Eligibility Votes - March 2022

[hamish olson]

It's not so much the devising that I think is too much Walter, although that would prove tricky too if we were to catch every edge case.
It's the keeping records etc. - a thankless task. Also the more complexity the more mistakes.

The way you are proposing with "How long people stayed here, and how long that should give them" for example would be quite an easy one to mess up. Someone gets their leaving date wrong by a few months, suddenly their eligibility is down by six months (3 less accrued, 3 more spent) and they have already played an event they shouldn't entirely accidentally.

I'd rather we just had a simple approach - reasonable people may disagree, but in any case that wasn't quite what Willie was proposing.

I also just feel that after enough time here people just are Scottish - if they move away they might also become something else, but that doesn't stop them being Scottish too.
Whether two years is "enough time" is kind of hard to say, but at least it's simple to administer (relative to anything else), clear to understand, and difficult to game.

[Willie Rutherford]

Fair points Douglas and Walter.

I think something along the lines you propose in your post Douglas is much better than the "Proposal 1 option" (apparently to be adopted whether Proposal 1 is approved or not) of giving lifelong eligibility to folks who pass through Scotland for a year or 2.

I still don't see the checking as a huge burden if we are only going to do it to check eligibility to be selected or to be Scottish Champion. 

Give SCO FIDE flag to anybody who plays their first FIDE tournament in Scotland, unless they object, and let them keep it until they don't want it (or, exceptionally, until they do something unseemly which we don't want to be associated with). I think I read above that's what the ECF do with ENG, and probably loads of other federations do similar. Simples.

---

But Walter's point that we should have options with pros and cons presented to vote on is key.

[Andy Howie]

Vote is now live

Got back from Berlin an hour ago, need sleep

[Andy Howie]

To answer Walters question as to why I have been unusually quiet during the debate. The answer is fairly mundane and simple. I was at the GP3 as Deputy Chief Arbiter. The Chief arbiter took unwell half way through and I had to step up and do all three roles (Including Fair Play Officer). Fair to say I have been a tad busy the last two and a bit weeks!

[WBuchanan]

Fair enough Andy I know you're always busy - I don't know how you do it all.

[WBuchanan]

To answer Walters question as to why I have been unusually quiet during the debate.  The answer is fairly mundane and simple.  I was at the GP3 as Deputy Chief Arbiter.  The Chief arbiter took unwell half way through and I had to step up and do all three roles (Including Fair Play Officer).  Fair to say I have been a tad busy the last two and a bit weeks!

Hi Andy. I hope you had a good sleep and aren't too jet lagged.

I'd like to ask a couple of things if I may:
 
1) None of the officials concerned have commented on the false statements I listed (in Post #118) that claim that Motion 1 is just firming up established rules or practice.
 
I know, I know, I've made my point - it was visible on the front of the forum for 24 hours.
The trouble is, this claim is still on the explanatory material, and was made again yesterday (#134), by the proposer of the motion.
 
And as none of the CS officials who made this claim have retracted it, it's just in the places members will come to see the justifications for the Motions.
 
It's also the case that the 'lifelong eligibility to temporary residency' including students is a new proposal - but Motion 1 does not permit a vote on this, just whether to accept it in the rules or embed it even further out of membership reach in the Constitution.
It's mentioned somewhere but isn't up front. Charitable souls say it's poor communication but it being concealed in this manner was my resignation trigger from the EWP.
 
Earlier you said the justification for one of the Motions was  ethics - how would that square with misleading the membership about a vote?
 
2) A second question is the moderation of the forum during the run-up to the vote.
 
Management moderators, who obviously can not be independent during a management vote, have been using their powers to attack some dissenting posts. The only insulting language has come from forum officials! One of whom is the seconder of one of the Motions.
 
Post #124 by another senior official is a beaut, and not just because of the snarling language.
 
