+- Forums (https://www.chessscotland.com/forum)
+-- Forum: Members Only (https://www.chessscotland.com/forum/forum-16.html)
+--- Forum: Announcements (https://www.chessscotland.com/forum/forum-6.html)
+--- Thread: Eligibility Votes - March 2022 (/thread-2143.html)
RE: Eligibility Votes - March 2022 - andybburnett - 29-03-2022
(29-03-2022, 05:32 PM)Ianbrownlee Wrote: Walter Buchanan wrote
"Matthew can you tell us anything about your dispute with ECF - I'd presumed it was over some point of principle."
This is way, way off topic , as moderator I urge everyone to stay on topic . Any further discussions about the ECF and alleged disputes will not be allowed as they are subjective, opinionated, and ELEVEN years ago
I
Ok, this is getting completely ridiculous.
As far as I and many others are concerned, everything relating to Matt's switch to SCO is on topic. Mistakes have been made all along the way (arguably as far back as 11 years ago) many because of poor communication, and that communication is not being helped by current CS officials in this thread in my opinion, who appear to be trying to stifle an honest debate.
I suggest that those officials take a step back and reconsider whether previous personal conflicts are playing a part in their posts here and whether they are helping us to reach a conclusion or hindering that process.
RE: Eligibility Votes - March 2022 - Matthew Turner - 29-03-2022
(29-03-2022, 04:13 PM)WBuchanan Wrote:(29-03-2022, 03:07 PM)Matthew Turner Wrote: Had my decision being based purely on cost, I would presumably have not coached various Scottish juniors teams for free, paid the significant transfer fees myself along with an admin donation to CS, or continue to pay the CS membership fees which are currently higher than the ECF's.
Matthew can you tell us anything about your dispute with ECF - I'd presumed it was over some point of principle.
Clearly, I could go on at some length about the shortcomings of English chess organisation in the early years of this century and I am happy to do so with you over a pint. However, I think the more pertinent aspect of this is that I made the positive move to Chess Scotland because I felt that they represented a positive outlook for chess.
Generally limited resources were used in supporting juniors and other worthy causes. Tournaments were well organised and players, organisers and officials worked well together to achieve positive outcomes.
I wished to support and be a part of that sort of organisation - I still do.
RE: Eligibility Votes - March 2022 - Ianbrownlee - 29-03-2022
(29-03-2022, 05:48 PM)andybburnett Wrote:(29-03-2022, 05:32 PM)Ianbrownlee Wrote: Walter Buchanan wrote
"Matthew can you tell us anything about your dispute with ECF - I'd presumed it was over some point of principle."
This is way, way off topic , as moderator I urge everyone to stay on topic . Any further discussions about the ECF and alleged disputes will not be allowed as they are subjective, opinionated, and ELEVEN years ago
I
Ok, this is getting completely ridiculous.
As far as I and many others are concerned, everything relating to Matt's switch to SCO is on topic. Mistakes have been made all along the way (arguably as far back as 11 years ago) many because of poor communication, and that communication is not being helped by current CS officials in this thread in my opinion, who appear to be trying to stifle an honest debate.
I suggest that those officials take a step back and reconsider whether previous personal conflicts are playing a part in their posts here and whether they are helping us to reach a conclusion or hindering that process.I
The point I am making is that any grievance between MT and the ECF is irrelevant to the matter at hand, which is, how to resolve whats happened. if you dont like the way the forum is moderated get another moderator, if you dont like the way CS conducts its business , stand for election. Attacks are getting personal now and if it continues will be stopped. If you wish to discuss the ECF, Mathew Turner or anything else, start another thread and keep within the rules of the forum. If anyone wants to have a go at current CS officials, specify your grievance in another thread. If anyone starts personal attacks pertaining to either now or eleven years ago , it will be stopped.keep this thread to the two motions now, and resist the temptation to encourage blame.
RE: Eligibility Votes - March 2022 - davidlevy - 29-03-2022
Firstly I should declare self-interest in the following question.
How would proposal 1 deal with someone who conforms to the following, or to similar criteria? If my understanding of the draft is correct, such a person would not be eligible to represent Scotland in future team events because of points [1] and [2] below.
[1] Was not born in Scotland, and no parent or grandparent was born in Scotland.
[2] Not currently resident in Scotland.
[3] Has been registered with FIDE as SCO ever since the FIDE registration process began.
[4] Is registered with FIDE as a FIDE title holder attached to SCO.
[5] Was permanently resident in Scotland for 4.5 years (plus another 4 years temporarily resident in Scotland as a student).
