In Summary of my previous post No #84
The 2016 AGM ('Muir-Neave') motion brought didn't cause a problem, in ANY of its forms connected to the AGM.
1) Original form, according to the forum:
Proposal : All adult Scottish champions (i.e. main and senior) must be affiliated to Scotland (e.g. SCO on FIDE list)
https://www.chessscotland.com/forum/show...p?tid=1513
This is fine. SCO on FIDE list is not incorrect. SCO refers to the Federation column.
2) Andy Muir informed the forum that he had been advised to amend the motion, and a rewording:
"An additional sentence shall be added: To be eligible to be Scottish Champion or Scottish Senior Champion a player must also be FIDE registered as Scotland with a SCO code."
This is still correct. Scotland = Federation (SCO for Federation on Fide list); the same change is specified.
[A minor edit: this is on the forum link, but is also the same on the AGM AGenda
https://www.chessscotland.com/wp-content...enda16.pdf.
The AGM minutes include the statement "IE discussion on whether this is to do with number of Country code. Minor amendment – DB suggests change to federation designation instead of Country Code".
The term Country Code was not part of the motion but may have crept into the discussion.
It's not clear why the Country Code was even mentioned, but it must have have prompted Douglas's attempted clarification, see 3) below]
3) Amended at the AGM at Douglas Bryson's suggestion, by altering the proposed change from 'SCO code' to 'Federation'.
These are the same thing, so still no problem. Douglas presumably thought it better to specify the item to be altered exactly, as 'Country code' could (conceivably?) be taken to mean the two or three digit number of the FIDE ID which refers to the original country of residence.
This is unnecessary in my view, as that interpretation would be ridiculous.
But 3) is more accurate. The amendment completely and unambiguously specifies the intended change.
No interpretation of any of these variants should have caused a problem.
They are all 'competent'.
The later interpretations that there was a problem seem to have arisen in people's minds, perhaps in a kind of technical form of Chinese whispers.
It may not have helped that a complete record of the amended motion didn't seem to be created.
If chat developed suggesting there was a problem, there being nothing to refer to would not have helped.
The feeling that there was confusion may have been self-fulfilling.
The 2016 AGM ('Muir-Neave') motion brought didn't cause a problem, in ANY of its forms connected to the AGM.
1) Original form, according to the forum:
Proposal : All adult Scottish champions (i.e. main and senior) must be affiliated to Scotland (e.g. SCO on FIDE list)
https://www.chessscotland.com/forum/show...p?tid=1513
This is fine. SCO on FIDE list is not incorrect. SCO refers to the Federation column.
2) Andy Muir informed the forum that he had been advised to amend the motion, and a rewording:
"An additional sentence shall be added: To be eligible to be Scottish Champion or Scottish Senior Champion a player must also be FIDE registered as Scotland with a SCO code."
This is still correct. Scotland = Federation (SCO for Federation on Fide list); the same change is specified.
[A minor edit: this is on the forum link, but is also the same on the AGM AGenda
https://www.chessscotland.com/wp-content...enda16.pdf.
The AGM minutes include the statement "IE discussion on whether this is to do with number of Country code. Minor amendment – DB suggests change to federation designation instead of Country Code".
The term Country Code was not part of the motion but may have crept into the discussion.
It's not clear why the Country Code was even mentioned, but it must have have prompted Douglas's attempted clarification, see 3) below]
3) Amended at the AGM at Douglas Bryson's suggestion, by altering the proposed change from 'SCO code' to 'Federation'.
These are the same thing, so still no problem. Douglas presumably thought it better to specify the item to be altered exactly, as 'Country code' could (conceivably?) be taken to mean the two or three digit number of the FIDE ID which refers to the original country of residence.
This is unnecessary in my view, as that interpretation would be ridiculous.
But 3) is more accurate. The amendment completely and unambiguously specifies the intended change.
No interpretation of any of these variants should have caused a problem.
They are all 'competent'.
The later interpretations that there was a problem seem to have arisen in people's minds, perhaps in a kind of technical form of Chinese whispers.
It may not have helped that a complete record of the amended motion didn't seem to be created.
If chat developed suggesting there was a problem, there being nothing to refer to would not have helped.
The feeling that there was confusion may have been self-fulfilling.