+- Forums (https://www.chessscotland.com/forum)
+-- Forum: Members Only (https://www.chessscotland.com/forum/forum-16.html)
+--- Forum: General Chess Chat (https://www.chessscotland.com/forum/forum-3.html)
+--- Thread: AGM proposals (/thread-1287.html)
Re: AGM proposals - Ianbrownlee - 09-08-2015
see the logic now unless you're a CS member you cannot play in any fide rated tournaments as you haven't a SCO code or at least their games graded
Re: AGM proposals - amuir - 09-08-2015
Andy H.
Please confirm if any of my motions (1st seconded by George Neave, 2nd - 7th seconded by Stephen Hilton) will be discussed or voted on at the AGM.
Please confirm if I am eligible to stand for any director position. I have no-one who supports me.
Re: AGM proposals - Douglas Bryson - 09-08-2015
The logic of why asking do you need to be a CS member to get a SCO code is as follows.
Walter lists various proposals on eligibility. The text states, "These principal requirements shall be built into ..... future Operating Procedures that relate to eligibility and the allocation of future FIDE ‘SCO’ registration codes"
I am not clear which parts of the text relating to eligibility requirements are to be built into the code creation requirements. If the part of the text in the preamble ie, "a person must be a member of Chess Scotland" is part of the "principal requirements" as per this proposal then this will lead to follow up questions on the practicalities of the proposal. However first we need to establish if CS membership is intended as a requirement for a SCO code to be allocated.
Re: AGM proposals - WBuchanan - 09-08-2015
Hi Dougie. You write
“Walter proposes a "fadeout" period for people whose only connection to Scotland is one of residency.”
I actually proposed that this be put under control of CS management:
“…any ‘fadeout’ period for players qualifying on residence that later leave Scotland”
So there can be no fadeout if that’s what is wanted!
“Never quite Scottish enough… ”
:-s ( There’s no need to paint sad pictures of what CS might do with the power I propose that the membership bestow on them!
“I count 5 of the FIDE top 10 Scots as currently resident outwith Scotland. I guess they were all born here or of Scottish parents - but would we now have to check their place of birth and parentage to see if their Scottish accreditation is fading.”
Again – a fadeout is one of your options. If it’s too onerous then don’t have it.
But it must be even worse checking out grandparents :ymdevil:
You also say: "Does this proposal mean that you need to be a CS member to get a SCO code?"
Surely that depends on what you want the code to do? If it’s agreed that certain criteria (birth or bloodline or residence) need to be met and it is wished that having an SCO code guarantees eligibility then it would follow that giving SCO codes to players that don’t meet the requirements means flouting the criteria.
But if the code is just an administrative hurdle that FIDE have imposed then give them out if you want - but don’t use the code (a piece of the admin picture) to quietly break the prevailing eligibility criteria of the country – surely that must be wrong!
I do find the nature of many the objections perplexing. The principal criteria on eligibility should be decided upon by CS members, with plenty of scope left for management and selectors to get their teeth into. What’s so bad about that? And even then the membership still get the chance to leave it all to management, if that's what they want.
Cheers
Re: AGM proposals - WBuchanan - 09-08-2015
Douglas Bryson Wrote:The logic of why asking do you need to be a CS member to get a SCO code is as follows.
Walter lists various proposals on eligibility. The text states, "These principal requirements shall be built into ..... future Operating Procedures that relate to eligibility and the allocation of future FIDE ‘SCO’ registration codes"
I am not clear which parts of the text relating to eligibility requirements are to be built into the code creation requirements. If the part of the text in the preamble ie, "a person must be a member of Chess Scotland" is part of the "principal requirements" as per this proposal then this will lead to follow up questions on the practicalities of the proposal. However first we need to establish if CS membership is intended as a requirement for a SCO code to be allocated.
Sorry we cross posted – I think I have answered that in my last post.
I think you are looking at it the wrong way round. If it is 'impractical' to apply eligibility criteria set by the membership (and not in any great detail either so it shouldn't be a huge headache) because of admin requirements then doesn't that mean there must be something wrong with the admin!?
Cheers
Re: AGM proposals - Alan Jelfs - 09-08-2015
I think insisting on CS membership as a qualification for the SCO code is a step too far.
