Eligibility Votes - March 2022

[KMcGeoch]

I've had a read through it and it seems motion itself deals with a very limited subset of the Chess Scotland membership. It does seem a bit overly complicated as I'm having to crisscross via various documents but this is basically how I've interpreted the current state of play.

1. This only applies to people who are likely to win the Scottish Championship or represent Scotland internationally. This means it probably hypothetically affects maybe 50 people max.
2. The "Operating Procedure Selection Criteria" references Section 16 of the constitution that currently doesn't exist. It seems that all the documents provided are proposed documents but the current rules/regulations aren't so it's hard to tell without trawling through a trove of additional documents. The background documents aren't clear as to what currently applies and what is a proposal.
3. From what I can understand under the current selection criteria Matt Turner would be theoretically eligible to play for Scotland. The only reason he hasn't is section 9 of "Operating Procedure Selection Criteria" that basically allows the selectors to make alterations at their discretion.
4. Any rules that require exceptions are usually badly drafted. I'm assuming it was intended to make it a Scotland Fide affiliation and then someone brought up Matthew Turner and that led to second motion. I don't know exact details but if AGM where he was granted SCO designation was unconditional then he can play as he's been grandfathered in and if it was conditional then those conditions in the earlier AGM vote would still apply.

I will however note that criteria are a bit arbitrary. For example with Country of Birth you get a lot of stories about people being born while their parents were on holiday or on a military base abroad thus gaining an extra nationality. If you're really unlucky it's USA in which case the US government hunts you down for taxes under FATCA as US nationals have to pay taxes even when not resident in USA. Another scenario you could get is that a player's parents immigrated to Scotland when they were 6 months old, they spend their entire youth in Scotland, then go to University in let's say Newcastle, start playing chess at university and would be ineligible for Scottish nationality as they're no longer resident in Scotland (i.e. not immediately prior) at the time of application and similarly would also fail to qualify for English nationality under the same criteria. Personally I'm OK with anyone who identifies as Scottish to represent Scotland but this doesn't really affect me much as I doubt I'll win the Scottish Championship or represent Scotland internationally with my current playing strength.

I'll also note that changing the Chess Scotland Constitution requires 2/3 of the membership to vote that seems to be a high threshold to reach. Wouldn't a better method be to rely on the existing constitution where you can find:

2.2.2.  Organise an annual Congress for the Scottish Championship tournament and other such tournaments and championships as considered appropriate.
10.5.1. The Adult International Board will be chaired by the International Director and include representatives as detailed in the appropriate Operating Procedure.

So in that case all your need to do is modify the Operating Procedure that I'm assuming would require a simply majority vote at most to specify eligibility criteria. In the same way organising a tournament as "considered appropriate" would mean that eligibility criteria can be added if it's considered appropriate.

Having said all that I'm not too sure how I should vote as it's hard to judge pros and cons of both motions. It seems to affect a very small amount of people so I'd probably just default to following CS board recommendations. That's assuming I can find voting links that I haven't located...

[WBuchanan]

Why don't people actually read what is written.

David Levy satisfies 16.2.3.  So there is no problem there.  The changes do not affect that.  Andy does not have to propose motions in which he has not considered the consequences.

The motion from A Muir in 2019 did not do what Andy wanted.  He mentioned a SCO code.  The SCO code is 24 at the front of your FIDE ID.  For a variety of reasons a significant number of Scots, some born and bred, do not have a FIDE code starting 24 so under Andy's motion would not have qualified to play for Scotland.  I gave 3 examples off the top of my head.  

Douglas proposed an amendment which included all of the above exceptions and Matt Turner.  If Andy did not understand the amendment then the simple thing to do would have been to say so and reject it.  He didn't.
I consider that Douglas's proposal was basically what Andy had intended, however I do not believe that it qualified as a minor alteration so should have been rejected.  Clearly it did not achieve what the original proposer wanted.

We are suffering from two motions which were not considered properly either by the proposer or by those present at the AGM (and possibly higher up when accepting the motions). 

I think I have said enough.

Hi again Alex
I'm  not sure examples off the top of your head is a good idea. (Nothing against YOUR head :-) )
One was Jacob Aagard, who the motion intended to make ineligible due to him having Denmark registration.
Keti Arakhamia-Grant was down as SCO in 2011 (https://ratings.fide.com/view_source.phtml?code=56980) so shouldn't have been affected?
Even if she had been, is it beyond our capability to discern that the problem being addressed was someone having, for the purposes of representation, TWO nationalities?
 