[6] Has represented Scotland in 13 FIDE international team tournaments (6 Olympiads, 6 Student Olympiads, 1 World Senior Team Championship).
[7] Has been a life member of Chess Scotland since 1981.
[8] Has won the Scottish Championship or the Scottish Ladies Championship.
[
[9] Has never been registered with FIDE as being from a country other than Scotland.
I would respectfully suggest, reminding the reader of my above declared self-interest, that someone who has represented Scotland in past international team events (perhaps imposing a minimum number of 2 or more such events), should not lack eligibility if and when any new eligibility requirements come into force.
Also, it might be appropriate in the eligibility requirements to distinguish between those players who have not previously been registered with FIDE for a national federation other than Scotland, and those who have been so registered.
Regards to all,
David Levy
RE: Eligibility Votes - March 2022 - Willie Rutherford - 29-03-2022
Back on topic, we're 7 pages in and nobody has answered my question on page 1 - why should MT be an exception?
This is/was a genuine question, not a barb at anyone.
DB stated that the purpose of Proposal 2 was to have a vote to remove ambiguity, this I understand.
But nobody has actually made a case for a yes vote for Proposal 2. Maybe nobody wants to.
It was stated above that MT himself has never lobbied to be eligible for Scottish teams or Champion.
It looks like it is intended to be just a procedural device to remove ambiguity...so long as it gets voted down, otherwise I expect it will just lead to many more problems down the line.
RE: Eligibility Votes - March 2022 - hamish olson - 29-03-2022
Good question Willie. I also asked this on page one.
I'm a bit unsure whether management are just doing this to clarify things, or whether anyone actually is pushing for Matthew to be eligible. I think it is the latter but I'm genuinely baffled why no argument has been put forward if that is the case. I was a bit puzzled by that back on page one and I'm mystified now.
Can the proposers clarify what their stance is on the matter, and why? Can management?
On another note, on page two I have asked if we can finally publish (or point me to if it is already) the definitive version of a 2016 motion.
In some ways it is the reason the Matthew Turner issue is even being discussed - the misunderstanding of it in 2019 (or not - no-one knows, because it isn't published) was what prompted this working party.
Adidtionally references to it have been made several times in this thread to justify e.g. changing eligibility to include students.
Apparently this changed a few years ago for SCO registration. I'm unsure if it was also changed for eligibility (not least because that 2016 motion still isn't published as far as I can see).
This may seem like a minor procedural issue but it could well have real world implications. It was mentioned that strong titled players have large transfer fees, but what about e.g. a female university student strong enough to play for our women's team. It looks like that issue wasn't considered.
Reasonable people may well decide that that would an acceptable occurrence but it is the kind of decision that should be made in the open, and ideally voted on. It certainly is not the kind of change that should be made behind the scenes without most people even noticing.
I don't even think some of the management are aware that it is a change. Jim for example referenced this document https://www.chessscotland.com/international/eligibility-for-national-representation/ and claimed it was the same as the motion (accompanied with a generous offer to enlarge the size of the link).
However the residency in that document is "permanently resident" , whereas Douglas had clarified earlier that the residency now is just any residency, including students.
When was this change decided, and why? Why aren't the membership getting a vote on it?
Can this at least be communicated better (i.e. in the motion itself)? If Jim is missing that kind of detail then I'm sure plenty of other people are too.
And where is the final version of the 2016 motion? It is 2022. Has the final version of the 2016 motion ever been published?
I'm sorry to be asking so many questions and my irritation may be coming across in this post.
I'm sure the working party has put in a lot of effort into this with the very best of intentions, and I am genuinely grateful to all volunteers in Chess Scotland and Scottish chess more generally.
I just think these are important issues to get right and be transparent with, or things just snowball - 2019 is proof enough of that.
(29-03-2022, 08:30 PM)davidlevy Wrote: Firstly I should declare self-interest in the following question.
How would proposal 1 deal with someone who conforms to the following, or to similar criteria? If my understanding of the draft is correct, such a person would not be eligible to represent Scotland in future team events because of points [1] and [2] below.
[1] Was not born in Scotland, and no parent or grandparent was born in Scotland.
[2] Not currently resident in Scotland.
[3] Has been registered with FIDE as SCO ever since the FIDE registration process began.
[4] Is registered with FIDE as a FIDE title holder attached to SCO.
[5] Was permanently resident in Scotland for 4.5 years (plus another 4 years temporarily resident in Scotland as a student).
