29-07-2015, 10:19 AM
Thanks Alex that's much clearer.
Well the people who went to court in your examples had some sort of case, albeit probably an unreasonable one, and a specific axe to grind. It does seem to be a warning not to invest too much in a code that you are not in complete control of though :|
I’m still thinking of how this might affect selection (or Championhip eligibility)
“Unknown 'players' can try to register as SCO directly on the Arena website. The most CS will have to go on is a name and date of birth (and possibly an email address) when deciding whether to accept or reject such a person. If they are not already over the board players then they will be totally unknown.”
As it stands, anyone who would make the Olympiad team on grading could register as SCO and then claim a parent or grandparent connection (as necessary) to unsure selection. It would be discrimination not to select them.
I don’t think other organisations would confer privileges on such a thin basis of provenance.
Isn’t it a question of reserving the right to ask for proof of ID and/or, in the case of a ‘bloodline’, evidence of this too?
It also seems to strengthen the case against the acceptable bloodline criterion being a grandparent, unless you are prepared to insist on seeing proof.
Cheers
Well the people who went to court in your examples had some sort of case, albeit probably an unreasonable one, and a specific axe to grind. It does seem to be a warning not to invest too much in a code that you are not in complete control of though :|
I’m still thinking of how this might affect selection (or Championhip eligibility)
“Unknown 'players' can try to register as SCO directly on the Arena website. The most CS will have to go on is a name and date of birth (and possibly an email address) when deciding whether to accept or reject such a person. If they are not already over the board players then they will be totally unknown.”
As it stands, anyone who would make the Olympiad team on grading could register as SCO and then claim a parent or grandparent connection (as necessary) to unsure selection. It would be discrimination not to select them.
I don’t think other organisations would confer privileges on such a thin basis of provenance.
Isn’t it a question of reserving the right to ask for proof of ID and/or, in the case of a ‘bloodline’, evidence of this too?
It also seems to strengthen the case against the acceptable bloodline criterion being a grandparent, unless you are prepared to insist on seeing proof.
Cheers