Over the last 8 years I have been challenged many times to a chess duel. Once even by a chess "master" during a simul. He was shouting at a player during the player's turn to move and counting down aloud and flustering the player. I was standing on the side and "marvelling" at the master's chess skills when he looked up and challenged me to play. Why do you think he did that? What is the underlying assumption?
It seems to me that a few people think that only strong chess players can have a say on how/what things are said or done in the chess community. The stronger you are in chess as a player ie the higher your FIDE rating, (whether currently accurate or not), the bigger your say should be.
One or two of them reluctantly give me the credit for bringing up a player who is currently both National U18 and U20 No.2 without myself being a strong chess player but substantially focusing on mental strength instead.
The question today is if you think this underlying assumption is realistic or even helpful. Look around and see how successful organisations are run. Just take a couple of minutes and think on this. Are they making any sense? Is looking at issues from just the players perspective sufficient? Or does it take more skill sets, more different perspectives?