+- 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: Motion 1 (wording to go to Council) (/thread-1052.html)
Re: Motion 1 (wording to go to Council) - David Deary - 25-08-2014
I was referring to your amendment. I will be voting it down as it's a distinct issue.
This motion is about treatment of disabled players and discrimination its not about pairings and refusing to play an opponent. You have latched onto one sentence of this motion to peddle your crusade. Its a no from me. If you propose a separate motion I will in all likelihood support it if it is robust and workable.
Re: Motion 1 (wording to go to Council) - Phil Thomas - 25-08-2014
David Deary Wrote:I was referring to your amendment. I will be voting it down as it's a distinct issue.
This motion is about treatment of disabled players and discrimination its not about pairings and refusing to play an opponent. You have latched onto one sentence of this motion to peddle your crusade. Its a no from me. If you propose a separate motion I will in all likelihood support it if it is robust and workable.
I have latched onto this to extend the notion that no one can refuse to play a disabled player to apply this concept to all players.
I agree that this can be seen by you a crusade but such is the democratic process.
Re: Motion 1 (wording to go to Council) - David Deary - 25-08-2014
I think we'll agree to disagree. I've made my point.
Re: Motion 1 (wording to go to Council) - Alex Gillies - 25-08-2014
Phil Thomas Wrote:Alex Gillies Wrote:robin moore Wrote:Just to be clear, Alex doesn't mean the game between Phil and myself.That's the game in Oban Phil seems to be referring to unless I am mistaken
Alex you are mistaken.
What happened in Oban??
Please explain - I am baffled.
I have played there several times.
I have arbited there at least twice
Sorry I meant Inverness you were on 3/3 or so and went home
Re: Motion 1 (wording to go to Council) - Alex Gillies - 25-08-2014
David Deary Wrote:I was referring to your amendment. I will be voting it down as it's a distinct issue.
You have latched onto one sentence of this motion to peddle your crusade.
This is also my view hence my post as its not gone away - as I have said 2 wrongs don't make a right
Re: Motion 1 (wording to go to Council) - Phil Thomas - 25-08-2014
Alex wrote
Sorry I meant Inverness you were on 3/3 or so and went home[/quote]
Alex,
I have been asked to hold back from publishing the details.
For now I wish to say that you are factually incorrect in more than one detail.
Re: Motion 1 (wording to go to Council) - Hugh Brechin - 25-08-2014
Hi folks, nice to see lots of debate on this. Can we please make sure to keep posts on-topic; there's no need to keep referring (I am by no means speaking to only one person here!) to past incidents that are only tangentially related to the issue around which the thread is centred.
Re: Motion 1 (wording to go to Council) - robin moore - 26-08-2014
Folks,
One of my posts has been deleted from this thread (I am sure you can guess which one) and that is fine by me. I am also sure that you will know that my post was not meant to be in any way serious. Apologies if any offense was caused but I am sure that the gentleman my post was directed to understands that it was totally tongue in cheek.
Robin.
Re: Motion 1 (wording to go to Council) - Andrew McHarg - 26-08-2014
I think I would be in favour of simply removing the "2. No one has the right to refuse to meet either a disabled player against whom he has been correctly paired or an able bodied player against whom they have been correctly paired" completely from the proposal. I agree with previous posters who point out this would be simpler if it read "No one has the right to refuse to meet a player against whom they have been correctly paired", but as David points out; the act of removing the specificity of the point in relation to disabled players makes it questionnable as to whether it should be included in this particular document in the first place. Perhaps a separate document should be created and agreed on the conduct of all players, where such a statement could be included? Or does such a document already exist?
Re: Motion 1 (wording to go to Council) - Matthew Turner - 26-08-2014
The more I think about it the less I like guideline 2 (although of course I understand what it is trying to achieve). Two issues have sprung to mind
1. I can refuse to play a disabled player if I wish. I could simply resign on move 1, just the same as I could against any able bodied player. The rules of chess cannot compel me to play if I simply don't want to.
2. What does correctly paired mean? Lets say we are in a FIDE rated tournament and the arbiters make an incorrect pairing but do not discover their error until after the draw is published. If I refuse to play because the draw is incorrect and the arbiters say they cannot change the draw because it is a FIDE rule what happens then? So as bizarre as it may seem maybe the rule should be about (disabled) players against whom you are paired, because it doesn't (necessarily) matter if the pairing is correct or not.