Continuation of AGM - motion 1.2

[George Neave]

I hope that the working party also discuss 'opt out' possibilities for players - I haven't the remotest desire to play someone who isn't there physically (if you'll pardon the pun).

Indeed. Seems like lot of nonsense to me. Better spend the time and energy running few more congresses e.g. Grangemouth, Perth, Hawick, Aberdeen, East of Scotland/West of Scotland - where are they? Live chess events commutable from the capital have all but vanished in past couple of years. Surely this is the top issue of the day?

[IMarks]

I hope that the working party also discuss 'opt out' possibilities for players - I haven't the remotest desire to play someone who isn't there physically (if you'll pardon the pun).

Andy (and George),

I fear that when (I find it hard to believe 'if') remote chess becomes part of the scene there will be no opt-out and people who prefer an opponent in the flesh will have to like it or lump it. Preferring not to play an opponent online will be labelled 'discrimination' and players doing so will become guilty parties.

Sitting in front of a skype camera is no more inclusive than playing on the ICC. I said in another post that IMO the way to develop chess in 'remote' areas is for local enthusiasts to get together and try to organise a congress. Test the water. Who knows, it might even be a success! (e.g. Oban) - and the calendar gains another event. For example, the north-east (hardly remote) has a lively and active chess scene, yet the last Aberdeen congress, if my ailing memory serves, was in 2004!!! Surely it's not beyond the bounds of possibility for our friends up there to resurrect such an event? Ah, but hey, who needs a 'remote' congress when you've got skype?

[StevieHilton]

I hope that the working party also discuss 'opt out' possibilities for players - I haven't the remotest desire to play someone who isn't there physically (if you'll pardon the pun).

Indeed. Seems like lot of nonsense to me. Better spend the time and energy running few more congresses e.g. Grangemouth, Perth, Hawick, Aberdeen, East of Scotland/West of Scotland - where are they? Live chess events commutable from the capital have all but vanished in past couple of years. Surely this is the top issue of the day?

It is only part of the problem George, the main concern has to be to reverse the trend of falling numbers at tournaments. Remoteness is a serious issue which has to be looked at. Not just remoteness in a geographical sense, but remoteness because of disability. You have to understand the difficulties disabled players face when travelling especially by rail to a tournament. Support at stations is inconsistent to say the least. I can understand people's reluctance to play someone who is not physically present, but if that person cannot be present because of their disability and playing by remote is the only option, then I would say you cannot refuse to play such a player because in that case, you would be refusing to play on the grounds of disability which is contrary to FIDE rules

[IMarks]

It is only part of the problem George, the main concern has to be to reverse the trend of falling numbers at tournaments. Remoteness is a serious issue which has to be looked at. Not just remoteness in a geographical sense, but remoteness because of disability. You have to understand the difficulties disabled players face when travelling especially by rail to a tournament. Support at stations is inconsistent to say the least. I can understand people's reluctance to play someone who is not physically present, but if that person cannot be present because of their disability and playing by remote is the only option, then I would say you cannot refuse to play such a player because in that case, you would be refusing to play on the grounds of disability which is contrary to FIDE rules

Steve,

With the greatest respect, you've brought this up before, and, as I indicated (post of Jan. 8th, p.9) at your invitation), there is no breach of FIDE rules. The original motion said:

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.

There is no reference whatsoever to the participation of disabled players, and that is no disrespect to disabled players. (An argument could be made that a disabled player would find it more socially inclusive to actually attend an event, rather than continue to sit in his/her house at a computer screen.) 'Remote communities' clearly indicates geographical location. If you wish to see a w.p. set up to facilitate greater inclusion of disabled players, put a motion forward at the next AGM; please stop trying to lump it in with this one.

It is actually quite interesting to see how the original motion has started to become distorted, following the various posts on the thread.

First, it was as stated - to allow players from remote Scottish communities to participate, then it started to include disabled players, then it was seen as a way to save families money. Whatever our views on the issue, let us hope that the w.p. sticks to its terms of reference, viz. location, nothing more, nothing less.

