07-03-2012, 01:38 AM
Perhaps I can shed some light on this debate from my perspective as the principal author of the Standards Code.
1. It's main aim is to provide a means of redress for those who believe that they have been treated unfairly. It is a fact that Scottish Chess has lost the services of good people in the past because they had been treated badly and there was no means of dealing with their grievances. It has other, equally positive, aims. It is emphatically not about interfering in the affairs of well-run leagues/congresses etc, as is abundantly clear from the Code itself.
2. ACA's resolution (first sentence) seeks to, in effect, nullify the code altogether.
3. I understand that ACA does not accept the jurisdiction of Chess Scotland over its affairs. In my view, ACA should submit a motion to that effect (seeking an opt-out from the code) rather than seeking to strip all chess players in Scotland of the protections offered by the Code.
4. It is regrettable that the sponsors of this motion have rejected (ignored) all communications from the Standards Committee including an offer to meet and discuss these questions with them and their (proxy) supporters in Ayrshire.
5. Specific wording improvements can be made of course. This is best achieved by consensus, rather than by a polarised debate, and I again invite the sponsors of the motion to engage with the Standards Committee to find a constructive way forward.
6. Finally, I hold no brief for Chess Scotland: my involvement in chess these days is minimal.
1. It's main aim is to provide a means of redress for those who believe that they have been treated unfairly. It is a fact that Scottish Chess has lost the services of good people in the past because they had been treated badly and there was no means of dealing with their grievances. It has other, equally positive, aims. It is emphatically not about interfering in the affairs of well-run leagues/congresses etc, as is abundantly clear from the Code itself.
2. ACA's resolution (first sentence) seeks to, in effect, nullify the code altogether.
3. I understand that ACA does not accept the jurisdiction of Chess Scotland over its affairs. In my view, ACA should submit a motion to that effect (seeking an opt-out from the code) rather than seeking to strip all chess players in Scotland of the protections offered by the Code.
4. It is regrettable that the sponsors of this motion have rejected (ignored) all communications from the Standards Committee including an offer to meet and discuss these questions with them and their (proxy) supporters in Ayrshire.
5. Specific wording improvements can be made of course. This is best achieved by consensus, rather than by a polarised debate, and I again invite the sponsors of the motion to engage with the Standards Committee to find a constructive way forward.
6. Finally, I hold no brief for Chess Scotland: my involvement in chess these days is minimal.