New constitution - Printable Version +- Forums (https://www.chessscotland.com/forum) +-- Forum: Public Area (https://www.chessscotland.com/forum/forum-5.html) +--- Forum: Chess Scotland Forum (https://www.chessscotland.com/forum/forum-28.html) +--- Thread: New constitution (/thread-1257.html) |
Re: New constitution - Alex McFarlane - 29-07-2015 WBuchanan Wrote:Do you mean they could try to insist on playing for Scotland? That was not what I meant. Playing for Scotland and being SCO registered are not the same. Unknown 'players' can try to register as SCO directly on the Arena website. The most CS will have to go on is a name and date of birth (and possibly an email address) when deciding whether to accept or reject such a person. If they are not already over the board players then they will be totally unknown. Unfortunately there are always people who will take legal action. In Scrabble a few years ago there was a player took the association to court because a round started early. He won his entry fee back (which had been offered) but the legal fees involved for the Scrabble people were high. A chess player who had possibly been economical with his previous playing history won a court case against the Blackpool Congress organisers when they refused to pay his prize money. If we are going to refuse people SCO registration there must be clear policies in place to minimise the risk of legal action. Someone who satisfies every criteria could be rejected simply because they are unknown. Re: New constitution - WBuchanan - 29-07-2015 Thanks Alex that's much clearer. Well the people who went to court in your examples had some sort of case, albeit probably an unreasonable one, and a specific axe to grind. It does seem to be a warning not to invest too much in a code that you are not in complete control of though :| I’m still thinking of how this might affect selection (or Championhip eligibility) “Unknown 'players' can try to register as SCO directly on the Arena website. The most CS will have to go on is a name and date of birth (and possibly an email address) when deciding whether to accept or reject such a person. If they are not already over the board players then they will be totally unknown.” As it stands, anyone who would make the Olympiad team on grading could register as SCO and then claim a parent or grandparent connection (as necessary) to unsure selection. It would be discrimination not to select them. I don’t think other organisations would confer privileges on such a thin basis of provenance. Isn’t it a question of reserving the right to ask for proof of ID and/or, in the case of a ‘bloodline’, evidence of this too? It also seems to strengthen the case against the acceptable bloodline criterion being a grandparent, unless you are prepared to insist on seeing proof. Cheers Re: New constitution - Derek Howie - 12-08-2015 WBuchanan Wrote:While we’re waiting for Andy to dig out his stuff I had better raise my own question regarding the minutes here as the other thread seems to have vanished. Has this issue been clarified? The minutes say that there was a motion introduced on the day that section 16 was dropped and this was carried unanimously. 1. Did this vote actually happen? 2. If it did happen, why was it allowed given that the SGM should not allow motions to be introduced on the day? 3. If it did happen, does anyone disagree that the motion must be incompetent and unconstitutional as it was introduced on the day, which should not be allowed and as such the vast majority of the membership were prevented in giving their opinion on it? Section 16 should not be removed from the constitution without a proper motion and vote to remove it. |