Hi Ian,
I think you are being a bit hard on the membership. There may be some afraid. There may be some apathetic. I think many are just confused. Unfortunately, and I am to blame as much as anyone, the general tone of the thread has not been to promote discussion.
What is clear is that few appreciated the different interpretations of the same term (SCO) depending on how and where it is used.
Another complication is that as well as a general motion we have another motion affecting only one person. Further, the Turner motion is having an affect on the general motion.
Matt was given SCO status. It is not clear what people thought this meant. I also think that many were mislead into the circumstances surrounding his change of federation. Having said that, I believe it is now too late to revoke his SCO status.
Some have suggested that he maintains that status but is not eligible to win the Scottish or represent Scotland. Unfortunately, every time he plays in a FIDE rated event, the world body considers him as representing Scotland. In addition, Matt is in the early stages of arbiter training. If he reaches a high level will we again reconsider his status since he might be keeping Andy or me out of a position?
This whole situation is farcical. He was (wrongly) given SCO status many years ago. Other than for disciplinary reasons, it is too late to reverse that decision fairly.
Alex,
Just for information, although as you know
I have passed the FIDE FA exam, I am not currently pursuing arbitting qualifications and I think this is highly unlikely to change in the medium term.
Matt
Hi Alex, Just to pick you up on this point:
"Some have suggested that he maintains that status but is not eligible to win the Scottish or represent Scotland."
Don't you mean that this happens if people vote against Motion 2, rather than "some have suggested"?
From the Motion 2 proposal: "If members vote No they disagree then Matthew Turner would retain his Scotland registration but would only qualify for full SCO rights if he completed a two year period of residency."
(07-04-2022, 12:45 PM)andybburnett Wrote: [ -> ]Hi Alex, Just to pick you up on this point:
"Some have suggested that he maintains that status but is not eligible to win the Scottish or represent Scotland."
Don't you mean that this happens if people vote against Motion 2, rather than "some have suggested"?
From the Motion 2 proposal: "If members vote No they disagree then Matthew Turner would retain his Scotland registration but would only qualify for full SCO rights if he completed a two year period of residency."
Exactly.
I think and hope that both motions will be defeated.
The biggest risk to that is apathy, which is always the popular (non)choice.
Despite making a few posts, I don't care much myself.
If/when motion 2 is defeated that should be the "MT question" laid to rest once and for all. No need to speak of past motions/meeting/discussions on this every again! :)
If/when motion 1 is defeated, I think it would be really quite wrong for CS to go ahead with the proposed eligibility criteria change without a proper open and objective consultation with, and voting by, the members. How it has been presented so far, and this forum discussion, has certainly not been a proper consultation.
I don't doubt that Matt has no intention in the near future (didn't like the implication that I will be dead before he takes up full arbiting duties
) of being an arbiter. But that should be irrelevant. No-one knows what tomorrow will bring.
Can someone explain why the suggestions currently are that he should not be allowed to play for the national team but can deprive a 'more acceptable' Scot of an arbiting appointment or a place on a FIDE Commission or ECU (European Chess Union) Committee?
Many are saying that his SCO designation can/should restrict his playing/title achievements. Why should the same restrictions not apply to administrative areas too?
Perhaps Andy Muir would like to suggest that he can take up one arbiting position at a world event but no more!!
I'm sorry but he should be either a full SCO or not SCO at all. There is no proper way to restrict his 'Scottish' status when selection is not done locally.
Lol to the humour in your post. Why, it's that Andy Muir's fault again, getting Jacob banned from arbitering in Scotland.
But maybe you will say that motion of his would make Matthew eligibile to arbitrate again!
OK, Real world check.
Finding inconsistencies in rules is the easiest thing in the world.
Rules are drafted with main purposes in mind.
You don't turn them inside out because of some angle that had never been considered.
If it's a serious point the answer would be to introduce consideration of the arbiter scene at some level of priority.
You can then argue for the priority to be increased.
Meantime it's easy enough to draft contingencies for the more unlikely exceptions, applying common sense, until they become more likely.
Strength of feeling also drives rules. Players LOVE arbiters and would never dream of questioning their eligibility
As International Director I see my role as someone who is there to help Scottish chess players play internationally.
The following is my personal view and if it involves you don't take it personally. I'm just telling it how I see it. Sorry, it's a bit of an essay.
Communication
One thing I've noticed since I became ID is that it takes up a lot of my personal time. When you put a lot of time into something and then someone comes along and criticises or makes it harder for no reason, it can really grate. So perhaps this is the reason for some of the official outbursts on here. We are all doing our best and even well-intentioned suggestions can be amplified and feel like criticisms.
There seems to be a kind of 'us and them' attitude regarding the forum and CS officials. Chess players do tend to have a natural wariness of authority so I suggest that we drop terms like 'management', and increase communication between the people running the place and everyone else. We all want the same thing. When there is poor communication it's not surprising that minds wander into conspiracy theories or just downright apathy.
The Law
Chess Scotland is a non-profit organisation that is run by volunteers. These volunteers are not necessarily the best candidates for the job, sometimes they are the only ones willing to, or the only ones with the time to help out. One example of this is Alex's latest thing of talking about legal implications.
