Eligibility Votes - March 2022

[Willie Rutherford]

Andy Howie

#116
Saturday, April 2nd, 2022, 09:46 am
Voting will go live on Tuesday Evening when I return from Berlin and will last for a week

Since this was actually posted on the Forum -- I do not understand why people are trying vote at this time.

Maybe because that was easy to miss and there was a link on the web front page inviting you to do so. Now removed.
Every post on here is turning into a veiled or blatant criticism. I'm doing it myself now.

[Jim Webster]

Andy Howie

#116
Saturday, April 2nd, 2022, 09:46 am
Voting will go live on Tuesday Evening when I return from Berlin and will last for a week

Since this was actually posted on the Forum -- I do not understand why people are trying vote at this time.

Maybe because that was easy to miss and there was a link on the web front page inviting you to do so. Now removed.
Every post on here is turning into a veiled or blatant criticism. I'm doing it myself now.

No offence intended. The vote link does not go active until Tuesday at 8pm. Members will also receive an email, hopefully with a link to the vote as well.

[hamish olson]

Andy H, Ian, Walter.
We are all on the same side here. I firmly believe everyone here wants what is best for Scottish chess and has the very best of intentions.

I do not think anyone is motivated by "xenophobia" - other than arguably one comment that Willie and I called out already.

I also don't think the management's behaviour has been improper - a bit ill-tempered on occasion in this thread but not improper.

It is a perfectly reasonable position to take that no-one should be above the three non-SCO eligibility criteria, regardless of contribution to Scottish chess or other details.

It is also perfectly reasonable to take the opposite view, that 11 years of SCO registration + a substantial contribution to Scottish chess (that I paid tribute to on page 1, post 2) is a good enough reason.

However I do think Walter's gist that there is a longstanding agenda to grant Matthew eligibility is probably correct. As I say, I don't think there is anything wrong with wanting that, but personally I would prefer if people had been a bit more open about it , and their motivations. I think it is perfectly reasonable to expect that from our governing body, who I think has generally been handling things extremely well in really trying times the past few years.

I dislike that motion 1 has been presented as a fait accompli, and that none of the associated documentation highlights that it is making students eligible - even our President was confused. How can ordinary members be expected to notice (especially now this thread has grown so massive)? Why aren't we getting a vote on it?

Andy H, I don't agree with your core assertion on motion 2, that Matthew would be almost unique "worldwide" if he wasn't eligible to represent Scotland and be Scottish champion despite having a SCO code.

Prior to motion 1 being enacted (reminder: we are just voting on whether to include it in the constitution) there were numerous examples of university students being given SCO codes. They were not eligible for Scottish Champion (see Walter's quoted 2017 and 2015 forms). They were not eligible to represent Scotland (see Jim Webster's 2018 eligibility document that he thought was the same rules as the proposed one). They were still being given SCO. 

I am happy to name a couple of examples privately - not the product of a lot of research, just two of the first three names I searched on the FIDE website.

Another counterexample would be the likes of Donald Heron, and in particular I would quote Alex McFarlane earlier in the thread on this:

"Regardless of their 'real' nationality the ECF will register anyone playing in an English event as ENG regardless of nationality.  (This happened to Donald Heron without his knowledge.  If you look at his FIN it has and English format.)"

[my emphasis in bold]

So as you can see, Matthew's situation should motion 2 be rejected would have been far from unique even in Scotland prior to motion 1 being enacted. Even now, Matthew would be far from unique in our tiny corner of the world, the UK. So I find your statement about "worldwide" uniqueness a bit hard to swallow and suggest you retract it.

In general I think the whole SCO code justification for motion two is being given by people who are getting too caught up in all the FIDE admin (understandably - they do this voluntarily as a thankless task, to our great benefit).

The SCO code is an admin thing, and our neighbour to the south even gives ENG automatically to anyone playing in English tournaments - not something to stake a whole argument on like the CS management have.

Eligibility is about more than paperwork and FIDE codes and past mistakes, and the core thrust of management's argument so far here completely forgets that.

As an addendum, Andy H I enjoyed seeing a clip of you and Wesley So on the FIDE website. It's fantastic to see Scotland getting represented at that high level!

Final addendum, here is the Andy H quote I refer to above where he makes the argument that as I understand things is the main thrust of the CS management's case:

"I disagree with many things that have been said here but that is my personal view. If Matthew has been afforded SCO status (and has done so now for 11 years), I think it is disingenuous for him to be practically the only player worldwide that cannot represent his country (other than those who are under sanction for one reason or another).

