Alex: "Why do you continue to argue?"
See your earlier advice: "Why don't people actually read what is written."
If you aren't going to read the post, then it's futile to start adding up the people who you think 'would agree with you'.
Logic is logic. Please read this before replying.
I explained quite painstakingly WHY it may have made sense for Douglas to suggest the amendment.
People were talking about 'Country Codes' (when that wasn't part of the motion) and there is another code that means 'original country', though that is a numerical code!.
I also explained that Federation and 'SCO code' were one and the same.
Or more concisely, SCO code is a value of the Federation variable.
1) So there was no reason to jump to another field (original country code, a numerical one) entirely and change that.
You outlined the effects of doing that - mostly correctly; as that would be well ... simply a bonkers thing to do.
That part is not really relevant after the amendment as Douglas's suggestion removed even the bonkers interpretation, but it has been used as part of a narrative that is based on...seemingly, nothing.
2) Another error you have made is to assume that the motion proposed that SCO code would be sufficient to give eligibility, when it was clearly meant as an extra restriction. Ergo, so it goes, Matthew was rendered eligible!
But it is not so. The clue is in the words
'a player must ALSO be FIDE registered as Scotland with a SCO code'
The upshot of the motion passed is:
SCO code now necessary for eligibility, but not sufficient for eligibility, as the criterion still have to be met.
People thereby excluded - those with different Federations.
As I said this 'upshot' is the meaning irrespective of which written version of the motion you look at, as Andy and George specified the right field (SCO code, Federation) in the first place.
In short, no version of this motion implied Matthew was eligible.
Any confusion came later, possibly by people invoking each other without checking the basics.
I agree with most of your post Willie; are you aware though, that Motion 1 proposes (or rather imposes) a new regime of lifetime eligibility based on a temporary residence. This is a double stretch of the old status quo, when residency was tied to the time of the event, and excluded residency based on being a student.
As for the screeds you refer to - yeah, sorry
. That's partly down to many of the opposing contributions, when the issue of the 2016 motion seems to me to be clear, or cleared up.
Hamish stressed its relevance in post #66. Emphasis added, hopefully I won't be sued by Hamish
:
"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."
It's also relevant to your question of why there is no explanation of Motion 2, i.e. why no case being made. The case has been made in terms of extricating ourselves from this terrible mess we have allegedly stumbled into, and that making Matthew eligible will magically catapult us out of.
It's a very strange reason. The possiblity that Matthew's eligibility had been pushed was mentioned by you and others. It's relevant to that.
Matthew's eligibility was widely claimed to have been established by the 2016 motion.
If I'm right, this is nonsense. But we won't find out unless we consider it.
Cheers
See your earlier advice: "Why don't people actually read what is written."
If you aren't going to read the post, then it's futile to start adding up the people who you think 'would agree with you'.
Logic is logic. Please read this before replying.
I explained quite painstakingly WHY it may have made sense for Douglas to suggest the amendment.
People were talking about 'Country Codes' (when that wasn't part of the motion) and there is another code that means 'original country', though that is a numerical code!.
I also explained that Federation and 'SCO code' were one and the same.
Or more concisely, SCO code is a value of the Federation variable.
1) So there was no reason to jump to another field (original country code, a numerical one) entirely and change that.
You outlined the effects of doing that - mostly correctly; as that would be well ... simply a bonkers thing to do.
That part is not really relevant after the amendment as Douglas's suggestion removed even the bonkers interpretation, but it has been used as part of a narrative that is based on...seemingly, nothing.
2) Another error you have made is to assume that the motion proposed that SCO code would be sufficient to give eligibility, when it was clearly meant as an extra restriction. Ergo, so it goes, Matthew was rendered eligible!
But it is not so. The clue is in the words
'a player must ALSO be FIDE registered as Scotland with a SCO code'
The upshot of the motion passed is:
SCO code now necessary for eligibility, but not sufficient for eligibility, as the criterion still have to be met.
People thereby excluded - those with different Federations.
As I said this 'upshot' is the meaning irrespective of which written version of the motion you look at, as Andy and George specified the right field (SCO code, Federation) in the first place.
In short, no version of this motion implied Matthew was eligible.
Any confusion came later, possibly by people invoking each other without checking the basics.
(30-03-2022, 11:35 PM)Willie Rutherford Wrote: My eyes glaze over reading the comments/speculations about poorly documented past motions and what they meant, or were intended to mean. I'm not sure why any of that matters now when considering the current proposals?
Surely pretty much every federation will have eligibility criteria based on birth, parenthood and residence, with some tweaks on the exact calibration (length of residency, parent/grandparent etc).
Since many people will meet the criteria for more than 1 federation (including me - if only I was good enough at something for it to matter!), it is also perfectly reasonable and I assume pretty much universal that IN ADDITION the player concerned must have chosen Scotland (in our case) as his/her federation at FIDE.
I think this is what Proposal 1 proposes (putting aside whether it needs to be in the constitution or not), regardless of what happened in the past. So I support this proposal.
Unfortunately, MT does not meet any of the 3 criteria, therefore should not be eligible for representing Scotland or winning the championship. I don't think the fact that there was confusion in the past is a good enough reason to make an exception. So I don't support Proposal 2.
Unless I am missing something, approval of Proposal 1 with rejection of Proposal 2 would just retain the status quo for MT. He can remain registered with our federation at FIDE and, if he wishes to, he can continue what sounds like it has been an otherwise positive engagement with Scottish chess.
I agree with most of your post Willie; are you aware though, that Motion 1 proposes (or rather imposes) a new regime of lifetime eligibility based on a temporary residence. This is a double stretch of the old status quo, when residency was tied to the time of the event, and excluded residency based on being a student.
As for the screeds you refer to - yeah, sorry
. That's partly down to many of the opposing contributions, when the issue of the 2016 motion seems to me to be clear, or cleared up. Hamish stressed its relevance in post #66. Emphasis added, hopefully I won't be sued by Hamish
:"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."
It's also relevant to your question of why there is no explanation of Motion 2, i.e. why no case being made. The case has been made in terms of extricating ourselves from this terrible mess we have allegedly stumbled into, and that making Matthew eligible will magically catapult us out of.
It's a very strange reason. The possiblity that Matthew's eligibility had been pushed was mentioned by you and others. It's relevant to that.
Matthew's eligibility was widely claimed to have been established by the 2016 motion.
If I'm right, this is nonsense. But we won't find out unless we consider it.
Cheers