Alex: "The amended motion that I saw indicated that anyone listed as SCO was entitled to win the championship. THe Working Party appears to have reached the same conclusion but does Matt's previous 'status' continue to make him an exception?"
I can understand Hamish's incredulity.
It would be astonishing if a condition that was added as an additional *necessity* was construed as being *sufficient*.
It should be clear that a condition which was clearly aimed at RESTRICTING eligibility can not somehow EXPAND eligibility.
I don't think you can cite the EWP as being in support of the bad LOGIC. Those in CS favouring expansion of eligibility criteria, whether by conferring eligibility from temporary residence or in the special case of Matthew, have been saying 'SCO code guarantees eligiblity', or full rights, since before 2016.
That doesn't make it true. 'SCO gives eligibility' was tested in the 2015 constitutonal proposal brought to the EGM, and failed.
Titles will only be awarded to those satisfying Scottish nationality (SCO) who are also members of Chess Scotland; Scottish entrants to the Championship must be members of Chess Scotland. For morning events membership is not required for entry but titles cannot be gained unless current membership applies throughout the tournament.
From the 2019 Scottish Championship entry form.
This indicates what I thought at the time and no-one corrected me.
(29-03-2022, 10:02 PM)WBuchanan Wrote: [ -> ]Alex: "The amended motion that I saw indicated that anyone listed as SCO was entitled to win the championship. THe Working Party appears to have reached the same conclusion but does Matt's previous 'status' continue to make him an exception?"
I can understand Hamish's incredulity.
It would be astonishing if a condition that was added as an additional *necessity* was construed as being *sufficient*.
It should be clear that a condition which was clearly aimed at RESTRICTING eligibility can not somehow EXPAND eligibility.
I don't think you can cite the EWP as being in support of the bad LOGIC. Those in CS favouring expansion of eligibility criteria, whether by conferring eligibility from temporary residence or in the special case of Matthew, have been saying 'SCO code guarantees eligiblity', or full rights, since before 2016.
That doesn't make it true. 'SCO gives eligibility' was tested in the 2015 constitutonal proposal brought to the EGM, and failed.
Well it's not a question of what I believe or don't believe.
However if the motion has only been published in the two sets of AGM documentation that Alex and I have quoted, I don't see how it can be interpreted any other way than being the addition of a necessary condition, and not a sufficient one. It was certainly my understanding from memory before this thread happened that SCO was necessary but not sufficient.
There may have been a different verbal understanding at the time of the meeting or afterwards but I don't see how that can have any standing. I will admit I have not checked our constitution or similar to check!
Hamish said the following: -
Jim for example referenced this document
https://www.chessscotland.com/internatio...sentation/ and claimed it was the same as the motion (accompanied with a generous offer to enlarge the size of the link).
However the residency in that document is "
permanently resident" , whereas Douglas had clarified earlier that the residency now is just any residency, including students.
***
But the full statements says :-
- If the player is 18 or more years old, has he/she been permanently resident in Scotland for at least two years (if a junior, that is under 18, the equivalent time is one year) ?
Is this not a more complete conditionally requirement Hamish?
(29-03-2022, 10:13 PM)hamish olson Wrote: [ -> ] (29-03-2022, 10:02 PM)WBuchanan Wrote: [ -> ]Alex: "The amended motion that I saw indicated that anyone listed as SCO was entitled to win the championship. THe Working Party appears to have reached the same conclusion but does Matt's previous 'status' continue to make him an exception?"
I can understand Hamish's incredulity.
It would be astonishing if a condition that was added as an additional *necessity* was construed as being *sufficient*.
It should be clear that a condition which was clearly aimed at RESTRICTING eligibility can not somehow EXPAND eligibility.
I don't think you can cite the EWP as being in support of the bad LOGIC. Those in CS favouring expansion of eligibility criteria, whether by conferring eligibility from temporary residence or in the special case of Matthew, have been saying 'SCO code guarantees eligiblity', or full rights, since before 2016.
That doesn't make it true. 'SCO gives eligibility' was tested in the 2015 constitutonal proposal brought to the EGM, and failed.
Well it's not a question of what I believe or don't believe.
However if the motion has only been published in the two sets of AGM documentation that Alex and I have quoted, I don't see how it can be interpreted any other way than being the addition of a necessary condition, and not a sufficient one. It was certainly my understanding from memory before this thread happened that SCO was necessary but not sufficient.
There may have been a different verbal understanding at the time of the meeting or afterwards but I don't see how that can have any standing. I will admit I have not checked our constitution or similar to check!
There couldn't be a verbal understanding with the proposer that expanded eligibility - as the stated intent was to restrict eligibility, as everyone knew. Not unless the proposer was duped or something.
It's very hard to find copies of members motions, even when they are passed. You're right to ask for the documentation Hamish, if people keep quoting something dubious. I think it's a bit of a red herring though - if enough people say something, it can begin to sound true.
Even if it was somehow the reason for confusion, if the logic is obviously wrong it should be corrected, not kept alive - or even, built upon
(29-03-2022, 10:26 PM)Jim Webster Wrote: [ -> ]Hamish said the following: -
Jim for example referenced this document https://www.chessscotland.com/internatio...sentation/ and claimed it was the same as the motion (accompanied with a generous offer to enlarge the size of the link).
However the residency in that document is "permanently resident" , whereas Douglas had clarified earlier that the residency now is just any residency, including students.
