Misconceptions on taking sides.

Of late there is a lot of misconceptions on "taking sides". Maybe we need to think a little more about what that really means. Directly after the AGM I was accused of changing sides when I continued to talk with the new committee and I have spoken to at least 2 Council members on this topic in the last week and so I think we need to clear the air on this.

This is an example of taking sides. Here.

Lets contrast that stand to what FGM has been talking about and let me use a chess analogy to try to explain this. Lets say we see 2 chess players fighting over the board and one of them puts up his hand to call for the arbiter but the arbiter is busy elsewhere. So say I walk over to the arbiter and tell him that he is needed at that table. Am I taking sides?

Do you see what I mean? How can that be interpreted as taking sides? There is now a dispute on the contest for the Presidency at the AGM. And one of the contestants want to call in the arbiter. If the arbiter agrees that the rules have been infringed then he will call for another contest for that post. Then the 2 candidates will have to go before the "board" (States) again and argue their case. And then the State delegates decide and vote again.

So really this is what FGM is talking about. Let's play by the rules. That is my side and it is not personal and not for anyone or against anyone. I am just for following the rules. Is that clearer now?

In one of my conversations with a Council member he "accused" me of putting a smiley on facebook on somebody's post. A smiley does not mean I agree with what he says. In that case the smiley was supposed to remind that person of what I had privately advised him previously. So lets not jump to conclusions.

But do let us consider deeper about this contest for the post of President again. 7 States are in revolt. This is not a small matter. If this issue is not resolved then MCF will find it very hard to settle down and get the job done. So why don't we get that contest over and done with quickly and then move forward as a more united community.

That is all I am saying now. And may the better man win. This is chess yes? We do believe in competition to bring out the best in us, do we not? It is not about taking sides is it? It is about making the best possible decision for the well being of MCF and the chess community.

For in law the decision of who is to be President ultimately belongs to all the State Affiliates collectively and not to anyone else whether it is X-pose or otherwise. And the arbiter is COS. So X-pose can take sides and decide who should be President etc but the rest of us would like to see the arbiter rule on this in order to lay this ghost to rest and we can then move on to better things as a chess community. Gens Una Sumus.