Forums

With the PNG President having designs to become the new FIDE president (see post in other thread) and determined to combine the UK into one Federation, this could be a moot point.

I am already in talks with the ECF about the resurrection of the BCF as the controlling body should it happen

Hi Walter,

We seem to be at cross purposes.

Let's ignore Matt Turner's situation for the moment.

I agree that SCO should be enough.  That is what I (and Douglas at the AGM) have been saying.  Unfortunately, although that was what the Muir motion intended, it is not (using legalese) what the motion actually said.
If the Muir motion had been accepted verbatim you could easily have had Andrew Greet or Jacob Aagaard winning the title but anyone with their FIDE FIN starting 24 challenging it.
At best the Muir motion was ambiguous.  My view is that it was wrong.  There is a difference here in using Scotland code and SCO code.  The Scotland code is 24. Talking of SCO code is wrong because, strictly speaking, SCO is not a code but a designation.  However, everyone knows what SCO code means.  Had Andy's motion said 'SCO code' his motion would have been wrong but not open to challenge through ambiguity.  

I had been told also that because SCO had been accepted the rest of the qualification requirements to win the Scottish Championship had been made redundant as they are built into the requirements to gain SCO accreditation.
One of born, parent or residency is necessary to be registered as SCO, therefore if you are SCO then you have satisfied one of born, parent or residency.  There is no need to have all 4 conditions to win the Scottish Championship when the first three are subsumed into being SCO.

I hope that is fairly straightforward.

Now returning to Matt.
If it is accepted that simply stating you have to be SCO to win the 'Scottish' covers everyone then we have potentially one person as an exception, Matt Turner.  I think we would have great difficulty defending a discrimination case if we have ONLY one person who is SCO but not entitled to win the Scottish.
Clearly there is a strong argument that Matt should not have been allowed to change.  But he was.  To impose a regulation which discriminates against HIM ONLY could easily be illegal.

I am definitely leaving it there.

Hamish, you don't have a low chance of the IM title. You came 2nd in the British Championships. Why can't you be the first IM of this generation ? I never thought that way. I thought I would become an IM and at the time I got the title I regularly played for Scotland and that helped me to get experience.

Thanks Andy, I certainly hope to get there and will put in (am putting in) a lot of work for it.

(01-04-2022, 10:07 AM)Alex McFarlane Wrote: [ -> ]Hi Walter,

We seem to be at cross purposes.

Let's ignore Matt Turner's situation for the moment.

I agree that SCO should be enough.  That is what I (and Douglas at the AGM) have been saying.  Unfortunately, although that was what the Muir motion intended, it is not (using legalese) what the motion actually said.
If the Muir motion had been accepted verbatim you could easily have had Andrew Greet or Jacob Aagaard winning the title but anyone with their FIDE FIN starting 24 challenging it.
At best the Muir motion was ambiguous.  My view is that it was wrong.  There is a difference here in using Scotland code and SCO code.  The Scotland code is 24. Talking of SCO code is wrong because, strictly speaking, SCO is not a code but a designation.  However, everyone knows what SCO code means.  Had Andy's motion said 'SCO code' his motion would have been wrong but not open to challenge through ambiguity.  

I had been told also that because SCO had been accepted the rest of the qualification requirements to win the Scottish Championship had been made redundant as they are built into the requirements to gain SCO accreditation.
One of born, parent or residency is necessary to be registered as SCO, therefore if you are SCO then you have satisfied one of born, parent or residency.  There is no need to have all 4 conditions to win the Scottish Championship when the first three are subsumed into being SCO.

I hope that is fairly straightforward.

Now returning to Matt.
If it is accepted that simply stating you have to be SCO to win the 'Scottish' covers everyone then we have potentially one person as an exception, Matt Turner.  I think we would have great difficulty defending a discrimination case if we have ONLY one person who is SCO but not entitled to win the Scottish.
Clearly there is a strong argument that Matt should not have been allowed to change.  But he was.  To impose a regulation which discriminates against HIM ONLY could easily be illegal.

I am definitely leaving it there.

Hi Alex.
 
Thanks for the thoughtful reply. We might be getting somewhere (I think)
 
Until it's voted on, I don't agree SCO 'should be enough' due to the exception.
And it certainly is not enough going by any existing rule, it's only been in a vote once, unsuccessfully.
That's one problem, trying to use a rule that isn't there.
 
Just to pick up on a couple of things...
 
"Had Andy's motion said 'SCO code' his motion would have been wrong but not open to challenge through ambiguity.  "
 
That's what it DID say.
 
"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."
 
So 1) can we agree the motion was NOT open to challenge, as you said, through ambiguity?
 
If no-one thinks they were intended, why bring codes for Country of Origin into it?
As there is no other relevant reference to Country of Origin, on what basis could someone challenge it?
 
The SCO code was the normal management speak for Federation.
 You used it on the 2019 Champs entry form.
 
