(31-03-2022, 03:02 PM)Alex McFarlane Wrote: Walter,
I will repeat what I have said.
SCO in FIDE speak is not a code but a designation. The code for Scotland is 24 at the start of a FIN and since you missed it too, the code for England is 4 (not 40).
To talk about having a SCO code is probably fine in everyday use but should not be used in an official document when it can be used to complicate the issue. Your failure to grasp this point despite being made by several people seems to highlight the problem of being lax with words and emphasise the importance of being precise. Previous imprecise motions have landed us in this situation.
The amendment by Douglas made it totally clear in all but one case. The original motion would have meant many people's eligibility being open to interpretation.
Can I suggest that in future any ambiguous motion is ruled incompetent immediately rather than being amended on the hoof. It would have saved a considerable amount of time.
The minutes of an AGM can only be approved at the next AGM but it would have saved many problems if draft (full) minutes had been published soon after the original meeting.
I accept that with what I now see of the minutes, I would not have made the decision I did. However, I maintain that is not the info I was given. (I was doing a tournament at the time so not at the AGM.)
Hi Alex
"The amendment by Douglas made it totally clear in all but one case."
Which case, please.
Never mind 'FIDE speak' - there is no complication because SCO is the precise text for Scotland in FIDE's Federation column.
If we both just repeat we will never get anywhere, will we
Let me try something else...you write:
"To talk about having a SCO code is probably fine in everyday use but should not be used in an official document when it can be used to complicate the issue."
So...how did that work, when the 2019 Champs entry form said:
"Titles will only be awarded to those satisfying Scottish nationality (SCO) who are also members of Chess Scotland"
Doesn't this contradict what you just said? Or was the title being determined by Country of origin?
That would be interesting
... but I think it shows the Country of origin code 24 to be a red herring!?The motion wording is precise. It can only be made 'complicated' if people take leave of their common sense - i.e. deny the meaning that not only
(i) everybody knew, but
(ii) was the exact one specified, and
(iii) it was the only one of the two 'options' you claim existed, that was not completely absurd.
Long after the AGM, a kind of technical Chinese whispers seemed to develop, with nobody looking at it in detail. It's never too late for detail...
Re, ambiguous motions - stay away from the idea, if you can't tell after five years you won't be able to tell one in five minutes.
I realize you will probably want to say the same to me...
but at least I am advocating looking at the detail, not the personalities. Cheers