29-03-2022, 09:15 PM
(This post was last modified: 29-03-2022, 09:24 PM by hamish olson.)
Good question Willie. I also asked this on page one.
I'm a bit unsure whether management are just doing this to clarify things, or whether anyone actually is pushing for Matthew to be eligible. I think it is the latter but I'm genuinely baffled why no argument has been put forward if that is the case. I was a bit puzzled by that back on page one and I'm mystified now.
Can the proposers clarify what their stance is on the matter, and why? Can management?
On another note, on page two I have asked if we can finally publish (or point me to if it is already) the definitive version of a 2016 motion.
In some ways it is the reason the Matthew Turner issue is even being discussed - the misunderstanding of it in 2019 (or not - no-one knows, because it isn't published) was what prompted this working party.
Adidtionally references to it have been made several times in this thread to justify e.g. changing eligibility to include students.
Apparently this changed a few years ago for SCO registration. I'm unsure if it was also changed for eligibility (not least because that 2016 motion still isn't published as far as I can see).
This may seem like a minor procedural issue but it could well have real world implications. It was mentioned that strong titled players have large transfer fees, but what about e.g. a female university student strong enough to play for our women's team. It looks like that issue wasn't considered.
Reasonable people may well decide that that would an acceptable occurrence but it is the kind of decision that should be made in the open, and ideally voted on. It certainly is not the kind of change that should be made behind the scenes without most people even noticing.
I don't even think some of the management are aware that it is a change. Jim for example referenced this document https://www.chessscotland.com/internatio...sentation/ and claimed it was the same as the motion (accompanied with a generous offer to enlarge the size of the link).
However the residency in that document is "permanently resident" , whereas Douglas had clarified earlier that the residency now is just any residency, including students.
When was this change decided, and why? Why aren't the membership getting a vote on it?
Can this at least be communicated better (i.e. in the motion itself)? If Jim is missing that kind of detail then I'm sure plenty of other people are too.
And where is the final version of the 2016 motion? It is 2022. Has the final version of the 2016 motion ever been published?
I'm sorry to be asking so many questions and my irritation may be coming across in this post.
I'm sure the working party has put in a lot of effort into this with the very best of intentions, and I am genuinely grateful to all volunteers in Chess Scotland and Scottish chess more generally.
I just think these are important issues to get right and be transparent with, or things just snowball - 2019 is proof enough of that.
That's an interesting question.
I think the key is the wording of criterion 3.
As things stand with motion 1 , I think it depends whether you had been resident (temporary or permanent - both fine if motion 1 passes in the current wording) for the preceding 2 years at the time of your initial SCO registration.
I'm not sure that this kind of situation was the intent behind the motion and therefore I think your proposal to retain eligibility for cases like yours makes sense and seems like a way of avoiding some unintended consequences.
I'm a bit unsure whether management are just doing this to clarify things, or whether anyone actually is pushing for Matthew to be eligible. I think it is the latter but I'm genuinely baffled why no argument has been put forward if that is the case. I was a bit puzzled by that back on page one and I'm mystified now.
Can the proposers clarify what their stance is on the matter, and why? Can management?
On another note, on page two I have asked if we can finally publish (or point me to if it is already) the definitive version of a 2016 motion.
In some ways it is the reason the Matthew Turner issue is even being discussed - the misunderstanding of it in 2019 (or not - no-one knows, because it isn't published) was what prompted this working party.
Adidtionally references to it have been made several times in this thread to justify e.g. changing eligibility to include students.
Apparently this changed a few years ago for SCO registration. I'm unsure if it was also changed for eligibility (not least because that 2016 motion still isn't published as far as I can see).
This may seem like a minor procedural issue but it could well have real world implications. It was mentioned that strong titled players have large transfer fees, but what about e.g. a female university student strong enough to play for our women's team. It looks like that issue wasn't considered.
Reasonable people may well decide that that would an acceptable occurrence but it is the kind of decision that should be made in the open, and ideally voted on. It certainly is not the kind of change that should be made behind the scenes without most people even noticing.
I don't even think some of the management are aware that it is a change. Jim for example referenced this document https://www.chessscotland.com/internatio...sentation/ and claimed it was the same as the motion (accompanied with a generous offer to enlarge the size of the link).
However the residency in that document is "permanently resident" , whereas Douglas had clarified earlier that the residency now is just any residency, including students.
When was this change decided, and why? Why aren't the membership getting a vote on it?
Can this at least be communicated better (i.e. in the motion itself)? If Jim is missing that kind of detail then I'm sure plenty of other people are too.
And where is the final version of the 2016 motion? It is 2022. Has the final version of the 2016 motion ever been published?
I'm sorry to be asking so many questions and my irritation may be coming across in this post.
I'm sure the working party has put in a lot of effort into this with the very best of intentions, and I am genuinely grateful to all volunteers in Chess Scotland and Scottish chess more generally.
I just think these are important issues to get right and be transparent with, or things just snowball - 2019 is proof enough of that.
(29-03-2022, 08:30 PM)davidlevy Wrote: Firstly I should declare self-interest in the following question.
How would proposal 1 deal with someone who conforms to the following, or to similar criteria? If my understanding of the draft is correct, such a person would not be eligible to represent Scotland in future team events because of points [1] and [2] below.
[1] Was not born in Scotland, and no parent or grandparent was born in Scotland.
[2] Not currently resident in Scotland.
[3] Has been registered with FIDE as SCO ever since the FIDE registration process began.
[4] Is registered with FIDE as a FIDE title holder attached to SCO.
[5] Was permanently resident in Scotland for 4.5 years (plus another 4 years temporarily resident in Scotland as a student).
[6] Has represented Scotland in 13 FIDE international team tournaments (6 Olympiads, 6 Student Olympiads, 1 World Senior Team Championship).
[7] Has been a life member of Chess Scotland since 1981.
[8] Has won the Scottish Championship or the Scottish Ladies Championship.
[
[9] Has never been registered with FIDE as being from a country other than Scotland.
I would respectfully suggest, reminding the reader of my above declared self-interest, that someone who has represented Scotland in past international team events (perhaps imposing a minimum number of 2 or more such events), should not lack eligibility if and when any new eligibility requirements come into force.
Also, it might be appropriate in the eligibility requirements to distinguish between those players who have not previously been registered with FIDE for a national federation other than Scotland, and those who have been so registered.
Regards to all,
David Levy
That's an interesting question.
I think the key is the wording of criterion 3.
As things stand with motion 1 , I think it depends whether you had been resident (temporary or permanent - both fine if motion 1 passes in the current wording) for the preceding 2 years at the time of your initial SCO registration.
I'm not sure that this kind of situation was the intent behind the motion and therefore I think your proposal to retain eligibility for cases like yours makes sense and seems like a way of avoiding some unintended consequences.