Might you like being a CFC member more if...

[Kevin Pacey]

This is a poll designed to see if certain hypothetical changes might make respondents like being a CFC member more, whether they currently are a member or not.

edit: poll is multiple choice (you can choose more than one option)

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Might you like being a CFC member more if...

This is a poll designed to see if certain hypothetical changes might make respondents like being a CFC member more, whether they currently are a member or not.

edit: poll is multiple choice (you can choose more than one option)

Is it possible to check off ALL the choices, including the last one which says "None of the above" ???

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: Might you like being a CFC member more if...

Is it possible to check off ALL the choices, including the last one which says "None of the above" ???

Yes. Given that chesstalk multiple choice polls must allow respondents to choose potentially every option available, I am perhaps more dependent than usual on chesstalk respondents' 'honour' in responding honestly. :)

[Denton Cockburn]

Re: Might you like being a CFC member more if...

Here's hoping the responses would lead to some action by the CFC, but I doubt it.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Might you like being a CFC member more if...

Yes. Given that chesstalk multiple choice polls must allow respondents to choose potentially every option available, I am perhaps more dependent than usual on chesstalk respondents' 'honour' in responding honestly. :)

Thanks, Kevin. I was tempted to just try it rather than asking. But I didn't want to be a contributor to any kind of skewing of results.

[Ken Craft]

Re: Might you like being a CFC member more if...

OMOV is a fine idea but it is not the top priority. The Federation needs to expand its membership base. Retaining the current membership model and fees will not achieve this goal. Unlike other Canadian sporting federations the CFC has not captured the recreational player.

[Alan Baljeu]

Re: Might you like being a CFC member more if...

Golf, tennis, running have?

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: Might you like being a CFC member more if...

OMOV is a fine idea but it is not the top priority. The Federation needs to expand its membership base. Retaining the current membership model and fees will not achieve this goal. Unlike other Canadian sporting federations the CFC has not captured the recreational player.

You may wish to define what you mean by 'the recreational player'.

If it is someone who might play one regular time control tournament a year, then a tournament membership could be made relatively low again, but I seem to recall that was deemed to produce unsatisfactory results by the Governors as a whole.

If the recreational player is someone who likes fast time controls, Active events are already available, but not in large numbers due to too few organizers. It could turn out to be the same story eventually if the CFC rated speed chess events. Nevertheless, a special class of Active and/or Speed chess membership (i.e. it's only good for Active/Speed events) could be considered.

Finally, if the recreational player is someone who barely knows the rules of the game, or most of them, they currently can be handled by putting them in unrated sections of regular TC events, with much lower entry fees, and possibly no cash prizes. However this would not involve charging them a lesser CFC membership or rating fee. I seem to recall NJF once wanted the CFC to have a first-event-no-CFC membership-fee-required policy (or something to that effect), but whatever this was, it never got off the ground.

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: Might you like being a CFC member more if...

OMOV is a fine idea but it is not the top priority. The Federation needs to expand its membership base. Retaining the current membership model and fees will not achieve this goal. Unlike other Canadian sporting federations the CFC has not captured the recreational player.

OMOV is just one of the nine suggested changes in this poll that the CFC might be able to make, at some point.

Decreasing the rating fee and/or membership fees substantially, as suggested options in the poll, would be nice, but the CFC's finances are too frail to afford taking such a risk for some time to come, IMHO. I might suggest raiding the Foundation if necessary to insure such a gamble is not as worrisome, but approving such a raid in advance seems to be unpopular, based on a poll I took ages ago. It may be a similar story for changing the structure/model of membership fees, in that that could be too big a risk financially for the CFC at this time.

However, some of the other suggested changes that are options in this poll could possibly be made a lot sooner, and incrementally these might have the effect of at least retaining some members longer, if not attracting some new ones. The change of having at least 2000 CFC members would probably require making other changes first, or at least launching membership drive(s) with the limited CFC resources (first taking a surveys(s) of [ex-]members might prove useful).

[Gary Ruben]

Re: Might you like being a CFC member more if...

OMOV is a fine idea but it is not the top priority. The Federation needs to expand its membership base. Retaining the current membership model and fees will not achieve this goal. Unlike other Canadian sporting federations the CFC has not captured the recreational player.

More specifically, it appears the idea is to do it with the same governing model. I can't see that happening, but it's only my opinion.

[Duncan Smith]

Re: Might you like being a CFC member more if...