You need the SCO code to play in FIDE rated events. I could see players refusing to play in, say, the SNCL if CS membership is compulsory.
And what happens if their CS membership lapses? Do they lose the SCO code, too?
Re: AGM proposals - WBuchanan - 09-08-2015
Hi Alan
“I think insisting on CS membership as a qualification for the SCO code is a step too far.”
My motion (final submitted version below) doesn’t actually concern SCO codes, except to say management can handle them with their procedures (which nevertheless must not contravene the criteria on eligibility):
"These principal requirements shall be built into Chess Scotland’s rules for eligibility for national Championships and rules for eligibility for international selection, and into future Operating Procedures that relate to eligibility and the allocation of future FIDE ‘SCO’ registration codes".
So the required criteria go into the rules for eligibility, but these criteria could only be required for allocation of the SCO code IF that code is intended to guarantee eligibility. This follows from the logic - otherwise, the SCO code would contravene the selection criteria !
Just to be clear – the CS membership requirement is only part of my motion because it is part of the proposed new constitution, so it’s obviously part of the current management/CWP thinking. I’m neutral on it myself.
Cheers
AGM Proposal on eligibility:
To be eligible to compete for any Scottish individual national championship title (excluding primary school events), or to be eligible to represent Scotland in any international competition a person must be a member of Chess Scotland and must meet at least one of the prevailing eligibility requirements relating to
(i) birth - i.e. be born in Scotland,
(ii) bloodline - parent born in Scotland (or grandparent if so determined by a vote of CS members), or
(iii) residence - i.e. have lived in Scotland for the requisite number of years [currently 2].
These principal requirements shall be built into Chess Scotland’s rules for eligibility for national Championships and rules for eligibility for international selection, and into future Operating Procedures that relate to eligibility and the allocation of future FIDE ‘SCO’ registration codes. The criteria used and/or future Operating Procedures shall also deal with further parameters of these eligibility requirements, and other issues that arise (such as a shorter residency requirements for juniors, any ‘fadeout’ period for players qualifying on residence that later leave Scotland, players who have relinquished their SCO code etc).
For international selection, additional criteria may be set by the tournament organisers concerned (including age and rating limits). [END]
Re: AGM proposals - HelenMilligan - 09-08-2015
Hi Walter,
I'm back in Scotland every year or so to visit my parents, usually in conjunction with an event (such as the Olympiad) on this side of the planet. I don't want to give FIDE more money to transfer back - in any case, there are too many interesting Asian-only events that I now qualify for - but I am interested in taking part in the Scottish Championships. My question is, are you about to rule me out of winning any Scottish title? OK probably a rhetorical question as I get weaker and weaker, but could no doubt be relevant to others in my situation.
Re: AGM proposals - andyburnett - 09-08-2015
HelenMilligan Wrote:Hi Walter,
I'm back in Scotland every year or so to visit my parents, usually in conjunction with an event (such as the Olympiad) on this side of the planet. I don't want to give FIDE more money to transfer back - in any case, there are too many interesting Asian-only events that I now qualify for - but I am interested in taking part in the Scottish Championships. My question is, are you about to rule me out of winning any Scottish title? OK probably a rhetorical question as I get weaker and weaker, but could no doubt be relevant to others in my situation.
My problem with this Helen (and you know it's nothing personal I hope!) is that you and others have chosen - for your own benefit - to change federation. There would be nothing to stop you from competing in the championships, you just wouldn't be eligible for the title or the prize-money connected to that title.
I believe that anyone wanting to have the prestige of calling themselves Scottish Champion, should be committed to that country in some way - even if that only amounts to an SCO next to their name.
Re: AGM proposals - HelenMilligan - 09-08-2015
I guess the question is 'can I play' if it is a closed Scottish event? Or am I automatically excluded? For comparison, I've been told I can play in the British (and therefore compete for any titles within it) so long as I remain a British citizen.
No worries about personal issues - just curious! And there must be other Scots out there in the same kind of situation as me - it's hard to remain 'SCO' when that rules you out of many of the events in your area!
Also, for comparison: here in NZ, anyone with NZ citizenship is eligible to win any NZ title (though if registered say ENG naturally does not have the right to take up certain of the 'prizes' which include a place in the Olympiad team or first refusal of a place in the Zonal).