13-08-2014, 02:15 PM
I think there are two fundamental issues with this document. Firstly that it purports to be a set of guidelines but, as Andy McH says, is worded (at least in part) as a set of rules. What happens if a ‘must’ or ‘required’ action isn’t followed? Their use implies sanctions, though not specified, could be applied, otherwise they carry no weight.
Secondly it specifies FIDE tournaments and much of its content looks as if it is aimed at higher level events rather than smaller, localised events. Some of the debate above mixes the two concepts which is understandable given the way the document is constructed.
I offer two thoughts:
Replace the ‘must’s and ‘required’s with something softer like ‘should’ and/or ‘is desirable’ and it becomes a less threatening document. Its supporters might argue about it being called threatening but it’s clear that some posters do see it that way – parts of it anyway.
Split the document into two parts: the first to contain only the elements that would apply to FIDE events specifically; the second to contain everything else and with an intro that reads something like “mandatory for FIDE tournaments but recommended for all tournaments and events”
Secondly it specifies FIDE tournaments and much of its content looks as if it is aimed at higher level events rather than smaller, localised events. Some of the debate above mixes the two concepts which is understandable given the way the document is constructed.
I offer two thoughts:
Replace the ‘must’s and ‘required’s with something softer like ‘should’ and/or ‘is desirable’ and it becomes a less threatening document. Its supporters might argue about it being called threatening but it’s clear that some posters do see it that way – parts of it anyway.
Split the document into two parts: the first to contain only the elements that would apply to FIDE events specifically; the second to contain everything else and with an intro that reads something like “mandatory for FIDE tournaments but recommended for all tournaments and events”