Reply to Andy Howie, Post #121
Quick version of reply: Is the insult aimed at deterring casual readers? No 'fiction' noted but many attempts to personalize.
I would say you haven't made many challenges to the substance.
My reply
"2014 I am curious about the management board meeting as they did not start until Jim took over in 2015... If you are privy to one I was not at I am glad to be corrected."
Is this an example of my 'fiction'? Council meeting, then? Given that you were at the centre of the proposal Andy, it's hardly possible you didn't know what meeting I was talking about. Why pretend otherwise?
The first paragraph in your reply to point 3 doesn't answer the point about all the 'nudges'.
Your next para:
"Now what I didn't reveal at the time as it would have been improper to do so, if you recall quite a lot of people had sent me instruction on how they wanted to vote (which led to the amusing situation of me voting for and against a motion). Had this gone to a vote, then the original section would have in all likelihood passed. If I had been trying to push this on behalf of the Management board, why would I have not pushed for the vote instead of listening to what the members of the meeting were saying and agreeing further consultation was needed on it? Again, Neither Jim nor Robin were part of the management structure so why would pushing it into SOP's be protecting it given it still has to be voted on.... (you will also recall, I pulled the chair back at one point as they had not voted on a section, I knew that section was going to fail based on the votes that had already been cast for it)."
What are you saying, you held back your proxies so your proposal would fail? Feel free to clarify if you want.
Anyway - the idea of democracy and voting is that you count the darned votes. You don't expect such stories about the middle of votes to emerge six years later.
The idea of pulling the eligibility item came firmly from the management team (in my recollection it was Jim's predecessor), who then asked for a proposer, who could have been anyone. People don't sit looking at each other when meeting leaders ask for a proposer, it's a formality.
On 4) you say "I seem to recall you were on one of the committees that looked at this. I don't believe you are swayed by Management view point. I don't think you get why we have these types of committee. They are not echo chambers of any of our thoughts, they are independent for a reason. "
If they were independent Andy, they wouldn't be hand picked, secret and told to sign a gag clause :/
I got the sole place available to members basically by default.
"If we wanted to do something, we can just do it but we don't work that way."
Yes that's what Motion 1 is; the options are 1) Like it or 2) Lump it.
Whether it's against any rules or not to bypass the membership, I couldn't say.
Covid restrictions are being lifted on 18 April. Had there been an AGM - as required by the Constitution - other motions could have been brought.
Still on 4): "Now to touch on the invisibility of the criteria. The website was updated and it broke several links (including this one). We were unaware of this. This has been mentioned many times before. There is no deliberate attempt at anything here and once we were made aware it was not showing, I went in and fixed it. There are many pages on the Chess Scotland Website and it is impossible for me to know after an update to the site if something has gone missing. I do rely on people spotting it and telling me. As for secrecy? Hardly! Jim publishes the minutes of our meetings, on occasions we discuss something sensitive and that is not minuted but I can count on 1 hand the number of times that has happened."
Lack of visibility in a particular time and place was just one part of the point; the criteria were missing for years after 2015. The 2016 Muir-Neave motion was passed to change the eligibility criteria, but it didn't result in them even being located and dusted off to look at with the aim of altering them to implement the motion.
This was the substantial point:
"This situation resulted in a chaotic period, with the chaos used to suggest MT was eligible."
I don't see you have said anything to challenge it.
5) "Why are you constantly asking Jim to make a case?? He did not write this motion nor Propose / Second it. I fail to see the logic of asking someone who has neither been involved with, authored nor proposed / seconded a motion to make a case for it?"
Constantly? Just the once Andy, while asking many others - no need to exaggerate.
Others have popped this question. Jim did pick the EWP! But I'll ignore Jim if you want - not much of a challenge to my point there, I think.
"Speaking from my own personal view (and I highlight personal, ie not one as part of the exec board). We created an anomaly in 2011 and have tried to fix the anomaly (unsuccessfully so far, if you recall we tried to bring in a special category of membership with no eligibility rights and that was rejected...) I think after 11 years we really need to sort it out and I am grateful that the EWP came to the conclusions they did. I find it curious that Scotland stands alone in that it is the only Federation worldwide where we have someone registered and they cannot represent their country (with the exception of sanctioned players)."
Careful Andy you might be giving me another nudge :-)...
It could be 'sorted out' by leaving as is, as per your own proposal in 2011. It's only 'pushing' that has kept the anomaly going.
If it was an error and not part of a deliberate attempt to make a player eligible that was not, it would be curious to resolve that error by moving the mountains that have been moved - rather than live with the fact that someone has a code that you yourself argued for "to save him from being stateless".
It seems to add up to a big effort to make a player e1igible.
