| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
admin
Site Admin
Joined: 09 Jan 2007
Posts: 1386
|
 Posted: Sun Jun 06, 2010 5:53 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Those "dudes" that were paid money some years back were to focus purely on Junior Chess. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Stuart Blyth
King
Joined: 11 Sep 2008
Posts: 209
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 06, 2010 6:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Damn - that kind of invalidates everything. Wish I'd known before I posted  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GN
King
Joined: 30 Mar 2007
Posts: 415
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 07, 2010 12:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| admin wrote: | | Those "dudes" that were paid money some years back were to focus purely on Junior Chess. |
Were any changes ever implemented as result of this report? I recall much debate at the time about whether or not it would be good value for money.
I am fairly sure that if we invested a similar amount to migrate the grading system database onto a server, as Gordon suggests, we would create many options for enhanced member services. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
admin
Site Admin
Joined: 09 Jan 2007
Posts: 1386
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 07, 2010 12:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
George,
My recollection was the money from that did not come from CS funds. I'd like to think that there has been changes for the good, especially when one of the lines in the report questioned the fitness of Chess Scotland itself. Under Donald and John's (x2) / Stevens leadership I think Chess Scotland has improved. I suppose only time will tell
It would not take nearly as much to migrate the cs grading system onto its own server. The primary cost being the actual server itself. There then are other issues as to where it is kept, electricity, backup, redundancy should it go down etc....
Let me fire this back at everyone, George mentioned enhanced options for members. What exactly are you thinking of? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stuart Blyth
King
Joined: 11 Sep 2008
Posts: 209
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 07, 2010 1:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Is nobody else concerned at the nature of this topic? Is there not a bit too much focus on how to exclude people and differentiate members from non members?
Is this a sign of the times?
Are we trying to run ahead of the Tory Zeitgeist? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
admin
Site Admin
Joined: 09 Jan 2007
Posts: 1386
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 07, 2010 4:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So basically you are advocating one of 2 things.
1. We do away with membership so that all are equal
or
2. Compulsory membership.
I can think of a million reasons why I am against both.
At the moment, what do you get for membership???
You get to see your current grade whenever you want to
You get games that are played outside Scotland graded
You get to vote at the AGM
You get a discount with Chess Suppliers (I am not 100% sure of this)
You get discounted entry into events
You get to play in the Scottish Championship
So you want us to take all that away and give it to everyone and dilute even more income coming into the organisation so that you can get the grading system etc???? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stuart Blyth
King
Joined: 11 Sep 2008
Posts: 209
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 07, 2010 7:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
First of all, thank you Admin for such a concise and accurate distillation of my point of view, which, without wasting time on addressing any of my concerns, still manages to expose their weakness with cutting logic.
I was simply asking what kind of impression it might create having XXXX next to a player’s name and for so many people to be engaged in such a negative/non-inclusive type of debate.
I also wondered (particularly in light of what I’ve just written above) if it was fair/necessary to have a multi-tier grading system given that (I imagined) people paid for grading costs through club/league/congress fees anyway – especially since, in hard financial terms, many (most?) members probably recouped their membership costs via reduced entry fees.
I can only assume that the answer to this is so obvious it does not require writing down – I apologize for not being able to see this.
I’d imagined (mistakenly it seems) that my only suggestion was to consider a levy or universal membership – I now know, however, that not only was this suggestion so ridiculous it does not require explaining why, but that I’d actually advocated wholesale reform of the whole Chess Scotland membership system.
I can’t be sure that what I’ve written makes sense. I can’t be sure that I’ve actually written what I meant to say. However. If I’ve meant to say something but left it out or if I’ve said black when I meant grey or if I’ve added two and two and made only four rather than five, then I’m sure someone will point this out. I thank you in advance. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Keith Ruxton
Queen
Joined: 28 Feb 2007
Posts: 148
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 08, 2010 7:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
Why am I still a queen? grrr
Think of it this way Stuart...
1) Everyone who plays in congresses and league games pays the fee to have their games graded
2) In return for this fee they have their games graded and published once a year in the grading list
Completely separate to this...
1) A group of very able and selfless volunteers for Chess Scotland set up a world leading real-time grading look-up system
2) because they work for Chess Scotland they kindly allow Chess Scotland members to access the site to look up their own grades
Hopefully that clarifys things. Personally I'm strongly in favour of compulsory membership but I dont intend to get into a debate about it!
Cheers,
Keith |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DMB
King
Joined: 08 Mar 2007
Posts: 267
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 08, 2010 9:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
The situation is as Keith describes.
Everyone who plays graded chess has contributed in some way via their club's league fees or their tournament entry fee. All games are graded and appear in the tournament and league crosstables. Your end season published grade can be viewed in the g-book and in the online system via the club lists.
Your latest updated weekly grade can also be viewed while you have 10 results or less. One you have over 10 results you can no longer see that grade. Happily concede that xxxx marker may not be the best way of going about it - but SB thinks we should be still be offering updated grades to all players regardless of their membership status.
Prior to 2001 all we had the technical ability to offer was that members would receive an itemised printout of their games. The online system was set up by Alex Bisset in 2001 and opened up a new level of service to members. Membership rose significantly immediately after the service went live.
The point of voluntary membership is that CS can generate additional voluntary revenues out of some players and in return we can offer additional enhanced services.
I dont see the point of a compulsory flat membership fee of everyone paying the same. Surely CS will generate more funds by getting the most active and keenest to pay more - if CS can offer something they want.
I quite like to play 10 pin bowling - once a year. I dont want to join the bowling association - dont need to see my shot averages - and if you want me to stump up £20 before I can have that one game a year - you can forget it - we'll just stay in the pub.
It is similar to anyone who has a broadband contract. I can pay more if I want 25mb service or Sky Sports or an enhanced mobile service - I get what I pay for.
Reading the ECF web pages suggest their "office" services run at a cost of 120k a year - the whole turnover of CS for everything last time was just 40k.
With minimal obvious alternative revenue sources why not try and generate additional revenue from enhanced grading services.
**************
Whatever your viewpoint this debate has been useful since we may soon be in a position to further upgrade the online services and will be looking for views on what players want to see. Will start separate topic shortly. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Phil Thomas
King
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
Posts: 758
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 08, 2010 11:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| admin wrote: | George,
My recollection was the money from that did not come from CS funds. |
There was some debate at the timeabout where the money came from.
The definitive answer appears to be on page 3 of the 2007 Annual report of Chess Scotland. £5,000 from Awards for all and a £400 donation: source of donation unspecified - my recall is from CS reserves but possibly from an anonymous donation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