I try to post objectively and civilly. So at one level, I don't presume it will damage me when there is a personal attack in response, because it won't have justification and so will reveal more about the perpetrator than it will about me.
 
But there is a vote on; is CS management happy to see their own statements 'defended' (lol)  by personal attacks from its moderators?
 I think some may be a bit surprised that there was no retraction or deletion. I personally hope it is not deleted as it's a wonderful example of the Moderator's modus operandi.
 
But at the same time, I think management should be taking action about the moderation issues - aka, the behaviour of the moderators, rather than (clearly) hoping to benefit from it.
Even with my neutral hat on, I'd say it's surely not good

One step that could be taken in that regard would be to put out a call for moderators that aren't in CS management?

Cheers
Walter

[Andy Howie]

Walter, 

I am utterly shattered at the moment.  Berlin has taken a lot out of me.

This is not a management vote, I really don't know why you think it is.  It is a vote on the proposals that came from the EWP.   Management/Exec board have not formulated the motions, they came from the EWP.  

It was supposed to take place in 2020 but the pandemic put paid to it.  Given it has been sitting waiting to be voted on for 2 years, we were asked to bring it forward and we have, ergo Jim and I are facilitating that vote for the members.

There is not a consensual view by management on the motions, one has not been sought as is is not from Management, I may be incorrect here but from memory, other than agreeing to bring the vote to the members, I don't actually recall us discussing the motions.

[WBuchanan]

Let's not get hung up on a word. I'm just using the term descriptively, I don't want to keep listing people's names. I've used 'senior officials', 'top officials' as well. It's the highest ranking figures in CS.
(Eg here, 3/4 of the Exec + grader, their support for these ideas goes back years - no-one else in management has commented).

Take your time Andy, I've no wish to wreck you! Someone else can deal with it perhaps.

---

---

Andy says "This is not a management vote, I really don't know why you think it is.  It is a vote on the proposals that came from the EWP.   Management/Exec board have not formulated the motions, they came from the EWP. "

Hm. Thinking about this raises interesting issues, so this isn't just a query to Andy.

The EWP was to produce proposals to be voted on at an SGM.
(An AGM would do of course, but it was meant to happen early in the year (2020).)

1) It wasn't the EWP that decided to get round the normal meaning of the constitution and have a vote without the general meeting that had always been the plan. It was higher management, and it was Jim W who gave me an explanation earlier in the thread.

This seems irregular, as the constitution seems to assume an AGM or SGM for a constitutional change.
Jim W says there is no rule in the constitution against it.
I thought the idea was that what the constitution indicates are the rules.

2) As noted, I don't think it was in the remit of the EWP to insert decisions directly into the eligibility procedures,
as Motion 1 accomplishes. It was always something that was going to be put to the members.
This wasn't changed by the EWP last time I looked, and does not seem a credible possibility anway.

So in some important respects this is not the EWP's doing.
The reality seems something like "Produced by management, directed by EWP, then altered by management."

3) The fait accompli in Motion 1 seems to result in another irregularity here:

The requirement for two-thirds of the vote to change the constitution normally pertains to votes for the proposal, versus votes against.

This isn't what we have here.

The decision to present the membership with a fait accompli on Motion 1 changes the balance of the vote so that the votes of those who wish to vote against the proposal will not be registered.

For instance, if you would have normally had, say,

40 votes to place the criteria in Motion 1 in the constitution,
15 to simply place it in the eligibility rules, and
10 to reject it,

then without 2/3 of the vote, the criteria would not be heading into the constitution, though it would become part of the rules.

But according to the Motion, those 10 above cannot vote to reject it, as that isn't an option.
So the criteria will head into the constitution unless 6 people out of that excluded 10 vote for an option they disagree with.

Not only does Motion 1 embed itself at least into the eligibility criteria; it kicks out, cuckoo-style, some of the natural opposition to it going in the constitution.

4) Is a motion that needs an external explanation of what a No vote entails valid?
No normally means...no, i.e. NOT that proposal.