"I didn't consider what Alex McFarlane posted earlier about discrimination, but he it totally right on that point. Given Scotland as a whole is seen as a progressive, welcoming and multinational country, I can't quite fathom why within the chess community there is this almost bordering on xenophobia when it comes to eligibility. It is strange as this is not the chess community I recognise when I am arbiting at events and there is something about Eligibility that seems to bring out the worst in people Of course what Alex has missed is it is also a prima facie breach of Article 6 of the FIDE Ethics code. I think that in itself is motivation for the motion to pass."
Andy, you've given me another nudge. You yourself made the original proposal in 2011, and asked people to accept it because MH was stateless. Now you argue discrimination in order to complete the process. And if Scotland doesn't accept it, it's not progressive.
Suddenly 'Scottishness' rules don't matter, other than to the xenophobic.
Nudge goes to push goes to shove.
You complain about non-existent 'insults' and then insult the membership yourself.
" I hope this clarifies some of you have written above. There is not some secret squirrel society that is running Chess Scotland. It is a group of dedicated volunteers who's only interest is the good governance and promotion of Chess in Scotland. None of us are paid for this, it is all done voluntary so there is no fiscal motivation for us to do what we do and I find your comments above deeply insulting to all members and previous members of the board during the period. When I think of people like Ken Stewart and Mac MacKenzie to name but two being part of some grand conspiracy, the argument fails spectacularly."
Red herring, I've never criticized the work that those volunteers do for chess.
I agree largely about the promotion of chess - but the vision for the future that organisers and governors have can be different from those the members have.
If I've been critical it's been along the lines of democratic deficit, including...let's call it openness.
Your last statement - a misleading appeal to emotion, and bringing in past personalities, is unworthy of you. Members are entitled to point out things that are claimed that are incorrect without it being distorted and turned into a personal attack.
"If you still stand by what you are saying, you have a path to remedy. Firstly you can raise a case with the Standards Committee in Scotland (that would be step 1) and if that fails, given this is the Governing Body you are accusing of maleficence you can raise a case with the Ethics Commission of FIDE. If you are going down that route, I highly recommend step 1 first as it will be the first thing that Ethics will ask".
Thanks for reading me my options Andy, but it's not about me.
My purpose was simply to look at some of the nudges there had been to make MT eligible, in lieu of a proper case being made by management.
Since you raise it, I found in 2019 that the Standards Committee was not a path to correction of abuses of process by CS management.
Had there been an AGM I might have proposed a change of the Standards Committee procedures so the whole committee should at least see each complaint, so that the chair (or successive chairs, as the case may be) can't move to suppress it. You may recall there was AGM disquiet that the SC candidates were not open to members to propose. But that's by the by.
Quick version of reply: Is the insult aimed at deterring casual readers? No 'fiction' noted but many attempts to personalize.
I would say you haven't made many challenges to the substance.
My reply
"2014 I am curious about the management board meeting as they did not start until Jim took over in 2015... If you are privy to one I was not at I am glad to be corrected."
Is this an example of my 'fiction'? Council meeting, then? Given that you were at the centre of the proposal Andy, it's hardly possible you didn't know what meeting I was talking about. Why pretend otherwise?
The first paragraph in your reply to point 3 doesn't answer the point about all the 'nudges'.
Your next para:
"Now what I didn't reveal at the time as it would have been improper to do so, if you recall quite a lot of people had sent me instruction on how they wanted to vote (which led to the amusing situation of me voting for and against a motion). Had this gone to a vote, then the original section would have in all likelihood passed. If I had been trying to push this on behalf of the Management board, why would I have not pushed for the vote instead of listening to what the members of the meeting were saying and agreeing further consultation was needed on it? Again, Neither Jim nor Robin were part of the management structure so why would pushing it into SOP's be protecting it given it still has to be voted on.... (you will also recall, I pulled the chair back at one point as they had not voted on a section, I knew that section was going to fail based on the votes that had already been cast for it)."
What are you saying, you held back your proxies so your proposal would fail? Feel free to clarify if you want.
Anyway - the idea of democracy and voting is that you count the darned votes. You don't expect such stories about the middle of votes to emerge six years later.
The idea of pulling the eligibility item came firmly from the management team (in my recollection it was Jim's predecessor), who then asked for a proposer, who could have been anyone. People don't sit looking at each other when meeting leaders ask for a proposer, it's a formality.
On 4) you say "I seem to recall you were on one of the committees that looked at this. I don't believe you are swayed by Management view point. I don't think you get why we have these types of committee. They are not echo chambers of any of our thoughts, they are independent for a reason. "
If they were independent Andy, they wouldn't be hand picked, secret and told to sign a gag clause :/
I got the sole place available to members basically by default.
"If we wanted to do something, we can just do it but we don't work that way."
Yes that's what Motion 1 is; the options are 1) Like it or 2) Lump it.
Whether it's against any rules or not to bypass the membership, I couldn't say.
Covid restrictions are being lifted on 18 April. Had there been an AGM - as required by the Constitution - other motions could have been brought.