Back to my day job and another fun filled Semi Final match!"

Reasonable people may decide that alternative arguments, e.g. longstanding contribution to Scottish chess are sufficient reason to vote for Motion 2, but this whole SCO code doesn't add up in my opinion, and I'm a bit baffled why it's the only argument put forward so far.

[Douglas Bryson]

I was chairman of the Eligibility Working Panel (EWP) panel set up to examine CS eligibility rules and to try and find resolution of the difficulties of the 2019 Scottish Championship.

The majority EWP report recommends that Motion 1 is placed in the Constitution. This is our best judgement of a set of Eligibility requirements within the administrative capabilities of CS which provide guidance on what constitutes the rights to win Scottish Championship titles, represent Scotland in international play and to be registered as Scottish with FIDE, the world chess federation. 

If the Eligibility section is within the Constitution it will minimise divergence from established rules and the potential problems that may bring. Whether the rules are in the Constitution or not they can still be adjusted in future by members securing the consent of the membership by way of AGM motions - the only difference is a Constitution change will require a 2/3rd vote to secure change rather than a simple 50% majority. 

***

With regard to the issue of the FIDE registration of students and other temporary residents mentioned by various posters the majority EWP view was that the stipulation of a minimum period of two years is sufficient. In the allocation of FIDE IDs we simply ask players if they meet at least one of the criteria 1) Born here 2) parent born here 3) Residency of two years - any one of the three is considered sufficient. CS do not seek information on the future work and location choices of players and no record is kept of how any player meets the eligibility requirements. Therefore we do not currently know who are "residency only" players.

If a player has eligibility for more than one federation then they should consider possible future financial penalties before choosing Scotland. If the intention is to move outwith Scotland there will be transfer fee costs if they wish to re-register in the new location. There may also be particular federation registration requirements to play in certain events (in the same way SCO would be a requirement in any closed Scottish Championship). It would not be sensible for a player intending to continue with serious chessplay to register with Scotland if their intention was to leave the country a short time later.

***

https://www.chessscotland.com/wp-content...b_2022.pdf

5. Transfer Fees
If a player wishes to transfer away from Scotland to a different federation, they should be aware that FIDE will impose an administration fee. The current (Jan 2022) minimum fee is 50 euros with significantly higher costs for strong titled players. If a player is eligible for more than one federation, they should consider the potential cost of changing later to a different federation before they request an initial Scotland registration. Players wishing to transfer to Scotland should contact the Chess Scotland International Rating Officer for advice.

6. Temporary residents
The provisions on residency are intended to apply to those who are normally resident in Scotland rather than those who are only here on a temporary basis. In addition to the section on possible fees associated with changing federation it should also be considered that the rules of a domestic competition in a player’s normal country of residence may require a FIDE registration transfer to the home country. So this may create problems for a player if they have already been allocated a SCO registration.

7. Longevity
Once granted the SCO registration remains unless the player wishes to transfer to another federation or commits a serious breach of Chess Scotland rules of conduct.

***

Presumably the concern is that a temporary resident will claim a place in a Scotland international team or contest the Scottish Championship. Just how strong will an 18-20 year-old be if they are applying for an initial FIDE registration? There is no example of any such gaming the system among the 1000+ SCO players currently FIDE registered.

With almost 20% of the Scottish population not born in this country there will be many players who are "resident only" qualifiers for a Scotland badge. For the bulk of players this assists with their ability to play FIDE rated games. For those players strong enough to represent Scotland in Olympiads or contest the Championship should there be restrictions placed on "resident only" Scotland players if they later re-locate to an address outside Scotland? 

The majority EWP conclusion was that as far as FIDE is concerned any player holding a SCO registration is considered as Scottish regardless of their geographic location. Any player ruled ineligible from representing Scotland under a CS residency check would be unable to play for any other federation until they had transferred away from Scotland. Should CS place restrictions on players who have already demonstrated a connection to the Scotland chess community now or at some time in the past?

Prior to the 2016 AGM ruling (restricting eligibility to SCO players only) players already FIDE registered with a country other than Scotland were eligible to win the Scottish Championship title if deemed ordinarily resident. Title contenders would be already strong players (in contrast to new fide-registrants) and the rules were required to protect the title against strong players considered as making only a temporary stay.

Players are entitled to transfer to Scotland from other federations provided they meet eligibility requirements and the financial costs of transfer. There have been no examples of players deliberately seeking transfer to use Scotland as a flag of convenience in order to play in international teams or contest the Championship. 

