09-08-2015, 04:45 PM
Hi Dougie. You write
“Walter proposes a "fadeout" period for people whose only connection to Scotland is one of residency.”
I actually proposed that this be put under control of CS management:
“…any ‘fadeout’ period for players qualifying on residence that later leave Scotland”
So there can be no fadeout if that’s what is wanted!
“Never quite Scottish enough… ”
:-s (
There’s no need to paint sad pictures of what CS might do with the power I propose that the membership bestow on them!
“I count 5 of the FIDE top 10 Scots as currently resident outwith Scotland. I guess they were all born here or of Scottish parents - but would we now have to check their place of birth and parentage to see if their Scottish accreditation is fading.”
Again – a fadeout is one of your options. If it’s too onerous then don’t have it.
But it must be even worse checking out grandparents :ymdevil:
You also say: "Does this proposal mean that you need to be a CS member to get a SCO code?"
Surely that depends on what you want the code to do? If it’s agreed that certain criteria (birth or bloodline or residence) need to be met and it is wished that having an SCO code guarantees eligibility then it would follow that giving SCO codes to players that don’t meet the requirements means flouting the criteria.
But if the code is just an administrative hurdle that FIDE have imposed then give them out if you want - but don’t use the code (a piece of the admin picture) to quietly break the prevailing eligibility criteria of the country – surely that must be wrong!
I do find the nature of many the objections perplexing. The principal criteria on eligibility should be decided upon by CS members, with plenty of scope left for management and selectors to get their teeth into. What’s so bad about that? And even then the membership still get the chance to leave it all to management, if that's what they want.
Cheers
“Walter proposes a "fadeout" period for people whose only connection to Scotland is one of residency.”
I actually proposed that this be put under control of CS management:
“…any ‘fadeout’ period for players qualifying on residence that later leave Scotland”
So there can be no fadeout if that’s what is wanted!
“Never quite Scottish enough… ”
:-s ( There’s no need to paint sad pictures of what CS might do with the power I propose that the membership bestow on them!
“I count 5 of the FIDE top 10 Scots as currently resident outwith Scotland. I guess they were all born here or of Scottish parents - but would we now have to check their place of birth and parentage to see if their Scottish accreditation is fading.”
Again – a fadeout is one of your options. If it’s too onerous then don’t have it.
But it must be even worse checking out grandparents :ymdevil:
You also say: "Does this proposal mean that you need to be a CS member to get a SCO code?"
Surely that depends on what you want the code to do? If it’s agreed that certain criteria (birth or bloodline or residence) need to be met and it is wished that having an SCO code guarantees eligibility then it would follow that giving SCO codes to players that don’t meet the requirements means flouting the criteria.
But if the code is just an administrative hurdle that FIDE have imposed then give them out if you want - but don’t use the code (a piece of the admin picture) to quietly break the prevailing eligibility criteria of the country – surely that must be wrong!
I do find the nature of many the objections perplexing. The principal criteria on eligibility should be decided upon by CS members, with plenty of scope left for management and selectors to get their teeth into. What’s so bad about that? And even then the membership still get the chance to leave it all to management, if that's what they want.
Cheers