13-08-2014, 09:36 AM
13-08-2014, 09:44 AM
Robin you are making a mountain out of a mole hill. Have Edinburgh or Troon run into any problems in say the last 10 years playing in the Spens or Richardson with respect to disabled players? No they haven't. If this is passed for cs events will they have issues in the future? No because these guidelines put the onus on the disabled player to call out an issue long before it happens. It will mitigate issues. Steve is Gen Sec of the committee that drafted this. If 175 counties here in Tromso are in agreement with this and its implementation and that includes countries whos chess budget is less than one of our small clubs, who are we to disagree
13-08-2014, 09:50 AM
Well Andy, If you are so certain there will be no issues in the future if this motion is passed, then you will be happy to support an amendment that CS will pick up the tab if alternative arrangements have to be made.
13-08-2014, 10:25 AM
It would be impossible to pass the amendment as all unbudgeted expenditure has to be approved by council
13-08-2014, 10:56 AM
Pat
(Re-winding …)
Being disabled is not a licence to misbehave. The organiser has a responsibility to ensure the smooth running of his tournament. So, assert authority. How to do that needs to be related to the circumstances of the incident in question. Ian obviously appreciates that point, too!
As for fisticuffs, I am just as dismayed as others. But, it’s not very different from the sinking feeling I experience whenever I have occasion to visit hospital and see those horrific notices, warning that abuse of staff will not be tolerated.
George
(Re-winding …)
Being disabled is not a licence to misbehave. The organiser has a responsibility to ensure the smooth running of his tournament. So, assert authority. How to do that needs to be related to the circumstances of the incident in question. Ian obviously appreciates that point, too!
As for fisticuffs, I am just as dismayed as others. But, it’s not very different from the sinking feeling I experience whenever I have occasion to visit hospital and see those horrific notices, warning that abuse of staff will not be tolerated.
George
13-08-2014, 11:01 AM
Steve Andy (H)
Motion 1 has only just been released (9 August). Steve says: ‘new guidelines came into effect on July 1 2014’. Andy says: ‘As per the Minutes of the Rules Commission a few days ago … The words are not Steve’s, they are the recommendations that have been presented to the various committees here in Tromso and to my knowledge have been accepted by all’.
Which statement is correct? If the new Rules came into effect on 1 July 2014, why was it necessary to present them to the Rules Commission in Tromso a month or so later? Ratification after the event, or ratification of selected guidelines only?
If the purpose of Motion 1 is to update CS practices to bring them into line with FIDE Guideleines, then it would be normal to introduce them via a Preamble to this effect. But, would that not require, first, the Guidelines to have been formally ratified and an announcement to that effect made so that everyone (i.e. Chess Federations) can dance to the same tune? Is the AGM at risk of getting ahead of the game?
Second, if the Guidelines are restricted to FIDE rated tournaments, then they do not apply to non-FIDE rated tournaments. Officially. That’s not to say that CS should not encourage ‘all chess events’ to apply these standards/practices/guidelines.
Where can we see the official FIDE release so that we can all operate on a level playing field?
I find it hard to believe that there can have been many - any? - substantive changes to the text of the FIDE Handbook that I quoted from above. [See Chapter titled; Guidelines to treatment of disabled chess players and dated 25 February 2013]
[Stage whisper:
Geez. You’d think this was a re-run of that great movie, ‘The Sting’. You know, the one in which Bob Newhart, the confidence trickster, upstaged Robert Shaw, the mobster, by switching marked decks in a poker game. The mobster thought he was the one who was cheating, only for Bob to substitute his own marked, pre-dealt cards and catch out the mobster, who couldn’t let on that the game had been rigged from the start. Wonderful film. Great Music - ragtime - great comedy.
Directtor:
Shush, George! It was Paul Newman, not Bob Newhart.
George:
Really? Well, Bob Newhart’s much funnier, anyway!
Director:
George! Just shut up and leave the jokes to Geoff Chandler.]
Motion 1 has only just been released (9 August). Steve says: ‘new guidelines came into effect on July 1 2014’. Andy says: ‘As per the Minutes of the Rules Commission a few days ago … The words are not Steve’s, they are the recommendations that have been presented to the various committees here in Tromso and to my knowledge have been accepted by all’.
Which statement is correct? If the new Rules came into effect on 1 July 2014, why was it necessary to present them to the Rules Commission in Tromso a month or so later? Ratification after the event, or ratification of selected guidelines only?
If the purpose of Motion 1 is to update CS practices to bring them into line with FIDE Guideleines, then it would be normal to introduce them via a Preamble to this effect. But, would that not require, first, the Guidelines to have been formally ratified and an announcement to that effect made so that everyone (i.e. Chess Federations) can dance to the same tune? Is the AGM at risk of getting ahead of the game?
Second, if the Guidelines are restricted to FIDE rated tournaments, then they do not apply to non-FIDE rated tournaments. Officially. That’s not to say that CS should not encourage ‘all chess events’ to apply these standards/practices/guidelines.