***
But the full statements says :- - If the player is 18 or more years old, has he/she been permanently resident in Scotland for at least two years (if a junior, that is under 18, the equivalent time is one year) ?
Is this not a more complete conditionally requirement Hamish?
Yes exactly Jim.
The new motion has a
different version that is
less stringent, and allows more people to potentially represent Scotland than was previously the case.
Whether that is a good thing or not is another question, but there must be transparency about this and it must be communicated such that everyone knows that the change is happening.
You understandably claimed earlier there was no change to the criteria in your post to Walter, and used that document (which I repeat is a
different set of criteria, albeit subtly) to justify that claim.
In full the new motion (you have just quoted the old rule above) says :
"
16.2.3 Has the player been resident in Scotland for at least two years* immediately prior to the date of receipt of an application to Chess Scotland for an initial FIDE registration or a transfer to Scotland?"
There is no mention of permanent residency in the new motion, and Douglas has already clarified in the thread that this new way of doing things includes students, which the 2018 document we have just been discussing excludes - a substantial change that I don't think would have been noticed if I hadn't asked Douglas.
The fact that this is so opaque, such that even people as au fait with Chess Scotland workings as yourself are getting mixed up, is a perfect illustration of why I am concerned.
This change should have been, and should be, communicated transparently and voted on.
It should not be (or have been?) implemented by subtly tweaking wording from documents that few have read, and without a vote.
It should be stated explicitly in the motion, and a case should be made to the voting membership. Something along the lines of "This new wording no longer excludes temporary residents such as university students, as was previously the case."
To be clear I'm not suggesting that people are deliberately trying to be misleading in any way. Communicating all these things is hard and a lot of effort has been made in general on these motions (all those documents...).
"There couldn't be a verbal understanding with the proposer that expanded eligibility - as the stated intent was to restrict eligibility, as everyone knew. Not unless the proposer was duped or something." - Walter Buchanan
But the amendment did expand eligibility. Under the proposed wording neither Jacob Aagaard nor Donald Heron and many others would have been able to win the Scottish or Scottish Senior titles. Keti Arakhamia-Grant would not have qualified either.
The wording of the original motion was so bad that I actually consider the accepted amendment to be a major change and therefore should not have been allowed. You seem to be in agreement with that opinion from your statement.
(29-03-2022, 11:08 PM)Alex McFarlane Wrote: [ -> ]"There couldn't be a verbal understanding with the proposer that expanded eligibility - as the stated intent was to restrict eligibility, as everyone knew. Not unless the proposer was duped or something." - Walter Buchanan
But the amendment did expand eligibility. Under the proposed wording neither Jacob Aagaard nor Donald Heron and many others would have been able to win the Scottish or Scottish Senior titles. Keti Arakhamia-Grant would not have qualified either.
The wording of the original motion was so bad that I actually consider the accepted amendment to be a major change and therefore should not have been allowed. You seem to be in agreement with that opinion from your statement.
Hi Alex.
I wouldn't argue with your view on whether a 'major change' should be accepted, though to me it's conceivable the proposer might willingly agree to this with their eyes open.
But they wouldn't agree with a 'reversal' of the meaning - so where is the evidence that this was what happened?
There doesn't seem to be a record of the amended wording.
Maybe I've missed it and somebody will come up with it. It would then raise further questions.
As an aside, this illustrates the inadvisability of relying on a single code to replace rules defining exactly what is wanted, on something so important.
Maybe in accepting the amendment, Andy Muir was bamboozled by the discussion taking a technical turn on code complexities and trusted that what was being put to him was equating to what he wanted the motion to achieve.
But whatever the amendment was or meant, the aim of the motion was still known.
Cheers
We need quick decisions now as World Senior Team and Olympiad are coming up in summer 2022.
David Levy and Matt Turner do not meet the criteria under motion 1 to represent Scotland currently.
Should we let them play ?
The arguments in their favour are SCO registration, former residency (in David's case) , services to Chess Scotland.
The arguments against are that they don't meet any of the 3 main criteria.
Which is more important ?
No-one is objecting to David as multiple senior teams can be entered and he is not taking anyone's place.
Several people are objecting to Matt as he would take the place of a Scottish-born , possibly younger player.
Let's vote on the two motions we have and see where we stand after that.
Based on the results we may need further motions to clarify David & Matt's positions.
Why don't people actually read what is written.
David Levy satisfies 16.2.3. So there is no problem there. The changes do not affect that. Andy does not have to propose motions in which he has not considered the consequences.
The motion from A Muir in 2019 did not do what Andy wanted. He mentioned a SCO code. The SCO code is 24 at the front of your FIDE ID. For a variety of reasons a significant number of Scots, some born and bred, do not have a FIDE code starting 24 so under Andy's motion would not have qualified to play for Scotland. I gave 3 examples off the top of my head.
Douglas proposed an amendment which included all of the above exceptions and Matt Turner. If Andy did not understand the amendment then the simple thing to do would have been to say so and reject it. He didn't.
I consider that Douglas's proposal was basically what Andy had intended, however I do not believe that it qualified as a minor alteration so should have been rejected. Clearly it did not achieve what the original proposer wanted.
We are suffering from two motions which were not considered properly either by the proposer or by those present at the AGM (and possibly higher up when accepting the motions).
I think I have said enough.