Alex, What knowledge of the law do you have for you to make that statement?
(If Alex is right then the vote should be pulled)
Anyway... is anyone in CS a lawyer? No - that would be very expensive. Yet the legislation that is created is expected to hold up to legal scrutiny? Good luck with that. Anyway, I still have enough faith in people that they will not sue a non-profit organisation, but who knows.
Here's an idea, let's ask Matthew.
Matt, do you intend to take legal action or seek compensation if motion 2 is rejected?
Flawed logic based on rule following
This is the most frustrating thing that I'm seeing over and over again on this thread. Rules are there to help us, not to rule us! I think what is happening is that certain people see rules as absolute authority and that you cannot diverge from them. This leads to going round in circles with no way out. We are not robots. We are human beings. Think outside the box people.
A human perspective
What was the intention of the original motion for MT?
The intention was to give Matt SCO because the ECF were enforcing compulsory membership and we decided to help him out (All players must have such a code to play Fide rated games).
There was a gentleman's agreement that MT would not be eligible for Scottish Champion or for Scottish team spots.
That's it. Chess Scotland did Matthew a favour - he is not a victim here. Matt has clearly shown that he is a man of his word and as far as I know has never pushed for this.
How did we get from gentleman's agreement to this? An agreement between people is more valuable than grasping at technicalities in an attempt to justify something based on past mistakes.
The simplest solution would be to ask Matt to honour this agreement and continue as before. Able to play with SCO; Ineligible for Scottish Champion and Scottish Team events.
All parties have shown that they are able to uphold such an agreement. There is no need for any of this.
Can't see the wood for the trees
At times it really does feel like those involved are in too deep to see the simple things. For instance the motions deserved to have a short summary explaining why they are being made, and what the key changes and implications would be. Not everyone wants to wade through documents for hours on end to vote on something that they probably don't care all that much about (let's face it, the people who care about this the most are those who have ambitions for the Scottish team or title).
Matt was mistakenly awarded the Scottish title in 2019. Congratulations Matt - you got a Scottish title! I'm happy for you and you deserve it. Did this really affect anyone (apart from Colin McNab)?
This does not mean that he is all of a sudden fully SCO (don't say that he already was. There is too much lost documentation and no one can prove it). It takes a massive leap to do this. It was a mistake. What are mistakes? They are things that happened by accident as a result of human error. In case anyone is having difficulty following my train of thought, here's a little multiple choice question for you:
What do we do when we make a mistake?
a) Compound the mistake by continuing down the same path
b) Correct the mistake and choose the path that was intended
Are we really so afraid to admit when we're wrong, or is Matt a political pawn?
All we need to do is keep the status quo. It's fine. Don't worry all you rule fanatics, no one will die and the world will not end. CS will not be sued. Matt will not be left stateless. It has worked perfectly well barring the 2019 blip which was a result of poor communication, and will not happen again providing communication is improved.
(07-04-2022, 04:00 PM)WBuchanan Wrote: [ -> ]Lol to the humour in your post. Why, it's that Andy Muir's fault again, getting Jacob banned from arbitering in Scotland.
But maybe you will say that motion of his would make Matthew eligibile to arbitrate again!
OK, Real world check.
Finding inconsistencies in rules is the easiest thing in the world.
Rules are drafted with main purposes in mind.
You don't turn them inside out because of some angle that had never been considered.
If it's a serious point the answer would be to introduce consideration of the arbiter scene at some level of priority.
You can then argue for the priority to be increased.
Meantime it's easy enough for CS to draft contingencies for exceptions, applying common sense.
Strength of feeling drives rules. Players LOVE arbiters and would never dream of questioning their eligibility
Isn't the highlighted sentence the reason we are here!!??
Rules should be drafted for all purposes, not just the main ones. Sometimes things will be missed. I do not consider arbiter and FIDE Commission appointments to be an insignificant matter. Indeed, I know a former refugee arbiter now resident in England who was worried that if she changed to ENG it could restrict another arbiter's chances of appointments at World events.
Quote:Willie Rutherford said
If/when motion 2 is defeated that should be the "MT question" laid to rest once and for all. No need to speak of past motions/meeting/discussions on this every again!
If/when motion 1 is defeated, I think it would be really quite wrong for CS to go ahead with the proposed eligibility criteria change without a proper open and objective consultation with, and voting by, the members.
What happens :-
If/when motion 2 is passed – it should equally be the case that the “MT question” also be laid once and for all.
If/when motion 1 is passed – it should equally be quite right for CS to thereby implement the Constitution change.
I firmly believe that it is the members who make the decision by voting.
Whilst the few, and it is a few, who post on the Forum the rest of the Membership does have actually have a voice.
The forum has an available readership of 203 recorded members, 20 of whom took part on the Eligibility thread. Of these 20 posters, 92 posts out of 169 were by 4 members. This does not actually reflect the real view of the membership mass, rather a highly vocal few. Incidentally CS has a membership of 527, which also means the 324 members do not even wish to participate in the Forum. Hardly a truly representation of CS membership and participation on the Forum.