The third is a genuine anomaly. DH had the wrong code (ENG was it?) given presumably in error.  I expect there are other examples of this error.
This should not send reverberations up through the system. It would suggest that we can't handle our own systems that were put in place by us - to serve us!
 
And what effect did this anomaly have? The 2019 Champs form that you cited above (post #72) says
 
"Titles will only be awarded to those satisfying Scottish nationality (SCO) who are also members of Chess Scotland"
 
So Mr Heron still could not have won the Championship!?
 
Therefore the claim that the need to correct for this anomaly was a reason for Matthew being regarded by some as eligible is not correct.

[hamish olson]

Walter, what Alex refers to when he says SCO code is the number at the start of the fide player number, 24 for Scotland. For example my fide number is 2404257 because I was nationality Scotland with FIDE from the start.

Donald Heron's is still currently 416282, due to the mixup with his initial registration, but his nationality with FIDE is now Scotland. So the original wording of the 2016 motion would have unintentionally prevented Donald and Keti from being eligible as it was referring to the code, but the 2019 Scottish entry form would not as it is not about the code - so your statements above are not quite accurate - apart from the one about the 2016 motion intending to exclude Jacob.

[hamish olson]

3. From what I can understand under the current selection criteria Matt Turner would be theoretically eligible to play for Scotland. The only reason he hasn't is section 9 of "Operating Procedure Selection Criteria" that basically allows the selectors to make alterations at their discretion.
4. Any rules that require exceptions are usually badly drafted. I'm assuming it was intended to make it a Scotland Fide affiliation and then someone brought up Matthew Turner and that led to second motion. I don't know exact details but if AGM where he was granted SCO designation was unconditional then he can play as he's been grandfathered in and if it was conditional then those conditions in the earlier AGM vote would still apply.

3 depends on this 2016 motion that I have referred to quite a few times. My understanding is he is not currently eligible. Alex has recollections that suggest otherwise but there is no definitive post-amendment wording that has been written down that would back this up.

The 2016 minutes, approved at the 2017 AGM (quoted earlier by Alex and again by me below) describe the amendment as "minor" and the only mentioned change was replacing SCO code with country code.

"Chess Scotland Champion must be SCO registered. Grey areas over who is Scottish and who isn’t. Discussion on wording of proposal. IE discussion on whether this is to do with number of Country code. Minor amendment – DB suggests change to federation designation instead of Country Code. AM agrees to amendment. amendment passed.

Vote on proposal. 16 for. 14 against. Motion passed."

The first four sentences are clearly what was discussed, and the fifth describes the minor amendment - replacing federation designation (the two or three digits at the start of the fide number, 24 for Scotland for example) with the country code (SCO, ENG).


As for 4, again that would depend on the 2016 motion, but in any case there is no grandfather clause in these rules at present, and given the issues we are having determining official versions of pivotal past rulings I don't think we would want one!

"Having said all that I'm not too sure how I should vote as it's hard to judge pros and cons of both motions. It seems to affect a very small amount of people so I'd probably just default to following CS board recommendations. That's assuming I can find voting links that I haven't located..."

This is about who represents Scotland? Aren't millions of people impacted (even if they don't know it    )?

[WBuchanan]

Walter, what Alex refers to when he says SCO code is the number at the start of the fide player number, 24 for Scotland. For example my fide number is 2404257 because I was nationality Scotland with FIDE from the start.

Donald Heron's is still currently 416282, due to the mixup with his initial registration, but his nationality with FIDE is now Scotland. So the original wording of the 2016 motion would have unintentionally prevented Donald and Keti from being eligible as it was referring to the code, but the 2019 Scottish entry form would not as it is not about the code - so your statements above are not quite accurate - apart from the one about the 2016 motion intending to exclude Jacob.

Steady on there Hamish, not so fast :-). We've actually been here before:
https://www.chessscotland.com/forum/show...975&page=2
 
Of course, there is such an item as the SCO code, the text form - it's what's been discussed, mentioned in regulations and promoted as a Proxy for eligibility for years. It's the only one that most members would have heard of, and they would have heard that from management. There would be no reason to change that as the default meaning.

