Eligibility Votes - March 2022

[Ianbrownlee]

Possibly an admin could also remove the gum bumping postings about irrelevant past events to a separate thread for the purposes of clarity.

 H John,
I was asking for posters to stay on topic and look at the response i got.  I was gong to try and tidy it up John but where do I start , we seem to be getting down to what is a FIDE FIN code (despite repeated clarifications by Alex , Dougie and others) and a country's designation code. Most of the other stuff appears to be blaming someone or other, either at an AGM or in trying to fix it. Whats done is done, I wish all our efforts were channelled towards a resolution which would satisfy most of us. I think your admin worries shouldn't be a problem, If its a general FIDE rated tournament, each player must be registered with FIDE (headache goes to Dougie working with the arbiter. If its a CS event, like any FIDE event, all processes are adequately written (or should be) . The motions are an attempt as an attempt to clarify and bullet proof those rules and procedures. All constitutions, rules and procedures should be continuosly reviewd anyway which can only be a good thing. Yes, in hindsight, past events could have been handled better and all CS  is trying to do is carry out the wishes of all ts membership, and protect CS integrity.
I have nothing but the greatest respect for all CS officials, arbiters and volunteers. Yes we can get things wrong, but dont harang us for trying to get it right.

I just wish to emphasise that I do not blame anyone for any of the occurrences that have been discussed.
I'm not sure anyone does - I certainly hope not.

The problems associated the 2016 vote were the result of a systemic failure in communications. We should record the exact final wording of motions, and it should be published shortly after the AGM concludes, exactly like Alex said a few posts ago. 
That isn't the fault of any one individual, it is a process that in my opinion needs to change slightly.

There may have been other systemic problems too (Alex has made some suggestions earlier I believe).

I completely agree with your last statement too - indeed I said the same thing in post 66. I am extremely grateful to everyone involved in Scottish Chess, regardless of whether I agree with them on every issue or not.

The only reason I am asking about the 2016 motion is that it feeds directly into this.
There would be no need for long posts about it if Jim or Andy H or yourself would clarify what the official position is on it.
As things stand Alex has been left to tell us the history, which as he pointed out at the start is not his responsibility.

The honest reply Hamish is that without documentation and proper reference its a bit vague. I have been given verbal explanations and to me its all back to the AGM at 2011 when it was assumed the grandfather rule would come into effect. MT attended the AGM and the general feeling is indicated that no one wanted him without a country designation so he was given SCO. I feel this shouldnt have happened or allowed to take place but it did. However the grandfather motion failed a further twice at further meetings. There was an attempt to sort this out in 2016/2017 but this failed to take place. Fast forward to 2019 when I was tournament director/organiser and Alex was chief arbiter/congress director. The entry form there was written in some form which upon face value made MT eligible.  One of the GM's thought he was in pole position for the title due to an understanding MT wasnt eligible. It was only in the penultimate round when one player observed that MT might be eligible and asked that question. After the championship was over , a working party was established to determine what happened and make recommendations. I believe these motions are partly the result of those recommendations.  This is all down to my recollection and maybe erroneous, and again without documentation of restrictions applied I think MT should be eligible both for selection and for the title. If there is a failure to detail restrictions on MT's SCO application, then its certainly not down to him and I dont think retrospective restrictions are any solution at all. Its only one unique case and SCO allocation shouldnt have any restrictions and that was the original mistake. There was no way SCO should have been given on condition of a future condition (grandfather rule). I have read the 2011 minutes to a deep level and I'm about to do the same for 2016 and 2017