Still on 4): "Now to touch on the invisibility of the criteria. The website was updated and it broke several links (including this one). We were unaware of this. This has been mentioned many times before. There is no deliberate attempt at anything here and once we were made aware it was not showing, I went in and fixed it. There are many pages on the Chess Scotland Website and it is impossible for me to know after an update to the site if something has gone missing. I do rely on people spotting it and telling me. As for secrecy? Hardly! Jim publishes the minutes of our meetings, on occasions we discuss something sensitive and that is not minuted but I can count on 1 hand the number of times that has happened."
Lack of visibility in a particular time and place was just one part of the point; the criteria were missing for years after 2015. The 2016 Muir-Neave motion was passed to change the eligibility criteria, but it didn't result in them even being located and dusted off to look at with the aim of altering them to implement the motion.
This was the substantial point:
"This situation resulted in a chaotic period, with the chaos used to suggest MT was eligible."
I don't see you have said anything to challenge it.
5) "Why are you constantly asking Jim to make a case?? He did not write this motion nor Propose / Second it. I fail to see the logic of asking someone who has neither been involved with, authored nor proposed / seconded a motion to make a case for it?"
Constantly? Just the once Andy, while asking many others - no need to exaggerate.
Others have popped this question. Jim did pick the EWP! But I'll ignore Jim if you want - not much of a challenge to my point there, I think.
"Speaking from my own personal view (and I highlight personal, ie not one as part of the exec board). We created an anomaly in 2011 and have tried to fix the anomaly (unsuccessfully so far, if you recall we tried to bring in a special category of membership with no eligibility rights and that was rejected...) I think after 11 years we really need to sort it out and I am grateful that the EWP came to the conclusions they did. I find it curious that Scotland stands alone in that it is the only Federation worldwide where we have someone registered and they cannot represent their country (with the exception of sanctioned players)."
Careful Andy you might be giving me another nudge :-)...
It could be 'sorted out' by leaving as is, as per your own proposal in 2011. It's only 'pushing' that has kept the anomaly going.
If it was an error and not part of a deliberate attempt to make a player eligible that was not, it would be curious to resolve that error by moving the mountains that have been moved - rather than live with the fact that someone has a code that you yourself argued for "to save him from being stateless".
It seems to add up to a big effort to make a player e1igible.
"I didn't consider what Alex McFarlane posted earlier about discrimination, but he it totally right on that point. Given Scotland as a whole is seen as a progressive, welcoming and multinational country, I can't quite fathom why within the chess community there is this almost bordering on xenophobia when it comes to eligibility. It is strange as this is not the chess community I recognise when I am arbiting at events and there is something about Eligibility that seems to bring out the worst in people Of course what Alex has missed is it is also a prima facie breach of Article 6 of the FIDE Ethics code. I think that in itself is motivation for the motion to pass."
Andy, you've given me another nudge. You yourself made the original proposal in 2011, and asked people to accept it because MH was stateless. Now you argue discrimination in order to complete the process. And if Scotland doesn't accept it, it's not progressive.
Suddenly 'Scottishness' rules don't matter, other than to the xenophobic.
Nudge goes to push goes to shove.
You complain about non-existent 'insults' and then insult the membership yourself.
" I hope this clarifies some of you have written above. There is not some secret squirrel society that is running Chess Scotland. It is a group of dedicated volunteers who's only interest is the good governance and promotion of Chess in Scotland. None of us are paid for this, it is all done voluntary so there is no fiscal motivation for us to do what we do and I find your comments above deeply insulting to all members and previous members of the board during the period. When I think of people like Ken Stewart and Mac MacKenzie to name but two being part of some grand conspiracy, the argument fails spectacularly."
Red herring, I've never criticized the work that those volunteers do for chess.
I agree largely about the promotion of chess - but the vision for the future that organisers and governors have can be different from those the members have.
If I've been critical it's been along the lines of democratic deficit, including...let's call it openness.
Your last statement - a misleading appeal to emotion, and bringing in past personalities, is unworthy of you. Members are entitled to point out things that are claimed that are incorrect without it being distorted and turned into a personal attack.
"If you still stand by what you are saying, you have a path to remedy. Firstly you can raise a case with the Standards Committee in Scotland (that would be step 1) and if that fails, given this is the Governing Body you are accusing of maleficence you can raise a case with the Ethics Commission of FIDE. If you are going down that route, I highly recommend step 1 first as it will be the first thing that Ethics will ask".
Thanks for reading me my options Andy, but it's not about me.
My purpose was simply to look at some of the nudges there had been to make MT eligible, in lieu of a proper case being made by management.
Since you raise it, I found in 2019 that the Standards Committee was not a path to correction of abuses of process by CS management.
Had there been an AGM I might have proposed a change of the Standards Committee procedures so the whole committee should at least see each complaint, so that the chair (or successive chairs, as the case may be) can't move to suppress it. You may recall there was AGM disquiet that the SC candidates were not open to members to propose. But that's by the by.