It was also used in the key proposal of the 2015 Constitution eligibility:
 
16.1.3 "currently registered as Scottish (SCO) with the World Chess Federation ('FIDE')"
(draft copy)
 
SCO code was what it was all about.
There was no mention of Country of Origin. Why would there be - it's not something that changes!
 
So I think the 'ambiguity' regarding Country of origin that has developed since is an artefact of discussions.
 
 
2) "I had been told also that because SCO had been accepted the rest of the qualification requirements to win the Scottish Championship had been made redundant as they are built into the requirements to gain SCO accreditation."
 
So you are saying that the appearance of the SCO code as a condition - even though it's not specified as a sufficient condition - gives eligibility because of the way it is allocated? As in, implying the other conditions are met?
 
I see what you are saying. The trouble is it wasn't a given, so can't be treated as a rule. There is at least one exception, probably others. You can't apply a 'general rule' to its exceptions, simply because people tell you that's what it means. That's what is not competent, I think. The exceptions will come back to haunt you.
 
With the complication alleged regarding the appearance of 'Country of Origin' dealt with, the motion is straightforward. You can check this by calculating it out, in both the possible thorny cases:
 
If SCO didn't mean eligible, the motion stands; any SCO exceptions to the other criteria can be argued on their merits - as having SCO, they aren't excluded by the motion.
 
If SCO did mean eligible then such players wouldn't be affected by the motion anyway.
 
 Does that convince you the motion itself is sound?
 
The only outstanding issue (separately from the motion) being the question whether the SCO code gives eligibility.
 
Currently it does not, as it's not in any rule?
 
Cheers
Walter

Voting will go live on Tuesday Evening when I return from Berlin and will last for a week

Thread is now difficult to follow and too much looking back the way.

Do we have someone good at flowcharts?  I am sure I have seen them used in the past in SC/forum?  I would really like to see easy to read decision flow charts covering the proposals going forward:

• National 
  
• International
  

 (A by product would be to see where it broke down in the past - but the objective is to help with the issues going forward)


The flow chart should be easy to read, clear and factual (if its seen as useful it might help if the proposer would be able to approve it)

Starting point: Eligibility? 

• No SC Badge?
  

1. Get a badge process and loop back to eligibility? 
   
2. Don't get a badge outcome (not eligible under fide rules)  : no ifs or buts
   

• Yes SCO Badged  
  

1. Accept minimum fide criteria outcome (eligible)
   
2. Use SC extra requirements. 
   

              SC Extra options and outcomes 
                   Eligible under SC extended rules
                   Not eligible

...and so on

A few extra points:

1. It Seems that the Scottish tournament Director SHOULD follow SC procedures but MUST follow fide minimum criteria for national titles. 
   
2. Minimum periods would be helpful on some optionals:  for example a vote on allowing grandparent can only happen every 2 or 5 years or if a player was to be given an exception.
   
3. Eligible international players are also still subject to selection criteria. For example players minimum no of games/ could be expected to contribute by way of training etc.  (Point being the section process can be used to make it easier or harder for certain players to be selected regardless of eligibility)
   

(ps...some oldies might be prefer to dig out a ZX Spectrum and write a go sub script...… should work the same)

Regarding Motion 1, the following statements have been made by CS Officials (my emphasis):

"The eligibility rules are largely unchanged from what has been established practice."
(DB, Post #25)

"The rules were examined and confirmed by the majority of the EWP and are generally a continuation of already established procedures. These rules have already been long used in the day to day work of Chess Scotland.
(DB, #39)

"Motion 1 simply enshrines the eligibility rules in the constitution. If the motion fails, the net result is they remain in standing orders, not be withdrawn and re-written."  
(AH, #92)

" If its a CS event, like any FIDE event, all processes are adequately written (or should be) . The motions are an attempt as an attempt to clarify and bullet proof those rules and procedures."
(IB, #97)

As you can see this has not been changed - I can make the "here" link in bigger text if you like 
(JW, #35)

None of the above statements (bold parts) are true.

Motion 1 introduces a new clause eliminating the distinction between a permanent residency and a temporary residency, eg students
This will be lifelong.

It simply isn't true that this was 'established practice':

 

These are from two Championship entry forms:

(i) The 2015 Championships entry form: "Titles will only be awarded to those satisfying Scottish nationality who are also members of Chess Scotland; e.g. permanently resident in Scotland for 1 year prior, or have competed in Championship within the past 5 years. The term “permanently resident” does not include university students or other such residence of a transitory nature".

https://www.chessscotland.com/documents/...Champs.pdf

 (ii) The 2017 Championships entry form: "Those permanently resident in Scotland for two years immediately preceding the date of the Championship.

Again, there is a clause to exclude students

https://web.archive.org/web/201701150618...les_14.pdf

Note the requirements a) of 'prior' residency in 2015, and

b) for the residency to be 'immediately preceding'  the Championship in 2017.

Therefore, the residency from the past did not give eligibility in the future. The conditions tied the residency to the Championship date.

Therefore it wasn't lifelong.