 
If this simply meant the number at the start of the Fide number (24 for Scotland, 40 for England etc) then people like Keti (FIDE number=13600168, doesn't change when you switch federations) would not be eligible under a rule that said that SCO=eligible, a rule that is often proposed.
And neither would Matthew (402893). According to CS personnel, Matthew has the SCO code, does he not? His FIDE number begins with 40.
Hamish O, 2404257, Scottish '24' Tartan stamp :-) like most of the Scots players.

SCO on this list means the Fide federation.
Keti, 13600168 - no '24', but listed as SCO, and eligible.
Matthew, 402893 - no '24', listed as SCO - not eligible yet, because SCO doesn't give eligibility.
 
The use and intent of the term 'SCO' is clearly the variable that shows all the SCO in the listing.
You can see them on CS here
https://www.chessscotland.com/documents/...#whitelist
(Click on the thumbnail at the bottom for an extract)
 
There's Keti, 13600168, i.e. with no Scottish '24' but SCO due to federation change.
Further down you can see Matthew, 402893, English code, but listed as SCO - because that's the code that he was given, the one we are all talking about.
 
What is this list - it's FIDE's. The heading of the country column (SCO, ENG etc) in the file is Fed.
You can get the lot here in a Download: https://ratings.fide.com/download.phtml
 
Anyone telling you that IF someone proposes a rule to make the SCO code a requirement for eligibility it would somehow make someone else with the SCO code ineligible is misinformed, or disingenuous.
 
Interpreting the motion so that it referred to the 'country part' (the part with the numerical  '24' etc) would also be astonishing, as the country part is the country of initial registration, as has been noted.
I don't believe this was what was done at the 2016 AGM. Douglas Bryson's amendment to change to the Federation is technically correct, as it was the precise specification where the intended change was to be made - 'the Federation' (as the sketchy AGM minute notes) is the column with the 'SCO', ENG', etc.
NB, Matthew now has SCO not ENG.
 
But there was no reason in the world to suppose that Andy Muir meant the 2 or 3 digit 'country' part of the FIDE ID. Or Douglas, for that matter. Of course that would cause carnage - it would reset everyone to their original country!

So SCO is a value of the Federation variable in FIDE files.
The interpretation of Andy Muir's motion (of what was either specified OR meant by the proposer, OR by the amendment) that was later claimed (and that has been maintained ever since) would be a very surprising one to make by anyone who knows the meaning of the two columns.
 
Cheers

[KMcGeoch]

I think I understand things a bit better now. To summarise things I'd say it's as follows:

1. Motion 1 can be read as no one in Chess Scotland has any idea exactly what the current eligibility rules actually are. Since it could be an issue in future they've organised an EWP to try to come up with rules that seem practical and are close enough to what people think the rules were.
2. There is no definitive record of what happened at 2016 AGM. It seems vote was narrowly passed with people have differing interpretations of what was agreed. I guess grammatical equivalent is "Let's eat Grandma!" vs "Let's eat, Grandma!" where the comma makes all the difference.

Having looked at the 2011 AGM minutes I found the following:

Motion 3 (Proposed by Andrew Muir, Seconded by Jacqui Thomas)
A new category of Chess Scotland member shall be created. Members of this category will be entitled to have the code SCO in the FIDE rating list and to use the Scottish flag. They will not be entitled to play for Scottish teams and not be entitled to obtain the title of Scottish champion. Members shall come under this category at the discretion of the management board. After a discussion, it was agreed that the motion was over complex and that a simpler solution should be sought. AH has agreed to draft a motion to cover this for the upcoming EGM
Motion overwhelmingly rejected

6.9 Matthew Turner nationality transfer
After Motion 3 was rejected and AH agreed that he would put a motion up at the EGM for ratification, we still had to look at what we should do with MT‟s request for transfer. AH outlined what his motion would be, using Grandparents for qualification in lines with all other sports. MT advised that he had communication from the ECF that they would not be looking for compensation for him to transfer. AH proposed that we process the transfer now and not leave MT stateless for another 3 months. This was seconded by PB and carried with a majority.

I can't see any record of the minutes of the EGM referred to in those motions. However the council 2014 and AGM 2015 votes that were rejected are the likely equivalents. Reading in between the lines I would assume the transfer was processed on the assumption rules would be changed so that his case wouldn't be an exception but then the rule change didn't happen like it was assumed it would at the AGM. Having said all that I wasn't at the meeting so it's purely speculation on my part.

So basically motion 2 can be read as let's simplify things and give Matthew Turner the same status as everyone else since he has been involved in the Scottish Chess scene for over a decade. I'll also note that I don't know Matthew Turner in any shape or form so I can't judge him on a personal basis and I suspect a lot of the membership is in the same position.

