Eligibility Votes - March 2022

[WBuchanan]

Hi Walter,

We seem to be at cross purposes.

Let's ignore Matt Turner's situation for the moment.

I agree that SCO should be enough.  That is what I (and Douglas at the AGM) have been saying.  Unfortunately, although that was what the Muir motion intended, it is not (using legalese) what the motion actually said.
If the Muir motion had been accepted verbatim you could easily have had Andrew Greet or Jacob Aagaard winning the title but anyone with their FIDE FIN starting 24 challenging it.
At best the Muir motion was ambiguous.  My view is that it was wrong.  There is a difference here in using Scotland code and SCO code.  The Scotland code is 24. Talking of SCO code is wrong because, strictly speaking, SCO is not a code but a designation.  However, everyone knows what SCO code means.  Had Andy's motion said 'SCO code' his motion would have been wrong but not open to challenge through ambiguity.  

I had been told also that because SCO had been accepted the rest of the qualification requirements to win the Scottish Championship had been made redundant as they are built into the requirements to gain SCO accreditation.
One of born, parent or residency is necessary to be registered as SCO, therefore if you are SCO then you have satisfied one of born, parent or residency.  There is no need to have all 4 conditions to win the Scottish Championship when the first three are subsumed into being SCO.

I hope that is fairly straightforward.

Now returning to Matt.
If it is accepted that simply stating you have to be SCO to win the 'Scottish' covers everyone then we have potentially one person as an exception, Matt Turner.  I think we would have great difficulty defending a discrimination case if we have ONLY one person who is SCO but not entitled to win the Scottish.
Clearly there is a strong argument that Matt should not have been allowed to change.  But he was.  To impose a regulation which discriminates against HIM ONLY could easily be illegal.

I am definitely leaving it there.

Hi Alex.
 
Thanks for the thoughtful reply. We might be getting somewhere (I think)
 
Until it's voted on, I don't agree SCO 'should be enough' due to the exception.
And it certainly is not enough going by any existing rule, it's only been in a vote once, unsuccessfully.
That's one problem, trying to use a rule that isn't there.
 
Just to pick up on a couple of things...
 
"Had Andy's motion said 'SCO code' his motion would have been wrong but not open to challenge through ambiguity.  "
 
That's what it DID say.
 
"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."
 
So 1) can we agree the motion was NOT open to challenge, as you said, through ambiguity?
 
If no-one thinks they were intended, why bring codes for Country of Origin into it?
As there is no other relevant reference to Country of Origin, on what basis could someone challenge it?
 
The SCO code was the normal management speak for Federation.
 You used it on the 2019 Champs entry form.
 
It was also used in the key proposal of the 2015 Constitution eligibility:
 
16.1.3 "currently registered as Scottish (SCO) with the World Chess Federation ('FIDE')"
(draft copy)
 
SCO code was what it was all about.
There was no mention of Country of Origin. Why would there be - it's not something that changes!
 
So I think the 'ambiguity' regarding Country of origin that has developed since is an artefact of discussions.
 
 
2) "I had been told also that because SCO had been accepted the rest of the qualification requirements to win the Scottish Championship had been made redundant as they are built into the requirements to gain SCO accreditation."
 
So you are saying that the appearance of the SCO code as a condition - even though it's not specified as a sufficient condition - gives eligibility because of the way it is allocated? As in, implying the other conditions are met?
 
I see what you are saying. The trouble is it wasn't a given, so can't be treated as a rule. There is at least one exception, probably others. You can't apply a 'general rule' to its exceptions, simply because people tell you that's what it means. That's what is not competent, I think. The exceptions will come back to haunt you.
 
With the complication alleged regarding the appearance of 'Country of Origin' dealt with, the motion is straightforward. You can check this by calculating it out, in both the possible thorny cases:
 
If SCO didn't mean eligible, the motion stands; any SCO exceptions to the other criteria can be argued on their merits - as having SCO, they aren't excluded by the motion.
 
If SCO did mean eligible then such players wouldn't be affected by the motion anyway.
 
 Does that convince you the motion itself is sound?
 
The only outstanding issue (separately from the motion) being the question whether the SCO code gives eligibility.
 
Currently it does not, as it's not in any rule?
 
Cheers
Walter