+- 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 (/thread-1038.html)
Re: AGM - Keith Rose - 13-08-2014
Steve H -
Quote:I have said time and time again in this thread , the word used is should not mustSo you have Steve but line 1. says:
Quote:These requirements shall (my italics) be usedThat is unequivocal, it is the same as 'must'. This difference of interpretation of 'must', 'shall', whatever, will not be resolved here by endless repeating. The important point is that some are interpreting these terms as definitive and if you want support for your motion you need to allay those concerns.
I won't argue with the paragraph re venues as I'm not familiar with the law in these matters. However, I don't believe that if a venue has been secured that disabled, or any other person, cannot access that the event must up sticks and move elsewhere, possibly at high cost and inconvenience to a majority of players. And it wouldn't matter how much notice or information the disabled player gives, it would likely to be impractical to change. I suggest that the wording used - must - is causing jitters and will lose support for your motion.
I do believe that you have support for the principle behind the motion, so again I suggest that a minor change of wording would make a difference.
Re: AGM - Andrew McHarg - 13-08-2014
StevieHilton Wrote:Keith,
I have said time and time again in this thread , the word used is should not must I would urge you to read this again. This motion can be adapted to suit the local situation. It is only formalising what is already taking place
3. All chess venues must either be accessible to all, or an acceptable alternative
venue with full supervision shall be available to those who cannot access the
nominated venue.
This is the law of the land in any case so the word must has to be used in this case
The word "should" is used in your motion. But it's mixed in with lots of other statements that say either "shall" (which essentially means the same as "must"), or "must" itself. Read it Stevie. Even your own quote above where you suggest the language used is "should" actually quotes from the motion and I've highlighted the word "must" from point 3. This is what people mean with regard to clarity. Let's make the language consistently "should" througout, and then I'm sure these "guidelines" will have very little resistence.
Re: AGM - StevieHilton - 13-08-2014
I do not have a problem with minor word changes Keith if that is what the meeting wants. However the word changes must not dilute the thrust of the motion
Re: AGM - StevieHilton - 13-08-2014
Ianbrownlee Wrote:StevieHilton Wrote:All chess venues must either be accessible to all, or an acceptable alternative venue with full supervision shall be available to those who cannot access the nominated venue. This is the law of the land in any case so the word must has to be used in this case
i'm not sure this is the law of the land for private clubs such as chess clubs. If I run a chess club from my house for example I do not need to require disabled access ( I think). I was at Edinburgh chess club many years ago (very impressed) and I'm not sure what is required by law and what is not I think we should worry more about supervision and who provides it and health and safety. Not all venues (especially private ones) are covered or supervised by the local authority. Of course venues such as Bowling clubs and pubs are covered to a certain extent. I wouldn't like to go to a venue owner and examine his premises for suitability unless CS can produce a certificate determining suitability. Perhaps CS can initiate a system determining different levels of suitability e.g. disabled toilets, wheelchair access, lifts etc. This certificate could also be used to determine other requirement levels such as noise levels, catering facilities, parking etc. I also believe we in danger of flogging this to death as it is only a guideline for the arbiter/organiser. it is also a fact that some venues may not be totally suitable for everyone. I've yet to see or hear or any event which can reflect in the amount of attention this thread has attracted. We are here to support organisers not hinder them.
Private clubs are not above the law Ian as far as I understand.they are not exempt from the smoking ban for example. I am not putting this motion forward to hinder organisers. I am here as a member of CS who is disabled just to formalise what is already practiced here. If the meeting feels that the wording needs changing, I am not against that, but I do not want the motion to be diluted as a result of the word change.
Re: AGM - Andrew McHarg - 13-08-2014
Stevie, your responses are as enigmatic as the motion. Can you let us know in plain English what you're trying to achieve out of:
a) A set of guidelines to encourage the inclusion of disabled players.
- OR -
b) A set of rules to enforce the inclusion of disabled players.
- ? -
Currently, as a matter of fact, your motion is neither.
Re: AGM - JMcNicoll - 13-08-2014
According to what I understand shall and must mean different things and are not the same.
Shall usually alludes to something that is expected to happen, giving a possibility it may not, and must alludes to something that is going to happen no matter what, so totally different in meaning.
Re: AGM - Adam Bremner - 13-08-2014
A lot of interest in this motion!
Can I just get something clarified Steve, ideally with a straight yes or no. If the motion goes through, would Edinburgh Chess Club be able to use their premises to hold open events such as Winter Chess (lower sections) and the Elite Armageddon?
If yes, then great. If no, then surely you can appreciate a word change from must to should. These events can only take place because the venue is privately owned, and the hosting of them is in the interest of all chess players in Scotland. I am sure you wouldn't want these events to fold, especially when there has never been an issue in the past regarding access. Perhaps the way round it is that any new venues going forward must comply, but existing venues should be allowed to continue under the proviso they make every reasonable effort to accommodate disabled players, as is currently the case.
Re: AGM - Andrew McHarg - 13-08-2014
The Oxford English Definitions suggest they are similar words:
Quote:Shall:
Expressing a strong assertion or intention
Expressing an instruction, command, or obligation
Must:
Be obliged to; should (expressing necessity)
Expressing insistence
I agree that "shall" suggests the possibility that what is intended may not happen. But so - too - can "must".
Certainly the word "shall" carries the same direct and uncompromising tone as "must".
Re: AGM - robin moore - 13-08-2014
Surely in the spirit of hosting the Commonwealth chess in Glasgow, words to be included could be...
Shouldny, Wilny and Gonny no dae that.
Re: AGM - Andy Howie - 13-08-2014
Just been handed the minutes from the Commission for the Disabled. 17. Mr Geurt Gijssen (rules commission) reported the newly implemented regulations for disabled players were not just guidelines but they are clear requirements for integration of disabled players. Mr Ashot Seconded it.
Quite clear for a FIDE event. They must be implemented.