Grassroots' Campaign - Response to GL # 1

[Bob Armstrong]

Posted on CFC Chess Forum on Thursday, August 28:

An e-mail today from Bob Armstrong, Grassroots' Campaign Coordinator, to the original 20 " Endorsers " of the Grassroots' Platform, and other Grassroots' Supporters:

" Hi to All Grassroots’ Campaign Endorsers/Supporters:

I have now read 2008-9 GL # 1. I am delighted with the progress generally in the first month of 2008-9. It is significantly better than where things stood at the end of the Incoming Governors’ AGM on July 22.

It reflects some major positions of the Grassroots’ Campaign. Getting 5 out of 5 is not bad – the Governors are selling the retail business; they are selling the condominium office; they terminated Chess Canada ( print ) - the Governors did that by passing our straw vote motion at the Incoming Governors AGM in July. [ We did not take a position on what should take Chess Canada’s place, though we suggested an enhanced Canadian news website and a new CFC E-Bulletin. The governors are going with an On-line magazine. I would love to have one for the members, but I still feel the CFC finances cannot stand the cost of salary of an editor, and paying for articles. But since the governors seem so supportive of this initiative, I will wait and see what the finances look like after the restructuring, and see if the on-line magazine still contributes to a loss in future. ]; elimination of tournament memberships – straw vote passed at AGM; and new CFC’ers annual membership discount – straw vote passed at AGM.

In light of this, most of the 9 proposed grassroots follow-up “ binding “ motions I was working on are now no longer necessary ( they reflected the original 7 platform items you initially endorsed/supported – one got split into 2, and one had been added )..

There are still a few issues outstanding for the Grassroots’ Campaign, and I will be reviewing them. I already have movers/seconders for the 2 follow-up “ binding “ motions on the 2 straw vote motions on membership that got passed at the Incoming Governors’ AGM : Elimination of Tournament Memberships; First time CFC’ers annual membership fee discount of 40%. They are still necessary and I am preparing to send them in. There will be one more motion also associated with membership cost ( annual junior fee reduction – raised by me at the Incoming Governors’ AGM ), depending on my getting a mover/seconder. I am approaching 2 other governors on this. Once I have the third motion in order, I will send in all three together, with a “ commentary “ for each one, as I did last time..

I think the Grassroots’ Campaign can be justifiably pleased seeing the direction things are now moving in. Our framing of the debate influenced a lot of thinking. Your early support for the whole platform gave the initial campaign momentum, and you have now contributed significantly to where CFC is now headed, and to saving the CFC.

Thanks for your help on the campaign.

Bob "

CFC Chess Forum http://www.chesscanada.info/forum/

[Peter McKillop]

Re: Grassroots' Campaign - Response to GL # 1

Good work, Bob. Another example of 'life is like chess' (or is that the other way around?): careful planning, initiative and perserverance carry the day!

Regards,

Pete

[Alex Toolsie]

Details - Member Inquiry - Alex Toolsie

elimination of tournament memberships – straw vote passed at AGM;

Hi Bob,

I'd like some further info on the above motion if you can provide it. I am concerned that without tournament memberships, people who only have the chance for one or two tournaments a year will be charged the full CFC annual membership fee. Could you please clarify that?

Thanks,

Alex Toolsie

[Bob Armstrong]

Grassroots' Campaign -Tournament Membership Elimination

Hi Alex:

Glad to answer your question. Here is the draft proposed motion and commentary which will be sent shortly to the governors for voting:

Motion # 1 –
CFC Tournament Membership Elimination –As of January 1, 2009, CFC shall eliminate tournament memberships – if a player wants to play in a CFC tournament, s/he must purchase an annual/life membership.

Commentary: Chess players must support their national organization by membership and annual membership fee, if they want it to exist. CFC must have sustainable revenue. There is no reason for two classes of members, one subsidizing the other. Community input has asked for numbers of special case exemptions/partial exemptions for annual memberships. This motion makes clear that tournament memberships must go, but this issue can be fine-tuned at the time of implementation if special cases re annual memberships seem warranted.
Note: this motion, slightly amended, was passed by the Governors as a straw vote at the Incoming Governors’ AGM in July, 2008. Also, the CFC membership fees motion passed at the same Governors’ AGM in July did not eliminate tournament memberships, despite the prior straw vote.


So the answer to your question is that everyone will have to be an annual/life member. Basically, the CFC needs to be supported by membership and membership fees.

There is a further motion coming to try to help on this for first time CFC'ers - it is proposed that they get a 40% discount on the first year of their CFC membership.