I guess technically this motion could affect the entire world especially if you subscribe to the butterfly effect although it would surprise me if it had a noticeable effect on more than 50 people.

[WBuchanan]

In Summary of my previous post No #84
 
The 2016 AGM ('Muir-Neave') motion brought didn't cause a problem, in ANY of its forms connected to the AGM.
 
1) Original form, according to the forum:
Proposal : All adult Scottish champions (i.e. main and senior) must be affiliated to Scotland (e.g. SCO on FIDE list)
https://www.chessscotland.com/forum/show...p?tid=1513
 
This is fine. SCO on FIDE list is not incorrect. SCO refers to the Federation column.
 
2) Andy Muir informed the forum that he had been advised to amend the motion, and a rewording:
 
"An additional sentence shall be added: To be eligible to be Scottish Champion or Scottish Senior Champion a player must also be FIDE registered as Scotland with a SCO code."
 
This is still correct. Scotland = Federation (SCO for Federation on Fide list); the same change is specified.
[A  minor edit: this is on the forum link, but is also the same on the AGM AGenda
https://www.chessscotland.com/wp-content...enda16.pdf.

The AGM minutes include the statement "IE discussion on whether this is to do with number of Country code. Minor amendment – DB suggests change to federation designation instead of Country Code".
The term Country Code was not part of the motion but may have crept into the discussion.
It's not clear why the Country Code was even mentioned, but it must have have prompted Douglas's attempted clarification, see 3) below]
 
3) Amended at the AGM at Douglas Bryson's suggestion, by altering the proposed change from 'SCO code' to 'Federation'.
 
These are the same thing, so still no problem. Douglas presumably thought it better to specify the item to be altered exactly, as 'Country code' could (conceivably?) be taken to mean the two or three digit number of the FIDE ID which refers to the original country of residence.
 
This is unnecessary in my view, as that interpretation would be ridiculous.
But 3) is more accurate. The amendment completely and unambiguously specifies the intended change.
 
No interpretation of any of these variants should have caused a problem.
They are all 'competent'.
 
The later interpretations that there was a problem seem to have arisen in people's minds, perhaps in a kind of technical form of Chinese whispers.
 
It may not have helped that a complete record of the amended motion didn't seem to be created.
If chat developed suggesting there was a problem, there being nothing to refer to would not have helped.
The feeling that there was confusion may have been self-fulfilling.

[Willie Rutherford]

My eyes glaze over reading the comments/speculations about poorly documented past motions and what they meant, or were intended to mean. I'm not sure why any of that matters now when considering the current proposals?

Surely pretty much every federation will have eligibility criteria based on birth, parenthood and residence, with some tweaks on the exact calibration (length of residency, parent/grandparent etc).

Since many people will meet the criteria for more than 1 federation (including me - if only I was good enough at something for it to matter!), it is also perfectly reasonable and I assume pretty much universal that IN ADDITION the player concerned must have chosen Scotland (in our case) as his/her federation at FIDE.

I think this is what Proposal 1 proposes (putting aside whether it needs to be in the constitution or not), regardless of what happened in the past. So I support this proposal.

Unfortunately, MT does not meet any of the 3 criteria, therefore should not be eligible for representing Scotland or winning the championship. I don't think the fact that there was confusion in the past is a good enough reason to make an exception. So I don't support Proposal 2.

Unless I am missing something, approval of Proposal 1 with rejection of Proposal 2 would just retain the status quo for MT. He can remain registered with our federation at FIDE and, if he wishes to, he can continue what sounds like it has been an otherwise positive engagement with Scottish chess.

[Alex McFarlane]

Walter, 
Douglas proposed a change because the term FIDE code was used incorrectly.  I have said it was used incorrectly.
That is two of the three people in Scotland who work with or for FIDE saying it is, at best, ambiguous.  I'm sure Andy Howie would agree with us, completing the triumvirate.
Why do you continue to argue?
SCO is the designation or even abbreviation for Scotland.  The code for Scotland is 24. (The code for England is actually just 4.)
Whilst Douglas's amendment removed the 'ambiguity' I would have probably preferred designation to Federation to have been used.

[WBuchanan]

Alex: "Why do you continue to argue?"
 
See your earlier advice: "Why don't people actually read what is written."
 
If you aren't going to read the post, then it's futile to start adding up the people who you think 'would agree with you'.
 
