is important because there are still some governors who attend the Governors’ Board, who do not regularly attend the members’ board.
3. If it is really important to reach the most CFC members possible, then post only on ChessTalk, since it is by far the more popular and high traffic board. Do not duplicate it on the members’ CFC Board. It seems unnecessary, since CFC members who attend the members’ board on a regular basis, also attend ChessTalk on a regular basis. So you usually get all active CFC’ers by posting on ChessTalk. But Governors are another matter. There are a number of governors who go to the governors’ board, who don’t go to ChessTalk ( for some it seems to be some kind of principled thing – it’s a CMA Board; it’s usually full of garbage, it’s often anti-CFC; there are lots of flame wars, etc. ) So it is helpful to have a governor post on the CFC Governors’ Discussion Board, a notice to go to ChessTalk to see an important thread there.
4. Where a governor does not want to go public on an issue right away for some reason, and wants the issue kept confidential initially, then it is legitimate for the governor to just post on the Governors’ Board, to use its confidentiality aspect.

I feel that this approach minimizes duplication, yet recognizes the legitimate roles of all three boards.

Fred McKim
10-01-2010, 01:30 PM
The number of board members signed in per day on this board has increased from 21 or 22 in August to almost 30 now, although we could have an Olympic high going on.

Christopher Field
10-01-2010, 02:04 PM
Bob Armstrong's analysis is very thorough.
There is good reason to maintain both CFC boards along with ChessTalk.

Mark S. Dutton, I.A.
10-01-2010, 02:25 PM
Bob Armstrong's analysis is very thorough.
There is good reason to maintain both CFC boards along with ChessTalk.

I agree.

2 organizations.

2 boards.

this is not an issue -- leave it status quo.

Egidijus Zeromskis
10-01-2010, 02:35 PM
this is not an issue -- leave it status quo.

As everything, the board/forum should be improved allowing insert diagrams and games easily. (and it would sign that the CFC is not only politics :D

Christopher Mallon
10-01-2010, 09:33 PM
Well, with a small infusion of cash ($60 USD I believe) we could upgrade to a newer version of the software. For one thing that would cut WAY down on the number of SPAM accounts I have to kill every day (50-150). Second, it would give us more customizing options such as being able to use FEN diagrams as Chesstalk does. I'm not 100% sure about a games viewer... in theory it should be possible, in practice I'm not sure if anyone has made on that works with vB yet. It's quite possible though.

I don't think of the Governors board and the CFC Public Board as two separate boards. It's one site that happens to have a few different forums on it, but you can see them all at the same site (the New Posts button at the top is especially useful for this).

Another site I run has over 1500 different forums attached to the single web address. It's still just one discussion board though.

Aris Marghetis
10-03-2010, 02:52 AM
If I may suggest, Phil's points were valid in that he feels that way. There must be others who share one or more of those views, and yet we seem to just be discounting them. I believe it makes sense that a silent majority of people would prefer less forums. I personally find it especially frustrating to follow similar trails in more than one place. If the forums are genuinely diverging, that wouldn't happen so often, right? Anyway, just food for thought, regardless of the current frustration, I could live with status quo.

Valer Eugen Demian
10-03-2010, 11:47 PM
Also agree each organization to continue having its own board. Upgrading ours for 60USD seems a good investment!

Christopher Mallon
10-04-2010, 05:40 AM
OK, we can upgrade for $50 USD as it turns out.

I won't be back on before 9pm quite likely, so I'll go ahead and make a motion:



That the CFC upgrade its forum software at a cost of $50 USD.

Background: The CFC forum software is quite old and requires a lot of effort to keep spam-free, which new software does by itself. Also, new software will allow for new features such as FEN diagrams built in and possibly a PGN games viewer (not yet confirmed).



If someone will second that, Bob can add it to the motions list.

Fred McKim
10-04-2010, 08:23 AM
Chris: I wonder if we shouldn't wait on that until we see what comes as part of the web site package.

Egidijus Zeromskis
10-04-2010, 08:36 AM
...
I'll go ahead and make a motion:

That the CFC upgrade its forum software at a cost of $50 USD.

Background: The CFC forum software is quite old and requires a lot of effort to keep spam-free, which new software does by itself. Also, new software will allow for new features such as FEN diagrams built in and possibly a PGN games viewer (not yet confirmed).

If someone will second that, Bob can add it to the motions list.

I second it.

Egidijus Zeromskis
10-04-2010, 08:38 AM
Chris: I wonder if we shouldn't wait on that until we see what comes as part of the web site package.

Probably in the package the bidder will charge more than 50 for this feature :D (installation, configuration, tweaking, testing = 1-2 hours (min) * ($50-100 rate))

Fred McKim
10-04-2010, 08:44 AM
The point is why not wait and see. If a seamless forum / discussion board is available with the web site, that might be the route we want to go.

I would think the president might rule this motion out of order, for the time being.

Bob Armstrong
10-04-2010, 08:46 AM
Hi Chris & Egis:

I will now start a new supplementary motion thread for your motion. It will be :

Motion 2011-C - Upgrade to CFC Discussion Forums

Moved: Chris Mallon; Seconded : Egis Zeromskis

That the CFC upgrade its forum software at a cost of $50 USD.

Background: The CFC forum software is quite old and requires a lot of effort to keep spam-free, which new software does by itself. Also, new software will allow for new features such as FEN diagrams built in and possibly a PGN games viewer (not yet confirmed).

Bob

Ken Craft
10-04-2010, 08:54 AM
I agree with Phil Haley's analysis.

Garland Best
10-04-2010, 09:30 AM
Uh, guys, do we really need a motion to spend a measly $50?

To me this falls within the mandate of the executive and the office administration to govern day-to-day operations. Issuing motions is overkill.

Lyle Craver
10-04-2010, 09:44 PM
Well yes it IS an issue because it is not currently linked to the main CFC web page and thus is inaccessible to most everybody who does not already know about it!

How that is not completely problematical is beyond me.

Lyle Craver
10-06-2010, 04:48 AM
By the way I agree with Mr. Best's comment that a motion should not be necessary to spend $50 though support whatever means is considered best to upgrade the software in the way Chris proposes.