Also note that the CFC has now reduced ( as of Jan. 1, 2009 ), the CFC annual adult membership to $ 30 ( from $ 36 ) and the annual junior membership to $ 20 ( from $ 25 ). The Grassroots' Campaign further proposes that if after restructuring, there is a surplus, then consideration should be given by CFC to lowering the annual fee further.

Hope this clarifies what the Grassroots' is proposing, and what the Governors have already passed as a straw vote motion at the AGM in July

Bob.

[Gary Ruben]

Re: Grassroots' Campaign - Response to GL # 1

Hi Bob,

I read GL 1, which was a challenge because each page had a large amount of Dreck right across the text. Neat clean text in the next GL would be a nice touch and improvement. Maybe a picture of Mickey Mouse instead of the Dreck.

I noticed they are now going to sell the Condo. How it went from the agreement at the annual meeting to rent out half the Condo, to selling it in such a short period of time I don't understand. I guess either the dreck obscured the explanation or it's easier to influence a group of people by email than it is in person.

I see the explanation that the CFC is not a property management organization lame. Other administrations were adept at both managing the Condo and at least maintaining the business.

The sooner that puppy goes under, the sooner the chess players will appreciate the efficiency of my Inner Galactic Chess Federation. So, I figure sell everything, spend the money, and then let people rebuild chess with a leaner administration and an eye to the future rather than surviving in the present.

[Alex Toolsie]

Motion Suggesting Tournament Membership Fee Elimination

Hi Alex:

Glad to answer your question. Here is the draft proposed motion and commentary which will be sent shortly to the governors for voting:

Motion # 1 –
CFC Tournament Membership Elimination –As of January 1, 2009, CFC shall eliminate tournament memberships – if a player wants to play in a CFC tournament, s/he must purchase an annual/life membership.

Commentary: Chess players must support their national organization by membership and annual membership fee, if they want it to exist. CFC must have sustainable revenue. There is no reason for two classes of members, one subsidizing the other. Community input has asked for numbers of special case exemptions/partial exemptions for annual memberships. This motion makes clear that tournament memberships must go, but this issue can be fine-tuned at the time of implementation if special cases re annual memberships seem warranted.

Note: this motion, slightly amended, was passed by the Governors as a straw vote at the Incoming Governors’ AGM in July, 2008. Also, the CFC membership fees motion passed at the same Governors’ AGM in July did not eliminate tournament memberships, despite the prior straw vote.

So the answer to your question is that everyone will have to be an annual/life member. Basically, the CFC needs to be supported by membership and membership fees.

There is a further motion coming to try to help on this for first time CFC'ers - it is proposed that they get a 40% discount on the first year of their CFC membership.

Also note that the CFC has now reduced ( as of Jan. 1, 2009 ), the CFC annual adult membership to $ 30 ( from $ 36 ) and the annual junior membership to $ 20 ( from $ 25 ). The Grassroots' Campaign further proposes that if after restructuring, there is a surplus, then consideration should be given by CFC to lowering the annual fee further.

Hope this clarifies what the Grassroots' is proposing, and what the Governors have already passed as a straw vote motion at the AGM in July

Bob.

Thanks for that response Bob.

My view is that the tournament memberships should remain in place because its attractive, especially to occasional players. Take for example American players who might cross the border maybe once a year or so to play an event in Canada. Are they now going to be squeezed for the a full CFC annual membership fee? That could possibly become something of a disincentive to play chess and even the occasional event.

I do, however, agree that players who play more than one or two events a year are better off simply getting the annual CFC membership. Perhaps if the tournament membership was $15, this would provide incentive to purchase an annual CFC membership because of the long term value.

Best Regards,

Alex Toolsie

[Craig Sadler]

Re: Motion Suggesting Tournament Membership Fee Elimination

the intent of the tournament membership was that it could only be used once a year correct?

[Christopher Mallon]

Re: Motion Suggesting Tournament Membership Fee Elimination

The original intent was that it could only be used once. ever. And you'd get stuff in the mail inviting you to become a full member.

[Jason Lohner]

Re: Motion Suggesting Tournament Membership Fee Elimination

Thanks for that response Bob.

My view is that the tournament memberships should remain in place because its attractive, especially to occasional players. Take for example American players who might cross the border maybe once a year or so to play an event in Canada. Are they now going to be squeezed for the a full CFC annual membership fee? That could possibly become something of a disincentive to play chess and even the occasional event.

