Continuation of AGM - motion 1.2

[Alex McFarlane]

3. Kasparov or Ilyumzhinov ?

It would make sense if we wait to know who the candidates are. There may be others. It could be politically inept to broadcast too far in advance who Scotland is supporting.
I also doubt if this is a decision only for the International Director. FIDE decisions affect everyone.

[Andy Howie]

3. Kasparov or Ilyumzhinov ?

It would make sense if we wait to know who the candidates are. There may be others. It could be politically inept to broadcast too far in advance who Scotland is supporting.
I also doubt if this is a decision only for the International Director. FIDE decisions affect everyone.

Alex,

Lesson learned from last time, I am not broadcasting in advance who we are supporting. I totally agree with you here.

[StevieHilton]

"1.2 Motion to create a Working Party to explore the use of live boards and internet to allow players from remote Scottish communities to participate in Chess Scotland congress events.

The logistics and expense of travelling to Chess Scotland congress events precludes a proportion of chess players who live in remote locations of the country from participating at Chess Scotland supported events. Internet is now widely available in many of these remote locations which would allow chess players to transmit played moves to a congress event in real time. It would be possible for a player in a remote location to play a game over the internet and have those moves relayed onto a chess board by a volunteer sitting at a congress board or in time by an automated board as demonstrated in the following video clip <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dX37LFv8jWY">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dX37LFv8jWY</a><!-- m -->. To ensure fair play the remote player will be supervised by an independent observer such as an arbiter, fellow chess club member etc. Such conditions may also apply to participants within Scotland who cannot attend Congresses for other special reasons e.g. a disability. Although there are a number of potential logistic problems the Working Party will investigate these and make recommendations on overall feasibility.

Proposed : Sean Milton Seconded: Gerald Lobley, David Deary, David Congalton, Calum MacQueen"

I would like to ask the proposer or any of the seconders this important question?
Who did you consult in preparing this motion?
Did you consult with the Disability officer or with disabled players for that matter? I know that I was not asked by anyone for an opinion on this.
How much research has been done in preparing this motion.

There are FIDE guidelines for the treatment of disabled players that come into force in July 2014.

I want an answer to my questions because if there is none it is a bit presumptuous to raise the issue of disability in this motion, which is in fact a good motion, but I am concerned at the lack of consultation by the proposer and seconders on this.

[David G Congalton]

Steve

Happy New Year to you.

I have to say I find the tone of your e-mail very aggressive!

Personally, I don't think it is presumptious at all to raise the issue of disability in a motion that is, after all, looking to establish a working party at the moment. In fact, I think it demonstrates consideration of the inclusiveness of people within chess, without having to be prompted.

I'm not sure which part of the FIDE guidelines on the treatment of disabled players you think the motion infringes.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.fide.com/component/content/article/1-fide-news/6838-guidelines-on-treatment-of-disabled-chess-players.html">http://www.fide.com/component/content/a ... ayers.html</a><!-- m -->

Consideration of disabled players was the major reason, that the May congress in Ayrshire I organise was moved from the airport to the Mercure Hotel. There was a potential access problem at the airport and the Mercure is very disabled friendly. I didn't consult you, the disability officer or anyone else. There was potentially an issue and I addressed the issue. This demonstrates to me that I can consider others without having to consult with someone every time I consider whether to support or come up with an idea. I will continue to do this.

If your intention was simply to highlight the FIDE guidelines I would suggest that this could have been done in a less confrontational manner.

