17-08-2013, 03:35 PM
Hi Gerald, thanks for this explanation.
"You wrote " Integrating all mainstream adult and junior chess in Scotland - sounds reasonable on the surface, but what does it mean?". Well any integration cannot be superficial, it has to go much deeper, else the exercise if futile. "Can it be achieved?" is probably what you are asking (please correct me if that supposition is wrong). Well first we have to agree that the principle is correct - if anyone disagrees than vote against and hope to demote the concept to the dustbin."
Actually I wasn’t really asking if it could be achieved, it just seemed a little unusual to try agree a principle and then look to see what it entails (not unless it’s addressing come blatant unfairness), but obviously you’re thinking of more than just the principle as is evidenced by the ‘action’ part of the motion so I wondered what it was about. If it was universally agreed that it was a good thing it would presumably have happened already or be just about to happen as everyone involved voted it in, so I just wondered if there were issues and if so what they were. Just curious that’s all. Thanks for explaining a bit more about it.
There was one other thing came to mind; you begin by including all mainstream adult chess in Scotland in the principle, though adult chess isn’t included in the proposal. Isn’t that a bit of a hostage to fortune, eg suppose some regions or leagues/competitions don’t want to be included they might vote against your motion thus jeopardizing the junior bit which you believe to be solidly supported. Just going from memory of being involved in running a club a good few years back, one reason they might take such a view is if there were costs attached as it can be difficult to get hard up members to even pay club subs let alone additional CS fees that are supposedly for the greater good. Other than that I don’t have knowledge of any particular contemporary viewpoints, so feel free to ignore me, though I think that’s one possible reason it might be best not to sell the ‘principle’ but present the difficulties including any cost issues as well. Cheers
"You wrote " Integrating all mainstream adult and junior chess in Scotland - sounds reasonable on the surface, but what does it mean?". Well any integration cannot be superficial, it has to go much deeper, else the exercise if futile. "Can it be achieved?" is probably what you are asking (please correct me if that supposition is wrong). Well first we have to agree that the principle is correct - if anyone disagrees than vote against and hope to demote the concept to the dustbin."
Actually I wasn’t really asking if it could be achieved, it just seemed a little unusual to try agree a principle and then look to see what it entails (not unless it’s addressing come blatant unfairness), but obviously you’re thinking of more than just the principle as is evidenced by the ‘action’ part of the motion so I wondered what it was about. If it was universally agreed that it was a good thing it would presumably have happened already or be just about to happen as everyone involved voted it in, so I just wondered if there were issues and if so what they were. Just curious that’s all. Thanks for explaining a bit more about it.
There was one other thing came to mind; you begin by including all mainstream adult chess in Scotland in the principle, though adult chess isn’t included in the proposal. Isn’t that a bit of a hostage to fortune, eg suppose some regions or leagues/competitions don’t want to be included they might vote against your motion thus jeopardizing the junior bit which you believe to be solidly supported. Just going from memory of being involved in running a club a good few years back, one reason they might take such a view is if there were costs attached as it can be difficult to get hard up members to even pay club subs let alone additional CS fees that are supposedly for the greater good. Other than that I don’t have knowledge of any particular contemporary viewpoints, so feel free to ignore me, though I think that’s one possible reason it might be best not to sell the ‘principle’ but present the difficulties including any cost issues as well. Cheers