06-03-2015, 09:35 PM
“Storm in a teacup?” is an oxymoron; “most unique” is bad grammar. These observations are intended to be light-hearted references to your ‘dash of oxymoron”.
The FIDE promulgation, it appears, is intended to lay out the obligations of both organisations and individuals with the objective of instilling uniformity of procedure. The key acronyms are: NCF (National Chess Federations), FID (FIDE flag players’) and FOA (FIDE Online Arena) - each category having its own demarcated responsibilities, which do not necessarily cross over, but which need to be known to all in order to assure compliance.
Registration is defined at Clause 1.1. Simply put it is: “the procedure of entering a player’s personal details into the FIDE players’ database.” Such a player acquires a FIDE ID number (FIN) [C1.2] This FIN is unique. No one may have two. [C1.3] Thereafter, the role of the NCFs is outlined in C1.4 - 1.9] Note that C1.10 includes “a (player’s) valid email address for contact purposes.” The significance of this point is not spelled out - here. But, the clear inference is that it must be provided through the appropriate NCF - presumably for purposes of cross-checking if this becomes necessary. Note C 1.11 requires the FIDE website and FOA “application” to omit a player’s email address. That is, no public display of same by FIDE? Note C1.12, which spells out the obligations imposed on NCFs to register their players with FIDE. (I have not looked up the FIDE Regulations on Registration, Transfers and Eligibility …)
Clause 1.13 articulates the four ways in which Registration can be made. Significantly, this Clause and its sub-clauses encompass - besides ordinary players - “FIDE flag players” (who are allowed to play only in FIDE rated events - see C1.6 above); “special circumstances”, which make Chief Arbiters and Organisers responsible for providing correct players’ data (not spelled out) to “register” them to play in FIDE events [i.e. higher status events?]; and children …
C 1 14 is categorical. “All player's data are obligatory for online registration in FOA.” For “players registered by the National Rating Officers or the FIDE Rating Administrator: “ … e-mail address and Federation are obligatory (Comment: in addition to other data)…” “…the email address is necessary for the player to access FIDE website statistical data.” NCFs are informed of new players registered by the FIDE Rating Administrator and the FIDE Online Arena, depending on the players’ nominated Federation.” (C 1.17)
C 1.18 encourages gaps to be filled where data is missing, and all this is necessary to ensure successful new registration in order to obtain a FIN without which tournaments will not be rated.
Parts 2 Licensing over the board (play) and 3 Licensing in FOA flesh out the foregoing, but note that C 3.7 states: “FOA licensing is irrelevant to the Federation of the players.” (Comment: and this despite requiring the NCFs etc. to help provide the information necessary to warrant Licensing.)
Comment:
The whole edifice represents significant additional workload for administrators within NCFs (Comment: … and others)? C 1.1 and C 1.10 make it clear that “ a valid email address for contact purposes” forms part of a player’s personal details. C 1.14 attempts to justify this by stating it is necessary to access the FIDE website statistical data.
So, there appears to be a two-channel approach: one through the NCF and a second on an individual plane. Is this justifiable, or is FIDE try to tighten its administrative grip with an eye to boosting its Treasury?
The FIDE promulgation, it appears, is intended to lay out the obligations of both organisations and individuals with the objective of instilling uniformity of procedure. The key acronyms are: NCF (National Chess Federations), FID (FIDE flag players’) and FOA (FIDE Online Arena) - each category having its own demarcated responsibilities, which do not necessarily cross over, but which need to be known to all in order to assure compliance.
Registration is defined at Clause 1.1. Simply put it is: “the procedure of entering a player’s personal details into the FIDE players’ database.” Such a player acquires a FIDE ID number (FIN) [C1.2] This FIN is unique. No one may have two. [C1.3] Thereafter, the role of the NCFs is outlined in C1.4 - 1.9] Note that C1.10 includes “a (player’s) valid email address for contact purposes.” The significance of this point is not spelled out - here. But, the clear inference is that it must be provided through the appropriate NCF - presumably for purposes of cross-checking if this becomes necessary. Note C 1.11 requires the FIDE website and FOA “application” to omit a player’s email address. That is, no public display of same by FIDE? Note C1.12, which spells out the obligations imposed on NCFs to register their players with FIDE. (I have not looked up the FIDE Regulations on Registration, Transfers and Eligibility …)
Clause 1.13 articulates the four ways in which Registration can be made. Significantly, this Clause and its sub-clauses encompass - besides ordinary players - “FIDE flag players” (who are allowed to play only in FIDE rated events - see C1.6 above); “special circumstances”, which make Chief Arbiters and Organisers responsible for providing correct players’ data (not spelled out) to “register” them to play in FIDE events [i.e. higher status events?]; and children …
C 1 14 is categorical. “All player's data are obligatory for online registration in FOA.” For “players registered by the National Rating Officers or the FIDE Rating Administrator: “ … e-mail address and Federation are obligatory (Comment: in addition to other data)…” “…the email address is necessary for the player to access FIDE website statistical data.” NCFs are informed of new players registered by the FIDE Rating Administrator and the FIDE Online Arena, depending on the players’ nominated Federation.” (C 1.17)
C 1.18 encourages gaps to be filled where data is missing, and all this is necessary to ensure successful new registration in order to obtain a FIN without which tournaments will not be rated.
Parts 2 Licensing over the board (play) and 3 Licensing in FOA flesh out the foregoing, but note that C 3.7 states: “FOA licensing is irrelevant to the Federation of the players.” (Comment: and this despite requiring the NCFs etc. to help provide the information necessary to warrant Licensing.)
Comment:
The whole edifice represents significant additional workload for administrators within NCFs (Comment: … and others)? C 1.1 and C 1.10 make it clear that “ a valid email address for contact purposes” forms part of a player’s personal details. C 1.14 attempts to justify this by stating it is necessary to access the FIDE website statistical data.
So, there appears to be a two-channel approach: one through the NCF and a second on an individual plane. Is this justifiable, or is FIDE try to tighten its administrative grip with an eye to boosting its Treasury?