30-03-2022, 10:14 AM
Why don't people actually read what is written.
David Levy satisfies 16.2.3. So there is no problem there. The changes do not affect that. Andy does not have to propose motions in which he has not considered the consequences.
The motion from A Muir in 2019 did not do what Andy wanted. He mentioned a SCO code. The SCO code is 24 at the front of your FIDE ID. For a variety of reasons a significant number of Scots, some born and bred, do not have a FIDE code starting 24 so under Andy's motion would not have qualified to play for Scotland. I gave 3 examples off the top of my head.
Douglas proposed an amendment which included all of the above exceptions and Matt Turner. If Andy did not understand the amendment then the simple thing to do would have been to say so and reject it. He didn't.
I consider that Douglas's proposal was basically what Andy had intended, however I do not believe that it qualified as a minor alteration so should have been rejected. Clearly it did not achieve what the original proposer wanted.
We are suffering from two motions which were not considered properly either by the proposer or by those present at the AGM (and possibly higher up when accepting the motions).
I think I have said enough.
David Levy satisfies 16.2.3. So there is no problem there. The changes do not affect that. Andy does not have to propose motions in which he has not considered the consequences.
The motion from A Muir in 2019 did not do what Andy wanted. He mentioned a SCO code. The SCO code is 24 at the front of your FIDE ID. For a variety of reasons a significant number of Scots, some born and bred, do not have a FIDE code starting 24 so under Andy's motion would not have qualified to play for Scotland. I gave 3 examples off the top of my head.
Douglas proposed an amendment which included all of the above exceptions and Matt Turner. If Andy did not understand the amendment then the simple thing to do would have been to say so and reject it. He didn't.
I consider that Douglas's proposal was basically what Andy had intended, however I do not believe that it qualified as a minor alteration so should have been rejected. Clearly it did not achieve what the original proposer wanted.
We are suffering from two motions which were not considered properly either by the proposer or by those present at the AGM (and possibly higher up when accepting the motions).
I think I have said enough.