The meaning of Motion 1 (plus explanation) is equivalent to an ordinary Yes/No vote, with the explanation that "If you vote No to putting it to the constitution, we will bring it back and put it in the criteria anyway".
Is this a valid way to treat a constitutional vote? For one, the 'threat' would influence the vote, without being part of that vote.
Doesn't seem right, to play with a constitution like this?

[Ianbrownlee]

"Let's not get hung up on a word. I'm just using the term descriptively, I don't want to keep listing people's names. I've used 'senior officials', 'top officials' as well. It's the highest ranking figures in CS.
(Eg here, 3/4 of the Exec + grader, their support for these ideas goes back years - no-one else in management has commented)."

as a quarter or the executive committee I haven't disclosed any indication on how I've voted. Maybe or maybe not I will tell anyone who asks me face to face how I voted, but not on the forum.
As Andy says "his is not a management vote, I really don't know why you think it is. It is a vote on the proposals that came from the EWP. Management/Exec board have not formulated the motions, they came from the EWP. " As a former member of the EWP I do not understand what you dont understand this, given your former position on the EWP board.
I'm also curious why on the one hand you criticise me for posting my position (albeit vague when it comes to the voting) and criticise others on the management board for not posting. I've already posted a very reason why they probably haven't. A few brave souls have posted which is a very small percentage of the membership. It seems to me unposted CS members either are afraid to post or apathetic to the issue

[WBuchanan]

"Let's not get hung up on a word. I'm just using the term descriptively, I don't want to keep listing people's names. I've used 'senior officials', 'top officials' as well. It's the highest ranking figures in CS.
(Eg here, 3/4 of the Exec + grader, their support for these ideas goes back years - no-one else in management has commented)."

as a quarter or the executive committee I haven't disclosed any indication on how I've voted. Maybe or maybe not I will tell anyone who asks me face to face how I voted, but not on the forum.
As Andy says "his is not a management vote, I really don't know why you think it is.  It is a vote on the proposals that came from the EWP.   Management/Exec board have not formulated the motions, they came from the EWP.  " As a former member of the EWP I do not understand what you dont understand this, given your former position on the EWP board.
I'm also curious why on the one hand you criticise me for posting my position (albeit vague when it comes to the voting) and criticise others on the management board for not posting. I've already posted a very reason why they probably haven't.  A few brave souls have posted which is a very small percentage of the membership. It seems to me unposted  CS members either are afraid to post or apathetic to the issue

If you trace it back this is about Motion 1. How you vote on Motion 1 is irrelevant to the issue that it places new criteria straight into the rules (lifelong eligibility from a temporary residency, eg student), bypassing the membership.
How you actually vote on Motion 1 is not relevant to this 'membership bypass' that it has already established.
 
"As Andy says "his is not a management vote, I really don't know why you think it is. It is a vote on the proposals that came from the EWP. Management/Exec board have not formulated the motions, they came from the EWP. " As a former member of the EWP I do not understand what you dont understand this, given your former position on the EWP board"
 
See 1) and 2). Which one are you saying is difficult to understand?

Again, briefly, (i) the EWP did not propose a membership bypass a la Motion1; (ii) it was stressed that what was being proposed in the discussions isn't final, it will be put to the members. There are references all over the place to the SGM or AGM at which final decisions would take place.
And references to general meetings are all over the constitution too.
 
"I'm also curious why on the one hand you criticise me for posting my position (albeit vague when it comes to the voting) and criticise others on the management board for not posting. I've already posted a very reason why they probably haven't. A few brave souls have posted which is a very small percentage of the membership. "

You seem to have lost a bit of the detail here - I don't be1ieve I have ever 'criticized' anyone for just 'posting'.
 
"It seems to me unposted CS members either are afraid to post or apathetic to the issue"

Are you developing your own theme here - though the personal attacks and digs in this thread have all come from 3/4 of the exec, most of them have been from just the one exec member