+- 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 - John Dempsey - 19-08-2014
Good to see you guys working it out.
One thing that this debate has done for me is to underline how little I know of the current legislation and how it "might" affect chess clubs/organizations/tournaments in Scotland. Might it not be worth spending a few quid to get an opinion (legal) on how things stand with regard to these things? Like, for instance, under what circumstances could a club/organization/tournament be held to be in breach of legislation? What needs to be avoided? What needs to be tweaked? A clean bill of health would be great, but shouldn't it be checked out?
Re: AGM - Derek Howie - 19-08-2014
David Deary Wrote:I'm amazed this motion has got twenty pages and nothing on the other motion.
I'm against it.
Re: AGM - JMcNicoll - 19-08-2014
Andy, trust me, if I take offence you wouldn't be in any doubt about it.
As it happens, I haven't, and doubt I will.
The more fanciful scenarios dreamed up, I feel, only serve to obscure the real issues by taking attention away from them.
I don't think the organiser of an event can take responsibility for the access and facilities, they could only be taken to task for the decision to hold the event in an unsuitable venue if a complaint was made.
If they could show that the said venue was the only suitable one within the budget and in the area the organiser of the event wished it to take place then it would be a harsh decision to level any penalty against them in my opinion.
It's not so much the pointing out of possible problems, it's, in some cases, the failure to accept that guidelines for the Disabled to enable them to play chess are actually needed, and are about 10 years or so behind the rest of the country as most organisations already have had such guidelines or instructions or rules or whatever you call them in place for the activities they undertake so , in my opinion, the discussion should be about what guidelines are needed and not if guidelines are needed.
Re: AGM - andyburnett - 19-08-2014
JMcNicoll Wrote:Andy, trust me, if I take offence you wouldn't be in any doubt about it.
As it happens, I haven't, and doubt I will.
The more fanciful scenarios dreamed up, I feel, only serve to obscure the real issues by taking attention away from them.
I don't think the organiser of an event can take responsibility for the access and facilities, they could only be taken to task for the decision to hold the event in an unsuitable venue if a complaint was made.
If they could show that the said venue was the only suitable one within the budget and in the area the organiser of the event wished it to take place then it would be a harsh decision to level any penalty against them in my opinion.
It's not so much the pointing out of possible problems, it's, in some cases, the failure to accept that guidelines for the Disabled to enable them to play chess are actually needed, and are about 10 years or so behind the rest of the country as most organisations already have had such guidelines or instructions or rules or whatever you call them in place for the activities they undertake so , in my opinion, the discussion should be about what guidelines are needed and not if guidelines are needed.
I'm really not trying to be annoying or alarmist or pedantic or in any way obscure the fact that I actually agree with your final paragraph John, but (!) the part of your post which I've highlighted in bold/italics simply isn't an option according to my reading of the new FIDE regulations, and if we decide to go with motion part a) it won't be for CS events either?!
Anyway, I think I'll leave it that - my own reservations are probably quite minor compared to what the motion might actually achieve. I still think it would be a good idea for some organisers to post their thoughts - they're the ones who've had to deal with issues in the past and should probably know if this will help or hinder them in any way.
Re: AGM - Patrick McGovern - 19-08-2014
David Deary;
Quote: What troubles me is the glee that certain posters take in tearing things to shreds, inventing doomsday scenarios and zombie apocalypses without so much as a constructive comment... I don't think its unreasonable to expect people to be constructive.
John;
Quote:The more fanciful scenarios dreamed up, I feel, only serve to obscure the real issues by taking attention away from them.
The examples I gave were not scenarios but actual events that happened in Ayrshire chess, David it happened to our club Greenwood. We have been on the receiving end of unreasonable demands from a disabled player.
and finally;
Everyone agrees that disabled players are not discriminated against, everyone agrees that disabled players are catered for in tournaments so why would we need these "guidelines"? There are very experienced organisers like Keith Rose, Steve Clark, Duncan Campbell, Glynis Grant et al who, in my opinion, have no need for any guidelines. They run very successful tournaments, with disabled competitors participating, and no issues arising. I honestly feel that we dont need this motion to be passed.
