AGM

[StevieHilton]

Why don't we simply add to our constitution (if not there and clear already) something along the lines of...

ChessScotland are an inclusive organisation and at all our organised events we will strive to actively positively support all participants irrespective of age, gender, sexual orientation or disability.

Then why are you objecting to the motion as it stands as it backs up in writing what you have said in the quote.
It is not enough to make such a statement

there is a certain naivety about this too, there appears to the assumption that players with disabilities are a homogeneous lot with no human frailties or failings.

There will be a player(s) with disabilities who will insist on their rights or perceived rights being upheld, reasonable or otherwise no matter the cost to a tournament or organiser.

There have been examples of demands being made (wrongly as it turned out) by disabled player(s) that caused major rifts between individuals and clubs.

there are also examples of disabled player(s) making do with whatever the organiser can do for them (e.g less than 3 metres between tables) and harmony apparently existing.

I feel that Steve is using a sledgehammer to crack a nut and that these guidelines are unnecessary and potentially damaging.

Pat,
I repeat this motion is formalising what is already happening. What is your objection?
Where is your evidence that this is damaging? The motion state in regards to the 3m the word should not must that makes a difference

I f I were an organiser in premises that were unable to facillitate players with particular disablities then i would not wish to run the risk of said players entering my tournament.

Options, dont run the tournament, find more suitable premises or run a disclaimer on entry form that some players cannot play??
then this quote comes into play "If a disabled player wants to play and are refused, the owner of the premises can be prosecuted"

solutions are going to be hard to come by.

I am disappointed in this attitude Pat
In the motion the onus is on the disabled player to inform the tournament organisers as early as possible, so that the appropriate help can be provided to the disabled player. What is your objection to this Pat?

Ian
Gens Una Sumus, we are one family. The disabled are part of that family. They should be a priority just like everyone else.

The fact is that the motion is FIDE Policy and as a member of FIDE CS has to abide by it. In regards to CS events, If people wish to suggest changes they have a right to do so, but the changes must be to benefit of all players.