7c. Women's CFC Titles (Moved/Seconded Vlad Drkulec / Julia Lacau-Rodean)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Christopher Mallon

No monetary cost perhaps. But it does further devalue the title of "Master".

---

I agree... Especially considering the current rating inflation.

From: Iulia Lacau-Rodean This sender is in your contact list.
Sent: April-04-13 7:26:06 PM
To: Vladimir Drkulec
Thank you for defending the motion on my behalf as well. I wasn't sure what the protocol was, whether as initiator you do get to participate in the debate or not. I did see you have couple of posts. Maybe I should comment something. I am quite outraged by some of the posts. This is why I haven't really posted anything on chess forums and stopped reading them for a while. Maybe I am not tough enough to deal with some of the harsh criticisms, esp having to refute people's views of how this motion would devalue the master's title, how it adds to the glass ceiling etc. What do they know about the chess glass ceiling anyways? None of the other governors have been stuck underneath it. Most of the girls I've spoken to all over the world have no problem competing in women's only events and obtaining titles for them. Lots of other sports are segregated by gender. As you said, if some women would be offended by the title, do not accept it.

I do urge that this motion be approved, it will be a great motivator for women in chess. How many active women are currently over 2100 CFC and less than 2200 CFC? Perhaps 3. 3 out of 100 women on the active list. That is 3%. What is so wrong with having another handful of women striving to achieve that goal (of the ones over 2000 CFC) and another perhaps 10 that are currently over 1900? How can anyone think it's detrimental to women's Canadian chess?

I am stumped.

Again, thanks for your time and effort put into this motion. Feel free to quote part or all of this on the forum.

Best wishes,
Iulia Lacau-Rodean
Women's Coordinator
Canadian Chess Federation

Sent from my iPhone

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir Drkulec

From: Iulia Lacau-Rodean This sender is in your contact list.
Sent: April-04-13 7:26:06 PM
To: Vladimir Drkulec
Thank you for defending the motion on my behalf as well. I wasn't sure what the protocol was, whether as initiator you do get to participate in the debate or not. I did see you have couple of posts. Maybe I should comment something. I am quite outraged by some of the posts. This is why I haven't really posted anything on chess forums and stopped reading them for a while. Maybe I am not tough enough to deal with some of the harsh criticisms, esp having to refute people's views of how this motion would devalue the master's title, how it adds to the glass ceiling etc. What do they know about the chess glass ceiling anyways? None of the other governors have been stuck underneath it. Most of the girls I've spoken to all over the world have no problem competing in women's only events and obtaining titles for them. Lots of other sports are segregated by gender. As you said, if some women would be offended by the title, do not accept it.

I do urge that this motion be approved, it will be a great motivator for women in chess. How many active women are currently over 2100 CFC and less than 2200 CFC? Perhaps 3. 3 out of 100 women on the active list. That is 3%. What is so wrong with having another handful of women striving to achieve that goal (of the ones over 2000 CFC) and another perhaps 10 that are currently over 1900? How can anyone think it's detrimental to women's Canadian chess?

I am stumped.

Again, thanks for your time and effort put into this motion. Feel free to quote part or all of this on the forum.

Best wishes,
Iulia Lacau-Rodean
Women's Coordinator
Canadian Chess Federation

Sent from my iPhone

---

It's good to hear from you on this, Iulia.

I believe this thread should have been closed once the poll was put up on the site - so maybe we can just let her have the last word !!

I do not see the need for Women titles, but I will trust the Women's Coordinator.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fred McKim

I believe this thread should have been closed once the poll was put up on the site - so maybe we can just let her have the last word !!

---

We've never done that before, why would we start now?

Regardless of prior practice, I think that "closing" should be the practice - like no campaigning once the voting starts. The voters should be left alone to figure out their vote once the voting starts - no more debate propaganda to try to influence them. Close all the motion discussion threads once voting starts.

Those that want to continue the discussion can go to the Governors' Discussion Board.

My 2 cents.

Bob A

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Armstrong

Regardless of prior practice, I think that "closing" should be the practice - like no campaigning once the voting starts. The voters should be left alone to figure out their vote once the voting starts - no more debate propaganda to try to influence them. Close all the motion discussion threads once voting starts.

Those that want to continue the discussion can go to the Governors' Discussion Board.

My 2 cents.

Bob A

---

In that case any "campaigning" merely moves to the Governors' Discussion Board (or other message board forums, or emails, phone calls...). It might reduce the number of votes swayed late, due to the general(?) tendency of people not to go out of their way much.

Fred McKim: I believe this thread should have been closed once the poll was put up on the site - so maybe we can just let her have the last word !!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Christopher Mallon

We've never done that before, why would we start now?

---

Some might argue this thread sometimes has not been for the faint of heart.

Hi Kevin:

Agreed - the discussions can go on elsewhere. That's OK.

What's not OK is having them posted here, where the voting booth is.

And I think you are correct that late voters likely will generally not go elsewhere - just be coming here to vote.

Bob A