OMOV is a fine idea but it is not the top priority. The Federation needs to expand its membership base. Retaining the current membership model and fees will not achieve this goal. Unlike other Canadian sporting federations the CFC has not captured the recreational player.

The CFC has to become more progressive and embrace true reform and bigger picture thinking. Ken, I was serious about the idea of an Amateur entry policy nationwide. A consistant policy that allows anyone to play in any CFC event for a reasonable fee ( any section ) would get more people involved.

I keep seeing an idea that Amateurs are only lower class players like U1600.
I don't get it. Casual players come in all skills, and it doesn't seem right to put up obstacles to stronger players to play in events. Can an expert or even a master be a casual player ? Yes they can, there are literally dozens of them in Toronto that rarely play events anymore.

And, of course, the bonus is its a better policy for Juniors, especially younger ones. Do parents really want to pay $60-$100 for events just on the off chance their youngster wins a cash prize ? No. They'd rather pay less and forget about cash prizes.

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: Might you like being a CFC member more if...

The CFC has to become more progressive and embrace true reform and bigger picture thinking. Ken, I was serious about the idea of an Amateur entry policy nationwide. A consistant policy that allows anyone to play in any CFC event for a reasonable fee ( any section ) would get more people involved.

I keep seeing an idea that Amateurs are only lower class players like U1600.
I don't get it. Casual players come in all skills, and it doesn't seem right to put up obstacles to stronger players to play in events. Can an expert or even a master be a casual player ? Yes they can, there are literally dozens of them in Toronto that rarely play events anymore.

And, of course, the bonus is its a better policy for Juniors, especially younger ones. Do parents really want to pay $60-$100 for events just on the off chance their youngster wins a cash prize ? No. They'd rather pay less and forget about cash prizes.

Hi Duncan

If you mean that any given organizer sets a lower priced Amateur entry fee, like we have already have here for EOCA Grand Prix events, so that an Amateur entrant is also ineligible for winning a prize, afaik since its inception the CFC hasn't tried to compell local organizers to set any specific fee or fee structure for local tournaments, as the CFC presumably feared that doing so could turn off many potential organizers, who may wish to have control of as many aspects of their events as possible, especially when it comes to entry fees.

I'll have to double-check whether any provincial association, or even a provincial league like the EOCA, can really compell local organizers to have an Amateur entry fee for their events, but I believe this is not the case either.

[Duncan Smith]

Re: Might you like being a CFC member more if...

I'm not expecting the CFC to try to force anyone to opt in, its more of an idea of setting a framework that works and the idea spreads as it is successful. That does mean a more flexible CFC fees arrangement, one that helps the organizer not hinders them.

Organizers might like the simplicity of an arrangement that has had some success elsewhere, and players wouldn't really have any beef with the prices as it would be fairly standard.

Examples that have "caught on" somewhat would be the Olympiad Waive program ( CFC ) and Chess in the Libraries ( not CFC ).

I'm not saying I know the exact fees and policy that makes the best sense. I wasn't sure about the new CFC Presidents club idea initially but upon reflection it makes sense, its exactly how Curling works now. Let every club have a "roster" of players, they don't even have to be regulars. They pay a small fee to "join" the CFC, and most of the CFC revenue comes from user fees at actual events. Their roster can even operate as a mailing list and social function for casual players.

[Gary Ruben]

Re: Might you like being a CFC member more if...

I'll have to double-check whether any provincial association, or even a provincial league like the EOCA, can really compell local organizers to have an Amateur entry fee for their events, but I believe this is not the case either.

It appears you can't compell an organizer to run an event where the games are CFC rated or, it appears, even all the players games in an event are rated. If I'm wrong on the second part maybe someone will give the policy.

If I wanted to run an event where players could get a break on entry fees I'd do it differently.

Anyone who is over 20 and only wants to play others over 20 would pay a higher rate. Those under 20 and adults who are willing to play against players who are younger would get a lower rate.

It would solve the problem of an adult spending a weekend playing mostly juniors and then having to explain to his wife why he spent three days playing other peoples youngsters instead of spending the time with his own youngsters.

Chess has to be reorganized to appeal to more people in the 25 to 45 age group.

[Jordan S. Berson]

Re: Might you like being a CFC member more if...

They lost my membership when they did away with paper magazines. I would have renewed every year - despite that I don't play chess anymore - because the magazine had interesting articles. I spend all day in front of a computer, I really don't like having to read an e-magazine.