The issue of residency was one of the main topics of debate among the EWP https://www.chessscotland.com/wp-content...Topics.pdf 

***

Motion 2: The EWP would like to establish member views on what should be the rights of GM Matthew Turner with regard to his Scotland registration. It is unfortunate that MT is the subject of this debate from a situation which arises outwith his control due to the lack of any documented guidance from officials on how they thought the 2016 "SCO only" rule change was to be interpreted and why it warranted a change in status. 

As it now stands the current circumstance is MT has held a Scotland registration for over a decade established by a vote at the 2011 AGM plus a share of the 2019 Championship title. The EWP declined to make any unilateral ruling on future rights and would prefer if members indicated how CS should proceed. Once the vote is concluded it will assist both the player and CS by providing a member-backed ruling on future rights.

[JMcNicoll]

Personally, as we are all Jock Tamson's bairns, if anyone wants to play for Scotland and be considered themselves Scottish for the purposes of playing chess, I would let them.

That'll be far too simple, of course.

[Matthew Turner]

Personally, as we are all Jock Tamson's bairns, if anyone wants to play for Scotland and be considered themselves Scottish for the purposes of playing chess, I would let them.

That'll be far too simple, of course.

I did go here https://lanntair.com/ for a talk on Scottish heritage which basically concluded you are not as Viking as you think you are Sadly, I missed another academic at the same location https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-h...s-14207935

[WBuchanan]

I was chairman of the Eligibility Working Panel (EWP) panel set up to examine CS eligibility rules and to try and find resolution of the difficulties of the 2019 Scottish Championship.

The majority EWP report recommends that Motion 1 is placed in the Constitution. This is our best judgement of a set of Eligibility requirements within the administrative capabilities of CS which provide guidance on what constitutes the rights to win Scottish Championship titles, represent Scotland in international play and to be registered as Scottish with FIDE, the world chess federation. 

If the Eligibility section is within the Constitution it will minimise divergence from established rules and the potential problems that may bring. Whether the rules are in the Constitution or not they can still be adjusted in future by members securing the consent of the membership by way of AGM motions - the only difference is a Constitution change will require a 2/3rd vote to secure change rather than a simple 50% majority. 

***

With regard to the issue of the FIDE registration of students and other temporary residents mentioned by various posters the majority EWP view was that the stipulation of a minimum period of two years is sufficient. In the allocation of FIDE IDs we simply ask players if they meet at least one of the criteria 1) Born here 2) parent born here 3) Residency of two years - any one of the three is considered sufficient. CS do not seek information on the future work and location choices of players and no record is kept of how any player meets the eligibility requirements. Therefore we do not currently know who are "residency only" players.

If a player has eligibility for more than one federation then they should consider possible future financial penalties before choosing Scotland. If the intention is to move outwith Scotland there will be transfer fee costs if they wish to re-register in the new location. There may also be particular federation registration requirements to play in certain events (in the same way SCO would be a requirement in any closed Scottish Championship). It would not be sensible for a player intending to continue with serious chessplay to register with Scotland if their intention was to leave the country a short time later.

***

https://www.chessscotland.com/wp-content...b_2022.pdf

5. Transfer Fees
If a player wishes to transfer away from Scotland to a different federation, they should be aware that FIDE will impose an administration fee. The current (Jan 2022) minimum fee is 50 euros with significantly higher costs for strong titled players. If a player is eligible for more than one federation, they should consider the potential cost of changing later to a different federation before they request an initial Scotland registration. Players wishing to transfer to Scotland should contact the Chess Scotland International Rating Officer for advice.

6. Temporary residents
The provisions on residency are intended to apply to those who are normally resident in Scotland rather than those who are only here on a temporary basis. In addition to the section on possible fees associated with changing federation it should also be considered that the rules of a domestic competition in a player’s normal country of residence may require a FIDE registration transfer to the home country. So this may create problems for a player if they have already been allocated a SCO registration.

7. Longevity
Once granted the SCO registration remains unless the player wishes to transfer to another federation or commits a serious breach of Chess Scotland rules of conduct.

***

Presumably the concern is that a temporary resident will claim a place in a Scotland international team or contest the Scottish Championship. Just how strong will an 18-20 year-old be if they are applying for an initial FIDE registration? There is no example of any such gaming the system among the 1000+ SCO players currently FIDE registered.

With almost 20% of the Scottish population not born in this country there will be many players who are "resident only" qualifiers for a Scotland badge. For the bulk of players this assists with their ability to play FIDE rated games. For those players strong enough to represent Scotland in Olympiads or contest the Championship should there be restrictions placed on "resident only" Scotland players if they later re-locate to an address outside Scotland? 

