Posts: 1,120
Threads: 70
Joined: Aug 2011
David,
The Fide guidelines will be enforced for Fide events. That is the reason words like all, must, shall etc appear in the Fide rules.
If CS members wish to vote on these guidelines being recommended and not enforced the wording of the motion has to be changed. This has been mentioned on quite a few occasions already by other posters.
Posts: 35
Threads: 6
Joined: Nov 2013
I think I understand, and sympathize, with David's near exasperation. And yet, I have seen the "other side" of what goes on amongst many, very many, of these 150 + member federations. Lip service to FIDE regulations is the order of the day. I do not exaggerate in this David. There are teams who turn up for the Olympiads composed of players who have no affiliation whatsoever with whom they are so supposed to be representing. There are Federations where they only have about 4 members (or less!) and only one of them makes decisions at FIDE meetings (with little intent to follow through). The list of things done and hidden that would flabbergast people in Scotland is endless. A lot of tiny federations make up this number of 150+, and rules are there to be gotten around for many more than you may imagine.
My experience of players in Scotland is that they take things seriously, and when they commit to something they mean it. Don't be too exasperated by this David, it is a genuine democratic process at work, and personally, I love it!
Posts: 944
Threads: 127
Joined: May 2012
Reputation:
4
robin moore Wrote:As the motion is presently worded, voting for option 2 doesn't appear to be an option at all.
Hi Robin
I suggest option 2 is the best option, possibly with a few word changes here and there. Stevie and Andy in the main are right to bring this out into the open by proposing the motion. However it has to be recognised that everyone who has contributed to this thread has made a positive contribution and I'm sure with the right direction and wording the motion will pass. I am sure that all the concerns raised will be addressed in some form or another
Posts: 1,003
Threads: 101
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation:
1
I really don't understand why David D. and John Mc. seem to have taken such 'offence' at those of us who don't agree with them, or have raised possible (even though some most unlikely) scenarios, or are looking for extra clarification on what the motion will actually mean in practice if passed.
Whether 150+ FIDE member states have passed the wording or not is not the relevant point; 'will it improve chess in Scotland?' is.
Posts: 400
Threads: 9
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation:
1
Andy B for the avoidance of doubt I haven't taken offense at you not agreeing with me although I do take offense at you insinuating it. What troubles me is the glee that certain posters take in tearing things to shreds, inventing doomsday scenarios and zombie apocalypses without so much as a constructive comment... I don't think its unreasonable to expect people to be constructive. Obviously, you disagree...
On 150+ member federations agreeing it, I think that is quite important, FIDE are the custodians of the game (like it or not) and they are responsible for the laws. A lot of people have reviewed these guidelines both smarter than you or I and that's the point!
Edit to add: Andy are you actually suggesting that this motion will have a detrimental effect on chess in Scotland?
Growing old is compulsory, growing up is optional!
Posts: 944
Threads: 127
Joined: May 2012
Reputation:
4
ok Guys lets take a step back and have an overall look
1. Venues
Most and all public venues have legal responsibility for both health/safety and disability access. The issue at point is the need for the organiser as well as the venue owner to take responsibility for suitability
2. From my standpoint when a FIDE guideline is ratified it becomes a hard and fast rule not a guideline. This is the original lost in translation. Our complicated language allows inference and innuendo at the drop of a hat. I get the impression that the issue here is whether CS events will be subject to either guidelines (i.e. recommendations) or rules which must be followed. The CS AGM will probably decide that
Many posters (and probably include myself) have posted extreme scenarios to emphasise their view. My point is that this is a necessary evil in order for us all to come to a reasonable and informed decision when it comes to vote. What has become clear is that we can pool on all our experiences to recount what happened before and to help prevent problems arising in the future
Posts: 1,003
Threads: 101
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation:
1
David Deary Wrote:Andy B for the avoidance of doubt I haven't taken offense at you not agreeing with me although I do take offense at you insinuating it. What troubles me is the glee that certain posters take in tearing things to shreds, inventing doomsday scenarios and zombie apocalypses without so much as a constructive comment... I don't think its unreasonable to expect people to be constructive. Obviously, you disagree...
On 150+ member federations agreeing it, I think that is quite important, FIDE are the custodians of the game (like it or not) and they are responsible for the laws. A lot of people have reviewed these guidelines both smarter than you or I and that's the point!
Edit to add: Andy are you actually suggesting that this motion will have a detrimental effect on chess in Scotland?
Perhaps it's just the 'irritated' tone of your posts, but being an internet forum I'll give you the benefit of the doubt David.
No-one has torn things to shreds, merely asked questions and raised possible problems/objections. Posters here don't have to conform to your understanding of constructive David - offering a scenario whereby we lose a popular and much-needed event through supporting the wrong option in the motion is not destructive at all, merely asking people to consider what the motion might mean in practice.
Quote:Andy are you actually suggesting that this motion will have a detrimental effect on chess in Scotland?
If in practice it only formalises what is currently happening, and seems to be 'happening perfectly well', then of course not.
If, however, it means that organisers have to jump through too many extra hoops, look elsewhere for venues, etc. and events fold (pardon my 'doomsday/zombie/might actually happen in the real world' musings) then I would consider that detrimental to chess in Scotland. Some people find this unlikely or even a complete mis-assessment of what the motion means, others don't.
FIDE has a habit of making rules for the game which are not always in the best interests of the average player (99.9% of us) and there's absolutely no harm in discussing how it might affect us before voting on it.
Posts: 400
Threads: 9
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation:
1
I think I’m actually starting to empathise with Andy Muir… 
Andy, if you believe that a popular event will be scrapped as a result of this motion then it’s clear you don’t understand it. I am 100% certain this would not happen in any scenario you raise (as a result of this motion). I'm sure we'll end up with option two as much as that seems to irk some people.
Also, pointing out problems and offering no solutions isn’t constructive by any definition I know. As for my 'irritated' tone, I would say its more bemused if that can be a tone? I'm amazed this motion has got twenty pages and nothing on the other motion.
Growing old is compulsory, growing up is optional!
Posts: 1,003
Threads: 101
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation:
1
I point out possible problems, someone else points out possible solutions, someone else comes along and assures us that we're fretting over nothing, another possible drawback is spotted, the wording gets changed slightly to cover it...et voila...a constructive debate has produced a final product which works in practice  (Is this the point where Andy Muir comes in? :ympray: )
Posts: 400
Threads: 9
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation:
1
andyburnett Wrote:I point out possible problems, someone else points out possible solutions, someone else comes along and assures us that we're fretting over nothing, another possible drawback is spotted, the wording gets changed slightly to cover it...et voila...a constructive debate has produced a final product which works in practice (Is this the point where Andy Muir comes in? :ympray: )
Something tells me the reality will actually mirror what you suggest above. As for Andy Muir, an example of democracy in action... autocracy ftw!
Growing old is compulsory, growing up is optional!
|
