Ordinary Member/Governor Dialogue

[Ken Craft]

Is that a question for Eric, Chris?

[Christopher Mallon]

Yup .

[Bob Gillanders]

This thread was started by Bob Armstrong to promote dialogue between CFC officials and their membership. It did just that.

I got a question answered about the condo money, Steve got a question answered about the magazine, Ken got his question about why we need a CFC public board discussed. Excellent.

Then the discussion got around to censorship of posts. Eric expressed his wish that members first express their criticisms thru official channels before posting on chesstalk and thus avoid excessive "washing all our dirty laundry in public". Ken, naturally objected to any hint of censorship. In my opinion, both gentlemen were making some valid points. But now.....

the inevitable escalation of hostilities. KS has "gone over the top" and now has compared Prez VanDusen's call for responsible postings to Nazi propoganda.

I ask, is there no room in the chess community for reasoned debate?

[Eric Van Dusen]

Is this all in response to some apparent threat by Kevin Spraggett to sue the CFC?

My suggestion of policy is based in part on Spraggett's threats, but also the situation in Kingston where two members in a leadership capacity hired lawyers to deal with damaging comments posted on a public board.

In addition, I am attempting to professionalize the CFC in its aim to promote chess in Canada. One part of the strategy is a Fund Raising Committee of which one member, Gary Gladstone, is a professional fundraiser.

Larry Bevand runs a public posting board regarding chess but he or Chess and Math use it on an occasional basis. I would think Larry sleeps well at night knowing how members of the CFC use his board to impact the reputation of the CFC negatively. The reputation of a corporation is an asset. I have a responsibility as well as the governors to protect and promote any asset that the CFC has. What I am saying is just a logical extension of corporate governance.

From time to time I surf Chesstalk, much of the comments are unreasoned, unreasonable, unprofessional, destructive, and damaging to the public perception of chess as a game, to members of the CFC, and to the CFC as a corporation. How can the CFC garner corporate sponsorship if its reputation is so battered by such comments? The CFC has public boards as well as a Governor’s board but few Governors use it.

With regard to public posts, all that I am requesting is that someone give some thought to the following questions:
1) Have I exhausted all private methods to get my concerns heard?
2) Is my post constructive to the basic aim of the CFC, which is to promote chess?
3) Is my intention to help chess or is to hear my own voice?

While I could think of more guiding questions, I believe this a starting point.

[Eric Van Dusen]

This thread was started by Bob Armstrong to promote dialogue between CFC officials and their membership. It did just that.

I got a question answered about the condo money, Steve got a question answered about the magazine, Ken got his question about why we need a CFC public board discussed. Excellent.

Then the discussion got around to censorship of posts. Eric expressed his wish that members first express their criticisms thru official channels before posting on chesstalk and thus avoid excessive "washing all our dirty laundry in public". Ken, naturally objected to any hint of censorship. In my opinion, both gentlemen were making some valid points. But now.....

the inevitable escalation of hostilities. KS has "gone over the top" and now has compared Prez VanDusen's call for responsible postings to Nazi propoganda.

I ask, is there no room in the chess community for reasoned debate?

Hi Bob,

I hardly want to stifle reasoned debate and the proliferation of good ideas.

I will take a case in point. A governor, which is attending an international tournament, needs the CFC office to help with the registration. The first time I hear about this issue is a public post. It would have been better to contact the CFC office first.

I do not mind answering questions of information. That is part of my job. I also know full well that communication is also part of my job. Communication has been hampered recently by a number of factors including the breakdown of the website and the breakdown of my laptop. Even when hindrances to not exist, I, however do request that a reasonable amount of time to respond.

I find it upsetting that someone would compare myself to a Nazi but KS has just proved my point about irresponsible comments damaging the reputation of a person and a corporation.

[roger patterson]

Larry Bevand runs a public posting board regarding chess but he or Chess and Math use it on an occasional basis. I would think Larry sleeps well at night knowing how members of the CFC use his board to impact the reputation of the CFC negatively.

as well as your previous remarks about David Lavin.


Perhaps you could lead by example and refrain from making spurious perjorative comments about individuals yourself.

[Christopher Mallon]

My suggestion of policy is based in part on Spraggett's threats, but also the situation in Kingston where two members in a leadership capacity hired lawyers to deal with damaging comments posted on a public board.

Wow, those two are still going at it? That situation has been re-filed at every single new CFC President since Halldor's time.

[Ken Craft]

Kevin has called out the President on this topic on his blog today.

[Eric Van Dusen]

Be that as it may, Michael made the choice to work with me as president. He calculated that I had a leadership style that was easier to work with than the “burn-baby-burn” style of David Lavin.

Speaking of “burn-baby-burn”, it strikes me that Spraggett has sacrificed a confidence and a friendship

Hi Dr. Patterson,

I would like to refer you to Kevin Spraggett's Blog entitled "CFC Election: A Two Horse Race", posted on July 2, 2009,where the following was written:

1) What was thought of at first as confidence from David has since been revealed as mere arrogance.
2) Then followed a Portrait of David Lavin with the caption, 'Burn baby burn' leadership style.

My attempt at a little humor using Kevin Spraggett's words of disappointment with David Lavin had reminded me of the kettle calling the teapot black, but perhaps I am the only the one that got burned.

Regarding Larry Bevand's sleeping habits, I have had early morning meetings with Larry, and he appears to be refreshed and in good spirits.My supposition is that he had slept well the night before.

I was trying to leaven the bread with a little jocularity, but perhaps the laugh was on me.

I will quit while I am behind.

[Ken Craft]

This exchange underscores the futility of any speech policy.