New constitution

[Alex McFarlane]

Do you mean they could try to insist on playing for Scotland?

That was not what I meant. Playing for Scotland and being SCO registered are not the same.

Unknown 'players' can try to register as SCO directly on the Arena website. The most CS will have to go on is a name and date of birth (and possibly an email address) when deciding whether to accept or reject such a person. If they are not already over the board players then they will be totally unknown.

Unfortunately there are always people who will take legal action. In Scrabble a few years ago there was a player took the association to court because a round started early. He won his entry fee back (which had been offered) but the legal fees involved for the Scrabble people were high. A chess player who had possibly been economical with his previous playing history won a court case against the Blackpool Congress organisers when they refused to pay his prize money.

If we are going to refuse people SCO registration there must be clear policies in place to minimise the risk of legal action. Someone who satisfies every criteria could be rejected simply because they are unknown.

[WBuchanan]

Thanks Alex that's much clearer.

Well the people who went to court in your examples had some sort of case, albeit probably an unreasonable one, and a specific axe to grind. It does seem to be a warning not to invest too much in a code that you are not in complete control of though :|

I’m still thinking of how this might affect selection (or Championhip eligibility)

“Unknown 'players' can try to register as SCO directly on the Arena website. The most CS will have to go on is a name and date of birth (and possibly an email address) when deciding whether to accept or reject such a person. If they are not already over the board players then they will be totally unknown.”

As it stands, anyone who would make the Olympiad team on grading could register as SCO and then claim a parent or grandparent connection (as necessary) to unsure selection. It would be discrimination not to select them.

I don’t think other organisations would confer privileges on such a thin basis of provenance.

Isn’t it a question of reserving the right to ask for proof of ID and/or, in the case of a ‘bloodline’, evidence of this too?

It also seems to strengthen the case against the acceptable bloodline criterion being a grandparent, unless you are prepared to insist on seeing proof.

Cheers

[Derek Howie]

While we’re waiting for Andy to dig out his stuff I had better raise my own question regarding the minutes here as the other thread seems to have vanished.

It concerns (surprise) Section 16. The minutes say:

“Jim Webster proposed and Robin Templeton seconded that rather than trying to resolve the issue at the Meeting under minute, Section 16 should be removed from the PNC and addressed in the context of the Operating Procedures for the Selection Boards.

The deletion of Section 16, was carried unanimously.”

This doesn’t fit well with my recollection, especially the part about it going to the Operating Procedures. This would have rung a bell with me. I'm not sure Section 16 on eligibility was to be removed from the PNC (Proposed New Constitution) either - I thought it had been remitted to a continuation of the SGM.

I would be surprised if all of this minute were accurate; it is equivalent to the proposal in the PNC, in that CS management will decide the selection criteria themselves later, without putting the criteria to a formal vote. As it was the opposite of my motion which aimed to give the membership a formal say on the criteria, I’d be pretty surprised if I was sold such a turkey.

While Section 16 could I expect be remitted legitimately to a future meeting as the meeting was running out of time I think it would be out of order to allow a vote of this nature, as it would amount to a vote for or against Section 16 of the constitution, without voting first for or against the surviving amendment to it.

Indeed it would also be evading the votes cast by proxy against the equivalent proposal in the constitution!

And finally of course it was made clear that only proposals already in were to be voted on and this was a new one, with new details.

So though of course I could be wrong I’d appreciate it if anyone present at the meeting can shed any light as to what precisely was proposed.

Cheers

Has this issue been clarified? The minutes say that there was a motion introduced on the day that section 16 was dropped and this was carried unanimously.

1. Did this vote actually happen?

2. If it did happen, why was it allowed given that the SGM should not allow motions to be introduced on the day?

3. If it did happen, does anyone disagree that the motion must be incompetent and unconstitutional as it was introduced on the day, which should not be allowed and as such the vast majority of the membership were prevented in giving their opinion on it?

Section 16 should not be removed from the constitution without a proper motion and vote to remove it.