The majority EWP conclusion was that as far as FIDE is concerned any player holding a SCO registration is considered as Scottish regardless of their geographic location. Any player ruled ineligible from representing Scotland under a CS residency check would be unable to play for any other federation until they had transferred away from Scotland. Should CS place restrictions on players who have already demonstrated a connection to the Scotland chess community now or at some time in the past?

Prior to the 2016 AGM ruling (restricting eligibility to SCO players only) players already FIDE registered with a country other than Scotland were eligible to win the Scottish Championship title if deemed ordinarily resident. Title contenders would be already strong players (in contrast to new fide-registrants) and the rules were required to protect the title against strong players considered as making only a temporary stay.

Players are entitled to transfer to Scotland from other federations provided they meet eligibility requirements and the financial costs of transfer. There have been no examples of players deliberately seeking transfer to use Scotland as a flag of convenience in order to play in international teams or contest the Championship. 

The issue of residency was one of the main topics of debate among the EWP https://www.chessscotland.com/wp-content...Topics.pdf 

***

Motion 2: The EWP would like to establish member views on what should be the rights of GM Matthew Turner with regard to his Scotland registration. It is unfortunate that MT is the subject of this debate from a situation which arises outwith his control due to the lack of any documented guidance from officials on how they thought the 2016 "SCO only" rule change was to be interpreted and why it warranted a change in status. 

As it now stands the current circumstance is MT has held a Scotland registration for over a decade established by a vote at the 2011 AGM plus a share of the 2019 Championship title. The EWP declined to make any unilateral ruling on future rights and would prefer if members indicated how CS should proceed. Once the vote is concluded it will assist both the player and CS by providing a member-backed ruling on future rights.

Hi Douglas et al
 
"If the Eligibility section is within the Constitution it will minimise divergence from established rules and the potential problems that may bring. "
 
As evidenced in Post #118 on Page 12, the various rules referenced in the recent past do not bear a close resemblance to these proposals.
 
They are not 'established rules'.
 
Motion 1 introduces a new clause eliminating the distinction between a permanent residency and a temporary residency, eg students.
 
This will be lifelong.
 
In Hamish's rather superbly worded long post he says (my emphasis)
 
" I dislike that motion 1 has been presented as a fait accompli, and that none of the associated documentation highlights that it is making students eligible - even our President was confused. How can ordinary members be expected to notice (especially now this thread has grown so massive)? Why aren't we getting a vote on it?"
 
Funny HO should say that...the main single reason I resigned late on from the EWP was on the treatment of lifelong eligibility, the trigger being that this new proposal was not going to be highlighted to members.
 
If it wasn't clear to Hamish, who has taken a keen interest, then it will not be clear to most members.
The decision to separate the purpose of the proposal from what members can easily see has to be considered as deliberate. (I would be delighted for you to refute this notion by highlighting it as Hamish suggests).
 
This has to be considered in combination with the members not being given a choice in Motion 1 anyway, other than how deeply to embed the removal of their rights.

I'm not so sure that this is reassuring:

"Whether the rules are in the Constitution or not they can still be adjusted in future by members securing the consent of the membership by way of AGM motions - the only difference is a Constitution change will require a 2/3rd vote to secure change rather than a simple 50% majority. "
 
What AGM is that, Douglas?
 
If there was an AGM here - as required by the constitution, and pandemic restrictions are being lifted on April 18 - members could have brought other motions that didn't cede so many of their rights away.
 
In practice, it would be very difficult for membership to 'adjust' these rules in a later vote if it needed a 2/3 majority.
Management (senior officials) have control over timing and can even 'not hold' AGMs when they are due.
Management also have power to refuse motions (see section 14.2 of the constitution).
Even with these potential hurdles overcome, a 2/3 majority would be difficult to get (plenty of 'management' votes to overcome as well) and would require an extremely focussed discussion (due to eg a 50-50 split among those not paying close attention). Members do not have the control of central resources to look after the proprieties of the discussion.
One thing I would say is vitally important is board moderation that is independent of management. That's not easy to get, though it's not inconceivable.

Cheers.