 Also, the 'permanently resident' clause in these two championships excluded students.

So that kind of temporary residence didn't even grant Championship entry for one year.

In between those was the new Constitution brought to the 2015 SGM; the eligibility proposals in section 16 contained the proposal that having a SCO code guaranteed eligibility. As SCO codes aren't normally removed, this was a proposal for lifelong e1igibility.

As noted in an earlier post, it was pulled from the proposed constitution because the vote was going badly.
So lifelong eligibility from residence was NOT 'established' in 2015. It was defeated, or unsuccessful. 

And it wasn't part of the Championship conditions that year, nor in 2017.

 

Can the proposers of Motion 1, rather than claim it's established practice, please acknowledge that lifelong eligibility (in the rules) is becoming 'established' by Motion 1.

Isn't this simply the main purpose of  Motion 1?

To (i) establish lifelong eligibility, and

(ii) add temporary residence (mostly students) which will also be lifelong.

 
Why are members not being given the opportunity to refuse these sweeping changes?

The choice is to like it or put up with it - but not to refuse it.


.

Re motion 2. As a member, I don't have a strong view on whether MT should be eligible, except that this should be decided by members and that the  information provided should be reasonably fair in order to make the decision informed.

It has been suggested that higher CS management has been pushing for MT to become eligible.
So it's probably worth a quick run-through of the history from that perspective.

There has been a tendency in higher circles to promote Matthew's eligibility as a solution to anomalies; anomalies that somehow keep resulting from the actions of those in the same circles.

(See below) All in all I would have to say it's impossible to avoid the conclusion that higher CS officials have been consistently pushing the idea that MT is, or should be, eligible.

This doesn't make it a bad idea to make him eligible; some have asked why the proposers (or management) have not made a positive case for MT being given eligibility (as opposed to it being the only solution to a series of problems that they have created). This surely wouldn't be hard to do - strengthening the team, getting more press coverage etc.  Versus one fewer selection place for Scots, of course.

Why has no-one done so - is it because making the case would make all the pushing that management has done too obvious?

I think the pushing has been very obvious anyway - so go on Jim, Douglas et al, make that case!

WB

Pushing MT eligibility?

1) The original much criticised, 2011 AGM, ad-hoc item voted on - couched as saving a refugee from statelessness, but also (actually, said just before that vote) intending to add a proposal to introduce a new criterion to make Matthew eligible.
It is clear that members were asked to vote on the compassionate grounds of not leaving Matthew stateless.
This is now being presented as the membership granting eligibility.
That's quite a nudge, or nudges.

2) At the 2014 Management board (EDIT - Council) meeting, a quick vote was whipped up to try to introduce a grandparent option, expressly in order to make Matthew eligible.
This may not have been any more competent than the 2011 AOCB vote - would it not be surprising if management were to have the power to change eligibility or representation, as they are themselves, in theory, representatives of the membership? It was defeated.
It is clear from the discussion (link below) that some were most keen to give Matthew eligibility, as opposed to just wanting a grandparent rule.
Not for the first time, it was proposed to change the eligibility rules expressly to make MT eligible.
https://www.chessscotland.com/wp-content...110114.pdf

More than one significant nudge in there?

3) The 2015 eligibility proposals in the proposed new constitution contained two criteria (grandparent, and SCO code giving eligibility), either of which would have made Matthew eligible.
When it clearly wasn't going down well, the idea was given irregular protection - by preventing a losing vote from being completed. The eligibility section was removed from the constitution. The existing criteria, whatever they were, became invisible.
This situation resulted in a chaotic period, with the chaos used to suggest MT was eligible.

These are further significant nudges.

4) Subsequent committees have been selected to examine this issue, and largely comprised people already sharing the view promoted by management (which from the membership standpoint is a big nudge in the direction of the management viewpoint).
There has been secrecy of composition and secrecy conditions imposed on committee members.
The secrecy has led to further anomalies, through the invisibility of the eligibility criteria, and the later retrospective interpretation of the 2016 Muir-Neave motion that explicitly asked to reduce eligibility NOT expand it, but this motion that was later maligned (wrongly, #85-87... #115) never found its way to any updated rule, which led to us to 2019.
As I said, each anomaly somehow created fresh impetus from management to make MT eligible.
(Nudging)

5) There has been unwarranted and aggressive management interference in discussions on the Matthew issue in the forum, including this discussion.
So, a lot of nudging in the politics. Nudging coming to shoving?

It does seem that the management 'nudges' are pushing in the one direction - that of MT eligibility.
Most of these 'nudges' are departures from the normal expectations of duties of an organisation towards its members.
So they could be called shoves.

With so many nudges/shoves, have they formed together into a democracy-shifting force?

WB

Walter, all this is politics. Having stood in several elections inside and outside chess, this cloak and dagger stuff is normal practice in Scotland.
I await clarification of MT eligibility and dates of AGM.
OTB chess is starting to return e.g Hamilton Open and I can't wait to play regularly again.