05-04-2022, 05:08 PM
(This post was last modified: 05-04-2022, 05:25 PM by hamish olson.)
I think it is implicit in the motion that the type of representing Scotland discussed is "selected to represent" rather than the more everyday playing in tournaments under as SCO code kind - it explicitly states he will keep his SCO code either way.
I can understand the confusion though - perhaps the motion should enumerate what the rights being proposed are.
I was meaning to say that my answer to (b) is that I do in fact support motion 1 as a simplifying change - I just wish the associated communication was a bit better.
Alex, did you perhaps misspeak your answer to (b) - the way I was reading your statement, particularly the part about "too difficult to administer in practice" was that you supported motion 1 too - as that is the most simple way to administer, at least compared with the status quo.
I think if someone has lived here for a prolonged period of time then they should have permanent eligibility. To be honest I personally couldn't care less whether someone was born here or not, or if someone has Scottish parents or not. I'm not sure I'd even include either of those in the eligibility criteria at all if this was all starting from scratch (which I know it is not) - I would just have residency.
Are you really saying if someone has been living here since say two years old, then moves to Newcastle in their twenties or thirties then they should lose their eligibility?
I suspect you were thinking of people who had moved here as adults and momentarily forgot about other cases.
It would be possible to have a whole heap of conditional rules to make that work, but I actually think motion 1 strikes a sensible balance - we can't even seem to keep track of decisions at AGMs reliably - can we really keep track of complicated and inevitably evolving eligibility criteria?
I would have some sympathy for say 2 years residency for initial registration and eligibility, and 5-10 years to make it permanent, with no middle ground, but think one criteria is even simpler and halves the amount of checking.
I can understand the confusion though - perhaps the motion should enumerate what the rights being proposed are.
(05-04-2022, 12:45 PM)hamish olson Wrote: I agree with your three questions Alex, and respect your logic on all points but think this begs the follow up question of:A bit indulgent to quote myself, but I have realised that I misread Alex's post that I was replying to.
(d) Why aren't we (the membership) getting to answer question (b), which you and I have highlighted as a core issue? It is being presented to us with no discussion or choice other than which level of acceptance, in a very subtle "blink-and-you-missed-it" way that non-forum members are likely to be oblivious to, as are many people, including at least one senior CS official posting in this thread.
To be clear, my answer to (b) is more or less identical to yours, with the same reasoning, but we aren't getting asked (b), just (a) and ( c ) which I don't like on principle.
I would honestly just settle for it being highlighted as a change so that people actually know the new status quo doesn't include students etc. any more, if voting is a step too far for a small change.
As things stand, people familiar with the past rules will think that residency excludes students. People unfamiliar will assume it includes. A recipe for confusion.
I was meaning to say that my answer to (b) is that I do in fact support motion 1 as a simplifying change - I just wish the associated communication was a bit better.
Alex, did you perhaps misspeak your answer to (b) - the way I was reading your statement, particularly the part about "too difficult to administer in practice" was that you supported motion 1 too - as that is the most simple way to administer, at least compared with the status quo.
(05-04-2022, 03:40 PM)Willie Rutherford Wrote:Hi Willie, I think that what you are proposing here is a bit harsh.(05-04-2022, 02:40 PM)Douglas Bryson Wrote:(05-04-2022, 01:18 PM)Willie Rutherford Wrote: Let's guess only about 30 people a year are seriously considered for selection to represent Scotland, the vast majority will have life-long eligibility through birth or parentage.....
On the last Olympiad perhaps half the 10 players were resident-only qualifiers for a Scotland registration. If they leave Scotland to work or live should their eligibility to represent Scotland be curtailed?
Why not? If residence was your only connection to Scotland and you are no longer resident why should you still be eligible?
Of course, there is a discussion to be had about exact criteria to make sensible allowance for short-term periods of non-residency e.g. your eligibility based on residency expires if you have not been resident in Scotland for at least 6 months in the last 5 years (top of head example)
I think if someone has lived here for a prolonged period of time then they should have permanent eligibility. To be honest I personally couldn't care less whether someone was born here or not, or if someone has Scottish parents or not. I'm not sure I'd even include either of those in the eligibility criteria at all if this was all starting from scratch (which I know it is not) - I would just have residency.
Are you really saying if someone has been living here since say two years old, then moves to Newcastle in their twenties or thirties then they should lose their eligibility?
I suspect you were thinking of people who had moved here as adults and momentarily forgot about other cases.
It would be possible to have a whole heap of conditional rules to make that work, but I actually think motion 1 strikes a sensible balance - we can't even seem to keep track of decisions at AGMs reliably - can we really keep track of complicated and inevitably evolving eligibility criteria?
I would have some sympathy for say 2 years residency for initial registration and eligibility, and 5-10 years to make it permanent, with no middle ground, but think one criteria is even simpler and halves the amount of checking.