I do, however, agree that players who play more than one or two events a year are better off simply getting the annual CFC membership. Perhaps if the tournament membership was $15, this would provide incentive to purchase an annual CFC membership because of the long term value.

Best Regards,

Alex Toolsie

Don't bother trying to point out the obvious to these people. They are set in their ways, they really want to reduce the amount of people who play tournament chess in Canada. If they would remove just this ONE point they would have a winning platform, but do you think common sense would prevail??? nope, lets do things the old way... lets provide people a disincentive to play chess... thats just what the CFC needs right now.

[Tom O'Donnell]

Re: Grassroots' Campaign - Response to GL # 1

The solution is simple: run tournaments that are not CFC rated. Make up your own rating system, and apply it locally. Nowadays there are computer programs that will do it for free at the touch of a button.

[Nigel Hanrahan]

new rating systems

... Make up your own rating system, and apply it locally. Nowadays there are computer programs that will do it for free at the touch of a button.

I was under the impression that one needed some pre-existing ratings or something like that. Can you give an example of such a program? Would Swiss80, or the most recent version of it, be such an example? Thx.

[Roger Patterson]

Re: new rating systems

if nothing else, you can do it in Excel - or program your own - or use SwissSys - or....

The real question would be would anyone care about that rating? It's only useful if people who have it can compare themselves against others. So, if your club wants it's own rating system, as Tom says, it's easy to do but it really is only interesting to people in your club who only want to compare themselves to others in the same club. Absolutely no one else will care.

So what does the CFC rating offer you? The ability to compare yourself to anyone else in the CFC rating system. No rating program by itself will give you that.

[Tom O'Donnell]

Re: Grassroots' Campaign - Response to GL # 1

"So what does the CFC rating offer you? The ability to compare yourself to anyone else in the CFC rating system. No rating program by itself will give you that. "

The CFC program can do no such thing. No rating system could. There is no way that a 1700 player in Halifax can be compared to a 1700 in Victoria, for example. The intermingling of the rating pools is so small that no reasonable comparison can be made. It is one reason why almost every place in the country thinks that they are under-rated compared to every other.

For events in places like Kamloops or Thunder Bay there is no real reason to have a national rating. 90+% of the people play locally, there is not much intermingling with other groups, and the people that most folks are going to compare themselves to are local. The reason I brought it up is that Mr. Lohner's information says "Salmon Arm BC". He can easily run local events in his town and have ratings that are as accurate as CFC ones, and do it for very cheap, even for free. No membership required, no (or minimal) rating fees.

[Jason Lohner]

Re: Grassroots' Campaign - Response to GL # 1

"So what does the CFC rating offer you? The ability to compare yourself to anyone else in the CFC rating system. No rating program by itself will give you that. "


For events in places like Kamloops or Thunder Bay there is no real reason to have a national rating. 90+% of the people play locally, there is not much intermingling with other groups, and the people that most folks are going to compare themselves to are local. The reason I brought it up is that Mr. Lohner's information says "Salmon Arm BC". He can easily run local events in his town and have ratings that are as accurate as CFC ones, and do it for very cheap, even for free. No membership required, no (or minimal) rating fees.

Most of the tournaments I play in are in Vernon and in the Lower mainland (ie Vancouver area) I have noticed a difference in playing strength 'ratings' between the two areas. Salmon arm is a small town of about 16,000 people and we are lucky to get half dozen people weekly at our local club so good luck running any local tournaments. Vernon is about an hour drive away and has quite a few local tournaments but even there the turnout is around 12 people per tournament.

My next tournament is a non CFC rated tournament. The TD has invited a number of people to the vancouver area and (i believe) is charging only $10 to enter which is completely going to prizes.

Honestly, I take my online Corr. server rating as more accurate than my CFC rating because I play far more games and against a far wider pool of players.

[Alex Toolsie]

Re: Motion Suggesting Tournament Membership Fee Elimination

Don't bother trying to point out the obvious to these people. They are set in their ways, they really want to reduce the amount of people who play tournament chess in Canada. If they would remove just this ONE point they would have a winning platform, but do you think common sense would prevail??? nope, lets do things the old way... lets provide people a disincentive to play chess... thats just what the CFC needs right now.

Jason,

I recommend that you try not to be so cynical. This is a chess discussion board where good ideas, hopefully, get discussed, canvassed, and implemented - and the bad ideas are discarded. The elimination of the tournament fee is a bad idea, so hopefully it will get the chop.

Best Regards,

Alex Toolsie