[Alex McFarlane]

There seems to be three main questions here. I think we should be trying to focus on these.
a) Should qualification for being Scottish be in the Constitution or just a Rule?
b) Should those with temporary residence be allowed to be considered Scottish?
c) Should Matt Turner have full Scottish status.

a) I think that this is important enough to be a constitutional matter. If it had been in the constitution then there should have been no way Matt should have been accepted. (I don't think he should have been anyway.)
b) The difficulty here is in defining temporary residence and considering the effects. Here is a hypothetical situation based on a real life example. Z arrives in Scotland aged 6 months. He remains in Scotland until 17. I think everyone would be happy for that person to be registered as SCO. However, he (or she) now goes to University in England. Should he still be SCO or should he be forced to change? Probably to soon to decide. He graduates and gets a job in England. At what point would he stop being regarded as Scottish? Remember for titled players it can be an expensive process to change federations for titled players. In addition, who keeps these records?
Personally I would find it difficult to accept someone arriving in Scotland to attend University or on a short term work contract as SCO. But I would also find it difficult to draw up watertight rules. Eg adult arrives on rolling contract, no former federation. It is not unreasonable to say they cannot be SCO. But is it right to say they cannot become SCO when we accept someone on a full time contract after 24 months even if the leave after 25 months.
c) I believe Matt Turner should not have been accepted as SCO. However an AGM accepted him. Is it fair to now cast him adrift? I do not believe so. Like many errors, once they are made you need to learn to live with them. Where the second motion is not satisfactory in my opinion is that it should include details of the compensation required to Matt to overturn his SCO status, a not insignificant amount for a GM. It should also state that Chess Scotland will not require compensation from the receiving federation.

So my opinion
a) Yes, it minimises the risk of a repeat of this fiasco
b) In theory yes but too difficult to administer in practice therefore NO.
c) We accept him as a full member. Given the history, it is unfair to do otherwise.

[hamish olson]

I agree with your three questions Alex, and respect your logic on all points but think this begs the follow up question of:

(d) Why aren't we (the membership) getting to answer question (b), which you and I have highlighted as a core issue? It is being presented to us with no discussion or choice other than which level of acceptance, in a very subtle "blink-and-you-missed-it" way that non-forum members are likely to be oblivious to, as are many people, including at least one senior CS official posting in this thread.

To be clear, my answer to (b) is more or less identical to yours, with the same reasoning, but we aren't getting asked (b), just (a) and ( c ) which I don't like on principle.

I would honestly just settle for it being highlighted as a change so that people actually know the new status quo doesn't include students etc. any more, if voting is a step too far for a small change.

As things stand, people familiar with the past rules will think that residency excludes students. People unfamiliar will assume it includes. A recipe for confusion.

[Willie Rutherford]

Excellent posts by Hamish! Also Alex very useful.

I've never bothered with this forum before until dipping into this topic a week or 2 back. I am surprised by the amount of mud being slung and by who is slinging a lot of it. That's the internet for you I suppose.

There has been very little discussion of the merits of the proposals themselves. Hamish and Alex are getting to this now. Here's my own tuppence worth.

Proposal 1 by accident or design hides a fundamental change to the residency criteria, which we are not being given the chance to vote on. It proposes that e.g. someone who isn't Scottish has lifelong eligibility to represent Scotland just because they lived here for a year as a kid. Is that a good idea? I think not. What is the benefit of that? The only case appearing to be made is it is simpler operationally. Sacrificing principles for operational expediency is not usually a good idea. But I don't see the operational issue anyway. Let's guess only about 30 people a year are seriously considered for selection to represent Scotland, the vast majority will have life-long eligibility through birth or parentage leaving only a handful who would require to confirm their residency if they wish to be considered eligible for selection that year. I am sure such people would be keen to co-operate, and if not too bad. What's the big problem?

Proposal 2 - I think 2 arguments have (sort of, obliquely) been put forward in support of this. 
First - it's not fair that the past error leaves MT in the situation of not being eligible for Scotland, nor for any other federation because he is SCO registered. I agree it is unfortunate. Some of the advocates of this appear emotionally invested in this, possibly through feelings of embarrassment, guilt or sense of "fair play". But for me these are not good enough reasons to break our own rules, compounding 1 error with another, which may have unintended consequences in the future. 
Secondly - CS might be open to a charge of discrimination against MT if he isn't granted full eligibility. That is nonsense. Apart for the points Hamish made earlier re SCO codes etc etc, discrimination is not illegal. Discrimination is rightly prevalent in all walks of life - team/club/society/professional body membership, school/uni/job applications, access to benefits/financial products etc etc. All have eligibility which discriminate between those eligible and those not. Discrimination is only illegal if it is done on an illegal basis, such as race, religion, gender or disability.  In fact if proposal 2 was approved CS would have a much greater risk of facing a discrimination charge if it didn't also bend its rules in the future in the same way for someone who isn't a white male.

In short, my opinion is that a very poor job has been done of making a positive case for why these proposals should be approved.