12-08-2012, 04:51 PM
andyburnett Wrote:I was initially only discussing this on the forum - the actual motion being raised with myself as seconder came as a surprise ( abit of communication would not go amiss!).There is at least an implication in this that you did not second the actual motion.
andyburnett Wrote:Is this really a big problem? I can't think of anyone in this category, but surely they can have their FIDE registration changed to SCO if they wish?Yes they can and probably at no cost but anyone who got a rating a month before in some event could easily appear under that country - many English events have been guilty of just putting any unknown players down as ENG - and not have time to change. I accept that such a player is unlikely to win the Championship anyway but that should not be the point.
The wording of the motion does not say what it means. It is so far removed from what it actually means that I doubt if it can be amended constitutionally. Not only is it badly worded but it is badly thought out too in that it has made no attempt to take care of the oddities that can arise.
I can understand a feeling that only people with SCO can win the title but on another thread I was proposing that we should hold more FIDE rated and norm events. These are only financially possible if we can find non-SCO to take part. It seems short sighted trying to force people to become SCO if it is going to damage the chances of norm events. If the motion was to say that people had to be members of CS for x years or SCO with 1 years membership then I would have a lot more sympathy for it.