Re: AGM - John Dempsey - 19-08-2014
Ok Andy, et al, let me post as an organizer if I may?
I see nothing in this motion which would cause me as an organizer to reach for the aspirin, or antacid!
In truth there are very few disabled people who participate in a tournament, they can and should be accommodated. Let's take a look at the extra space required? Well if a person, such as Steve Hilton,
(hope you don't mind me using you as a real life example!) is playing he really needs a longer table to accommodate both him and any helper, so theoretically the tournament has two players where it could have 4. But wait a minute, how many tournaments are full to bursting point? Very, very few. So, not a problem. How about the 3 meter aisles to accommodate a wheel chair? Also not a problem as worst case scenario is fewer aisles. ( We have all had to squeeze past other players before, and if you have been to the cinema, well what can I say?).
Access? Most commercial and public buildings have disabled access. (Schools, Universities, sports facilities, etc).
So what exactly does this motion do for me as an organizer? It formalizes what is already being done. I simply do not see that it would add to my headaches. I speak as a former organizer and assistant organizer of the West of Scotland, Glasgow Congress, and a few simuls at both club and Glasgow Art Gallery and Museum. I also speak as the man who was able to talk with club players in Dresden (2008 Olympiad) and from travelling around Scotland to visit tournaments in 2008.
As a former club secretary of Glasgow Montrose I was acutely aware of our access problem at the RAFA club, and when we moved to the Novotel one of the things I made sure of was that the lift (elevator) would overcome former problems.
I have played in a few tournaments in the States now, and each of them were in venues which ALL could access.
It is how things are already going. How in fact they already are. Not a problem for this organizer.
(I apologize for the spelling but have an American auto-correct!)
Re: AGM - Alan Tate - 20-08-2014
I haven't read all 21 pages of this (it all seems to be about the disabled access), but is there any motion put forward to prevent the farce that was the Olympiad captain selection happening again? There are also other issues regarding selections that I feel are important.
Regarding the main issue on this thread, what on Earth is wrong with the status quo? Can't we just rely on the good nature of tournament organisers without creating red tape and possible problems in the future. Talk about a mountain out of a molehill.
Re: AGM - John Dempsey - 20-08-2014
As always Alan, it's good to hear your common sense approach. However, (sorry there is a however in this one!) the main thing here is that currently a disabled player is "accommodated", another way of putting that is they are be done some kind of a "favour" by being allowed to compete. If you or I pay our entry fee we are not "accommodated" we bloody well have our rights. Yet not so the disabled player. "Special" provisions have to be put in place and they should jolly well be grateful for the trouble they are putting us to. Really? Is this how it should be? For that IS the status quo. This needs to change. And it DOES require a formalized recognition that we are ALL entitled to play and that our needs will be met as a matter of course, not as a special favour.
Think about this molehill Alan, and put yourself in a wheelchair for a little while whilst you contemplate it.
For me, this is the crucial point of the whole motion. It is a declaration by CS that we really are all equal and MUST be treated so. Not as a favour, but as a right.
Re: AGM - Alan Tate - 20-08-2014
I really don't want to get into this John, and have only skimmed the thread (please don't make me read 21 pages!). As far as I have seen at Scottish congresses any disabled players looked quite comfortable. The organisers obviously look after ALL players as best they can. Have there been any complaints or requests from any disabled players?
Re: AGM - John Dempsey - 20-08-2014
Alan, I have no idea if there have been complaints. What I do know is that passing this motion does not cause an organizational problem for tournaments. And yet there is definite resistance. Having read all 21 pages (lol!) I cannot really get to grips with what the issue(s) is/are for those who oppose the idea. Perhaps it's just a resistance to change (which is already upon the whole chess world anyway).