[StevieHilton]

Ian,
I'm sorry but I have to disagree with you, but the 2 issues are linked. I would ask you to look at it from the disabled players point of view. Transport is an issue for disabled players.

With all due respect Ian, I do not like your statement that I am lumping it in with the remote issue. The two are linked however much you may not like it.
I would also remind you that with the new FIDE guidelines, that disabled players cannot be barred from tournaments. If a venue is not suitable for disabled players then the onus will be the organisers to provide alternative supervised accommodation. In the case that is not possible, play by remote is the only alternative.

I will tell you now Ian, that I have no intention of letting this issue go. As a member of the working party, representing the interest of disabled players in this matter. I shall continue to contribute to this work from that perspective.

[IMarks]

Steve,

We shall have to agree to disagree. The motion referred to

remote Scottish communities

However much you may not like it - to use your own phrase - that refers to location. Try as I might, and I have, I fail to see any connection to disability in there.

I would also remind you that with the new FIDE guidelines, that disabled players cannot be barred from tournaments.

Steve, it's by bringing comments like this into the discussion that you do lump the two together. This is irrelevant to this thread. No-one's suggesting that they should be barred!

I will tell you now Ian, that I have no intention of letting this issue go.

I would ignore the tone of your first clause (I can almost feel you poking your finger in my chest), but will say that since I can do without people 'telling me', I really shall say no more until feedback time. Ciao.

[StevieHilton]

Steve,

We shall have to agree to disagree. The motion referred to

remote Scottish communities

However much you may not like it - to use your own phrase - that refers to location. Try as I might, and I have, I fail to see any connection to disability in there.
Of course there is a connection to disability,particularly from a transportational point of view that is remoteness as well.

I would also remind you that with the new FIDE guidelines, that disabled players cannot be barred from tournaments.

Steve, it's by bringing comments like this into the discussion that you do lump the two together. This is irrelevant to this thread. No-one's suggesting that they should be barred!

No it is not Ian, it is an important part of this issue. The aim is to get more players actively involved in CS events and other congresses and that includes disabled players. The guidelines are relevant, because whilst organisers don't have the intention of barring someone from an event, then that may well be the actual happening. The guidelines are there to help organisers

I will tell you now Ian, that I have no intention of letting this issue go.

I would ignore the tone of your first clause (I can almost feel you poking your finger in my chest), but will say that since I can do without people 'telling me', I really shall say no more until feedback time. Ciao.

What was wrong with my tone? Why don't you make a contribution to the working party with a submission?

[IMarks]

OK, one final post.

What was wrong with my tone?

Steve, really. ‘I will tell you now, Ian’ – as I said, I can almost feel you poking me in the chest. You’ve come away with this sort of thing before, e.g. check out your ‘Explanation Wanted’ thread which evinced a similar demanding/raised voice tone (as others commented).

Why don't you make a contribution to the working party with a submission?

ROTFLMAO!
Because, Steve, in response to my post of 24th January (which I assume you read), I was told by one of your fellow working party members that the w.p. would be inviting feedback, from which I assume that submissions are not being invited! Aren't you all singing from the same hymn sheet?

And now I really will pull my head in.

[StevieHilton]

I do not accept that my questioning is aggressive in any way.

' ROTFLMAO!
Because, Steve, in response to my post of 24th January (which I assume you read), I was told by one of your fellow working party members that the w.p. would be inviting feedback, from which I assume that submissions are not being invited! Aren't you all singing from the same hymn sheet?'

Which member told you that? Any way how does that stop you from submitting something to the WP?

[IMarks]

I do not accept that my questioning is aggressive in any way.

Steve, it wasn't questioning, it was 'telling'. And I'm not the only person on the board who frequently finds your tone 'aggressive'. Still, if you don't accept that it's aggressive, that's up to you.

Which member told you that? Any way how does that stop you from submitting something to the WP?

Have you read my post and response (p.15, 6th & 7th down)? It really looks like you haven't or you wouldn't be asking. To answer your questions: (1) Sean Milton (2) Because no e-mail address, which I asked about, or other contact for the w.p. has yet been provided.

And this really is my last contribution. I'm off the members' list. Toodles.