[6] Has represented Scotland in 13 FIDE international team tournaments (6 Olympiads, 6 Student Olympiads, 1 World Senior Team Championship).
[7] Has been a life member of Chess Scotland since 1981.
[8] Has won the Scottish Championship or the Scottish Ladies Championship.
[
[9] Has never been registered with FIDE as being from a country other than Scotland.
I would respectfully suggest, reminding the reader of my above declared self-interest, that someone who has represented Scotland in past international team events (perhaps imposing a minimum number of 2 or more such events), should not lack eligibility if and when any new eligibility requirements come into force.
Also, it might be appropriate in the eligibility requirements to distinguish between those players who have not previously been registered with FIDE for a national federation other than Scotland, and those who have been so registered.
Regards to all,
David Levy
That's an interesting question.
I think the key is the wording of criterion 3.
As things stand with motion 1 , I think it depends whether you had been resident (temporary or permanent - both fine if motion 1 passes in the current wording) for the preceding 2 years at the time of your initial SCO registration.
I'm not sure that this kind of situation was the intent behind the motion and therefore I think your proposal to retain eligibility for cases like yours makes sense and seems like a way of avoiding some unintended consequences.
RE: Eligibility Votes - March 2022 - Alex McFarlane - 29-03-2022
Willie,
If Matt was applying today I can see no valid reason for allowing it. But nor could I when it happened.
However, it did happen. I consider, in those circumstances, it would be totally unfair to remove him now. Nothing has changed in the intervening years to justify expelling Matt. Indeed he has done a lot of work for Chess Scotland.
I don't know what deadline I would put on correcting 'errors' such as this but 11 years certainly exceeds it. Probably even one year would be too many.
So in answer to your question, "Why should MT be an exception?" Because he was accepted as one 11 years ago and I can see no valid reason for revoking that decision 11 years later. Sometimes when you make mistakes (if this was one) then you have to learn to live with them.
If, when the grandparent extension to eligibility failed, his situation had been reviewed then there would have been some logic to doing so (though I would not have supported it). I fail to see any merit in reversing his status now.
RE: Eligibility Votes - March 2022 - hamish olson - 29-03-2022
Alex,
Matthew was accepted as SCO.
However that is not the same as being accepted to represent Scotland in Olympiads and win Scottish championships. Why else would we have that document Jim linked to?
https://www.chessscotland.com/international/eligibility-for-national-representation/
I can think of several people who have SCO and don't satisfy criteria 1 2 or 3 in that list and therefore would not have been eligible until the announcement that motion 1 was being put into effect.
At least unless that 2016 motion is worded very differently in it's final form than what I quoted.
Who knows? Anyone?
RE: Eligibility Votes - March 2022 - Alex McFarlane - 29-03-2022
Hamish, my post 57 in this thread is taken from the minutes of the meeting given at the 2017 AGM.
I repeat it
5. Matters by members. Chess Scotland Champion must be SCO registered. Grey areas over who is Scottish and who isn’t. Discussion on wording of proposal. IE discussion on whether this is to do with number of Country code. Minor amendment – DB suggests change to federation designation instead of Country Code. AM agrees to amendment. amendment passed. Vote on proposal. 16 for. 14 against. Motion passed.
The amended motion that I saw indicated that anyone listed as SCO was entitled to win the championship. THe Working Party appears to have reached the same conclusion but does Matt's previous 'status' continue to make him an exception?
RE: Eligibility Votes - March 2022 - hamish olson - 29-03-2022
So is this the final wording?
"The current rules to be eligible to be Scottish Champion are set out in Section A of “Scottish Champion Entry Rules”:
An additional sentence shall be added: To be eligible to be Scottish Champion or Scottish Senior Champion a player must also be FIDE registered as Scotland with a SCO federation designation.
Proposed: Andy Muir – Seconded: George Neave"
I changed "with a SCO code" to "with a SCO federation designation" - otherwise it's as I quoted initially
I've just seen your edit Alex:
"The amended motion that I saw indicated that anyone listed as SCO was entitled to win the championship. THe Working Party appears to have reached the same conclusion but does Matt's previous 'status' continue to make him an exception?"
This is exactly the confusion I'm trying to clarify, and why I want the exact final wording of the 2016 motion, if it exists.
If not then I think the documentation I have provided backs up "my" version sufficiently (with the amendment you refer to).
The version I am quoting currently makes it very clear that SCO is a necessary condition for eligibility.
At no point does it state that it is sufficient.
The wording ("also", "additional sentence") clearly refers to the existence of other criteria that must additionally be fulfilled.