David Congalton

[StevieHilton]

David,
What is confrontational about the questions I raised?
The only thing I have a concern about is the lack of consultation on the disability issues arising from the motion.
You will notice that I think that the motion is a good one, but lack of consultation is worrying to me.
I never said or implied that the motion infringes any part of the FIDE Guidelines. My point was that were these used in researching this motion. My work with the disabled would sure have been useful in preparation of this motion that's all. There is nothing aggressive about that.
I have had a lot of experience in playing matches by Skype, I would be happy to pass on that experience to this working party if it has been set up.
I would suggest the following,
Allow me to play in the Ayr tournament by using skype from my home. Then you would have valuable experience and information in regards to aims of this motion, which I repeat is a good one but there should have been more consultation that's all

[robin moore]

I am surprised by Steve's post at this time. I am not sure why he chose to voice his opinion five months after the original proposal was submitted to the AGM. I personally think this is one of the best proposals to be presented for consideration of CS members for some time.

ChessScotland- To me that means the whole of Scotland irrespective of where you live and sympathetic to any travelling or disability issues anyone may have.

Iain has correctly raised valid questions regarding this motion. I am certain that virtually all CS members support the reasoning behind this motion's objective. Let's discuss this important issue amicably and constructively.

[Andy Howie]

David,
What is confrontational about the questions I raised?
The only thing I have a concern about is the lack of consultation on the disability issues arising from the motion.
You will notice that I think that the motion is a good one, but lack of consultation is worrying to me.
I never said or implied that the motion infringes any part of the FIDE Guidelines. My point was that were these used in researching this motion. My work with the disabled would sure have been useful in preparation of this motion that's all. There is nothing aggressive about that.
I have had a lot of experience in playing matches by Skype, I would be happy to pass on that experience to this working party if it has been set up.
I would suggest the following,
Allow me to play in the Ayr tournament by using skype from my home. Then you would have valuable experience and information in regards to aims of this motion, which I repeat is a good one but there should have been more consultation that's all

Steve,

It is a proposal to put together a working party to look into this idea. Surely it is the remit of the working party to decide on the consultation?

[David G Congalton]

David,
What is confrontational about the questions I raised?

The manner in which you put them.

I want an answer to my questions because if there is none....

There is nothing aggressive about that.

One minute Steve is all for being the guinea pig, the next he’s on the warpath, with a barrage of questions and accusations of the motion being presumptive.

I would like to ask the proposer or any of the seconders this important question?
Who did you consult in preparing this motion?
Did you consult with the Disability officer or with disabled players for that matter? I know that I was not asked by anyone for an opinion on this.
How much research has been done in preparing this motion.
There are FIDE guidelines for the treatment of disabled players that come into force in July 2014.

in answer to the barrage of questions, the motion proposes the set up of a working party to explore all of the issues involve. I would have thought that the point of the working party would be to consult, research fully, take account of any rules and guidelines and report back on the feasibility.

I have had a lot of experience in playing matches by Skype, I would be happy to pass on that experience to this working party if it has been set up.

No working party has been set up. This is what the motion proposes. I have no idea who would be on such a working party but if there are people or groups that would be interested then do they not register an interest in being on the working party, if the motion is approved.

I would suggest the following,
Allow me to play in the Ayr tournament by using skype from my home. Then you would have valuable experience and information in regards to aims of this motion, which I repeat is a good one but there should have been more consultation that's all

Steve, normally I am open to experimenting and trying new things at events I organise but as there is a motion to put together a working party I am reluctant to go ahead and do my own thing at the January event before the working party has had a chance to consider things. For the January event there is also the question of resources at the congress venue.

[Phil Thomas]

I wasn't aware until very recently that this motion was not discussed at the agm 5 months ago. I guess that is why Steve raises it now plus the fact that it is scheduled for discussion on the 11th of this month.

Why I really don't understand is this

CS Constitution section 10 covers Powers and Duties of MANAGEMENT BOARD
within which I find.

10.2.3 May appoint ad hoc committees that may co-opt Individual members

So why hasn't the management board simply operated within the currrent constitution and appointed an ad-hoc committee?

[David G Congalton]

Because it was proposed by members as a motion to the AGM for consideration by all Chess Scotland members.

Had it been a suggestion to the management board, it could have been discussed at Council or among the management board, who may or may not have decided to set up an ad-hoc committee.