Logic is logic. Please read this before replying.
 
I explained quite painstakingly WHY it may have made sense for Douglas to suggest the amendment.
People were talking about 'Country Codes' (when that wasn't part of the motion) and there is another code that means 'original country', though that is a numerical code!.
 
I also explained that Federation and 'SCO code' were one and the same.
Or more concisely, SCO code is a value of the Federation variable.
 
1) So there was no  reason to jump to another field (original country code, a numerical one) entirely and change that.
You outlined the effects of doing that - mostly correctly; as that would be well ... simply a bonkers thing to do.
 
That part is not really relevant  after the amendment as Douglas's suggestion removed even the bonkers interpretation, but it has been used as part of a narrative that is based on...seemingly, nothing.
 
2) Another error you have made is to assume that the motion proposed that SCO code would be sufficient to give eligibility, when it was clearly meant as an extra restriction. Ergo, so it goes, Matthew was rendered eligible!
 
But it is not so. The clue is in the words
 
'a player must ALSO be FIDE registered as Scotland with a SCO code'
 
The upshot of the motion passed is:
 
SCO code now necessary for eligibility, but not sufficient for eligibility, as the criterion still have to be met.
People thereby excluded - those with different Federations.
 
As I said this 'upshot' is the meaning irrespective of which written version of the motion you look at, as Andy and George specified the right field (SCO code, Federation) in the first place.

In short, no version of this motion implied Matthew was eligible.

Any confusion came later, possibly by people invoking each other without checking the basics.
 

---

My eyes glaze over reading the comments/speculations about poorly documented past motions and what they meant, or were intended to mean. I'm not sure why any of that matters now when considering the current proposals?

Surely pretty much every federation will have eligibility criteria based on birth, parenthood and residence, with some tweaks on the exact calibration (length of residency, parent/grandparent etc).

Since many people will meet the criteria for more than 1 federation (including me - if only I was good enough at something for it to matter!), it is also perfectly reasonable and I assume pretty much universal that IN ADDITION the player concerned must have chosen Scotland (in our case) as his/her federation at FIDE.

I think this is what Proposal 1 proposes (putting aside whether it needs to be in the constitution or not), regardless of what happened in the past. So I support this proposal.

Unfortunately, MT does not meet any of the 3 criteria, therefore should not be eligible for representing Scotland or winning the championship. I don't think the fact that there was confusion in the past is a good enough reason to make an exception. So I don't support Proposal 2.

Unless I am missing something, approval of Proposal 1 with rejection of Proposal 2 would just retain the status quo for MT. He can remain registered with our federation at FIDE and, if he wishes to, he can continue what sounds like it has been an otherwise positive engagement with Scottish chess.

I agree with most of your post Willie; are you aware though, that Motion 1 proposes (or rather imposes) a new regime of lifetime eligibility based on a temporary residence. This is a double stretch of the old status quo, when residency was tied to the time of the event, and excluded residency based on being a student.

As for the screeds you refer to - yeah, sorry . That's partly down to many of the opposing contributions, when the issue of the 2016 motion seems to me to be clear, or cleared up. 

Hamish stressed its relevance in post #66. Emphasis added, hopefully I won't be sued by Hamish :

"On another note, on page two I have asked if we can finally publish (or point me to if it is already) the definitive version of a 2016 motion.
In some ways it is the reason the Matthew Turner issue is even being discussed - the misunderstanding of it in 2019 (or not - no-one knows, because it isn't published) was what prompted this working party.

Adidtionally references to it have been made several times in this thread to justify e.g. changing eligibility to include students.
Apparently this changed a few years ago for SCO registration. I'm unsure if it was also changed for eligibility (not least because that 2016 motion still isn't published as far as I can see).

This may seem like a minor procedural issue but it could well have real world implications. It was mentioned that strong titled players have large transfer fees, but what about e.g. a female university student strong enough to play for our women's team. It looks like that issue wasn't considered."

It's also relevant to your question of why there is no explanation of Motion 2, i.e. why no case being made. The case has been made in terms of extricating ourselves from this terrible mess we have allegedly stumbled into, and that making Matthew eligible will magically catapult us out of.

It's a very strange reason. The possiblity that Matthew's eligibility had been pushed was mentioned by you and others. It's relevant to that.
Matthew's eligibility was widely claimed to have been established by the 2016 motion.
If I'm right, this is nonsense. But we won't find out unless we consider it.

Cheers