Where can we see the official FIDE release so that we can all operate on a level playing field?
I find it hard to believe that there can have been many - any? - substantive changes to the text of the FIDE Handbook that I quoted from above. [See Chapter titled; Guidelines to treatment of disabled chess players and dated 25 February 2013]
[Stage whisper:
Geez. You’d think this was a re-run of that great movie, ‘The Sting’. You know, the one in which Bob Newhart, the confidence trickster, upstaged Robert Shaw, the mobster, by switching marked decks in a poker game. The mobster thought he was the one who was cheating, only for Bob to substitute his own marked, pre-dealt cards and catch out the mobster, who couldn’t let on that the game had been rigged from the start. Wonderful film. Great Music - ragtime - great comedy.
Directtor:
Shush, George! It was Paul Newman, not Bob Newhart.
George:
Really? Well, Bob Newhart’s much funnier, anyway!
Director:
George! Just shut up and leave the jokes to Geoff Chandler.]
13-08-2014, 11:06 AM
George
In between votes so need to be brief. The olympiad takes place every two years. It is the only time that all the nations come together hence we often see things ratified (or even amended as has been the case with mobile phones) after release
In between votes so need to be brief. The olympiad takes place every two years. It is the only time that all the nations come together hence we often see things ratified (or even amended as has been the case with mobile phones) after release
13-08-2014, 02:15 PM
I think there are two fundamental issues with this document. Firstly that it purports to be a set of guidelines but, as Andy McH says, is worded (at least in part) as a set of rules. What happens if a ‘must’ or ‘required’ action isn’t followed? Their use implies sanctions, though not specified, could be applied, otherwise they carry no weight.
Secondly it specifies FIDE tournaments and much of its content looks as if it is aimed at higher level events rather than smaller, localised events. Some of the debate above mixes the two concepts which is understandable given the way the document is constructed.
I offer two thoughts:
Replace the ‘must’s and ‘required’s with something softer like ‘should’ and/or ‘is desirable’ and it becomes a less threatening document. Its supporters might argue about it being called threatening but it’s clear that some posters do see it that way – parts of it anyway.
Split the document into two parts: the first to contain only the elements that would apply to FIDE events specifically; the second to contain everything else and with an intro that reads something like “mandatory for FIDE tournaments but recommended for all tournaments and events”
Secondly it specifies FIDE tournaments and much of its content looks as if it is aimed at higher level events rather than smaller, localised events. Some of the debate above mixes the two concepts which is understandable given the way the document is constructed.
I offer two thoughts:
Replace the ‘must’s and ‘required’s with something softer like ‘should’ and/or ‘is desirable’ and it becomes a less threatening document. Its supporters might argue about it being called threatening but it’s clear that some posters do see it that way – parts of it anyway.
Split the document into two parts: the first to contain only the elements that would apply to FIDE events specifically; the second to contain everything else and with an intro that reads something like “mandatory for FIDE tournaments but recommended for all tournaments and events”
13-08-2014, 02:26 PM
Keith,
I have said time and time again in this thread , the word used is should not must I would urge you to read this again. This motion can be adapted to suit the local situation. It is only formalising what is already taking place
3. All chess venues must either be accessible to all, or an acceptable alternative
venue with full supervision shall be available to those who cannot access the
nominated venue.
This is the law of the land in any case so the word must has to be used in this case
I have said time and time again in this thread , the word used is should not must I would urge you to read this again. This motion can be adapted to suit the local situation. It is only formalising what is already taking place
3. All chess venues must either be accessible to all, or an acceptable alternative
venue with full supervision shall be available to those who cannot access the
nominated venue.
This is the law of the land in any case so the word must has to be used in this case
13-08-2014, 02:57 PM
StevieHilton Wrote:All chess venues must either be accessible to all, or an acceptable alternative venue with full supervision shall be available to those who cannot access the nominated venue. This is the law of the land in any case so the word must has to be used in this case
i'm not sure this is the law of the land for private clubs such as chess clubs. If I run a chess club from my house for example I do not need to require disabled access ( I think). I was at Edinburgh chess club many years ago (very impressed) and I'm not sure what is required by law and what is not I think we should worry more about supervision and who provides it and health and safety. Not all venues (especially private ones) are covered or supervised by the local authority. Of course venues such as Bowling clubs and pubs are covered to a certain extent. I wouldn't like to go to a venue owner and examine his premises for suitability unless CS can produce a certificate determining suitability. Perhaps CS can initiate a system determining different levels of suitability e.g. disabled toilets, wheelchair access, lifts etc. This certificate could also be used to determine other requirement levels such as noise levels, catering facilities, parking etc. I also believe we in danger of flogging this to death as it is only a guideline for the arbiter/organiser. it is also a fact that some venues may not be totally suitable for everyone. I've yet to see or hear or any event which can reflect in the amount of attention this thread has attracted. We are here to support organisers not hinder them.