Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Grandparents rule
#61
Jim Webster Wrote:Is it not possible to set up an electronic, web-based proxy vote?

In that way CS members can login, as they do for grading, and cast their vote online. The chair can then register the votes as cast at the meeting.

There are actually 2 types of proxy votes
- where the Proxy holder must vote as directed by the member
- where the Proxy holder has the freedom to vote on behalf of the member

The first option obviously prevents "bloc" voting by the Proxy holder

It is possible but would require changes to the constitution. My views on proxy votes are.

(1) The proxy vote which allows the Proxy holder to vote as he sees fit - should be abolished with exception of (3) and (4) below
(2) The proxy vote where the member directs the proxy how to vote - should be replaced with a postal vote - which surely can be done online.
(3) Proxy votes for U12 which automatically passes to parent. Continue as is , remember that most parents of U12 players are not chess players. U12 players should not be asked to sit quietly through a meeting as long as an agm.
(4) Chess playing parents who have a proxy vote for their U12 child. Excuse the maths interrrupting but isn't that 2 members 2 votes? This should continue.
Reply
#62
Quote:(4) Chess playing parents who have a proxy vote for their U12 child. Excuse the maths interrrupting but isn't that 2 members 2 votes? This should continue.

Well, yes-ish. We don't let under-12s vote in national elections, despite the fact that they're unquestionably people. I'd say there are some pretty serious concerns here that children are likely to simply vote for who their parents tell them to. I'd certainly have voted for whoever my dad told me to when I was 11. Even if they believe that they've reached this decision themselves, they're disproportionately likely to have been convinced by parental argument, because that's how the parent-child relationship works, children, by and large, believe things their parents tell them, whether that's 'don't put your hand in the toaster because it hurts' or 'Joe Bloggs is clearly an unsuitable individual for Chess Scotland office'. I'm pretty concerned that it just means giving parents two votes.
Reply
#63
Gary,

Sorry I didn’t reply sooner. I missed your post on my last read through the topic.

The reason I don’t believe the rules should be changed currently is because I know of no-one who the current rules are excluding from playing for Scotland that should be. If that were to change then I would be in favour of a rule change. The current rules have a balance of eligibility based on birth, parental birth, universal residency and having previously represented Scotland.

I can see your point regarding residency being the one requirement and the same for anyone but I think its a stretch that a lot of people wouldn’t be happy to lose the genealogy part of the eligibility criteria and I can think of a couple of players who would be excluded. I’m not sure how fair it would be to change the rules and exclude people who have already represented Scotland from representing us in the future.

At the heart of this for me is the following:
To my knowledge, all other sports who have changed their eligibility criteria was as the result of a change in their respective International Body’s regulations. There has been no such change in FIDE regulations so I don’t see what is precipitating this proposal and its not the same situation as other sports as this proposal alludes to.

Furthermore, if all countries were to change their eligibility rules to what is proposed it would allow players to be eligible to play for several countries (conceivably up to 4/5) which doesn’t seem right to me.
Growing old is compulsory, growing up is optional!
Reply
#64
Obviously this proposal has brought about some lively discussion. It should; Playing for one's country is important. Hopefully, it should be possible to discuss emotive issues without things getting personal. After all, "Hard cases make bad law". One has to decide what are the most appropriate eligibility criteria in the modern world and abstract oneself somewhat from the individuals involved. Rest assured that I will be supporting the team whatever the outcome.
Reply
#65
David G Congalton Wrote:I too will vote against the motion in its present form but would support an amendment along the lines of that suggested by Douglas Bryson.

I've mulled over this for a couple of days and read with interest subsequent posts. I haven't really read an argument for changing the present criteria at all, never mind one that I find convincing. I am, however, always open to persuasion and will amend my previous statement to "I am minded to vote against the motion but will give the debate my fullest consideration before voting on the matter"

I will say I think the present FIDE rules appear to be far too loose and open to abuse, from what I've read. Is it possible that someone could play for Scotland in an Olympiad, England in the next one, Andorra in a third, Christmas Islands in a fourth and so on, simply by being a paid up member of the relevant national associations and the FIDE International selection laws wouldn't stop them, only the selection criteria of the individual nations?
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.scotchesstour.co.uk">http://www.scotchesstour.co.uk</a><!-- m -->
Reply
#66
David G Congalton Wrote:
David G Congalton Wrote:I too will vote against the motion in its present form but would support an amendment along the lines of that suggested by Douglas Bryson.

I've mulled over this for a couple of days and read with interest subsequent posts. I haven't really read an argument for changing the present criteria at all, never mind one that I find convincing. I am, however, always open to persuasion and will amend my previous statement to "I am minded to vote against the motion but will give the debate my fullest consideration before voting on the matter"

I will say I think the present FIDE rules appear to be far too loose and open to abuse, from what I've read. Is it possible that someone could play for [b]Scotland in an Olympiad, England in the next one, Andorra in a third, Christmas Islands in a fourth and so on[/b], simply by being a paid up member of the relevant national associations and the FIDE International selection laws wouldn't stop them, only the selection criteria of the individual nations?

At this point let me ask a question.
Who would be the victim?
Let me answer that question
The fringe players from England, Andorra, And Christmas Island.
Let me ask another question
Whose fault would it be?
Let me answer that question
The selection committees from England, Andorra, Christmas Island.

Let hope that Andorra and Christmas Island have a functioning standards committee.
England clearly doesn't or their president would have gone long ago. (My personal opinion on the T shirt slogan fiasco which started in August 2011 and continues to roll on and on).
Reply
#67
Phil, it is not the role of the selections committee to determine the criteria we use for picking players. They pick players based on the criteria and selectors come and go on a frequent basis and their opinions change. You cannot use selectors as a control mechanism for this it wouldn’t be robost enough thus the criteria needs to be robost. It is the control mechanism the actual selection is not.

Also, that’s a cheap point on the standards committee and relates to another topic. I do not concern myself with the matters of the ECF that is up to ECF members of which I am not one. Lets focus on Chess Scotland not Andorra, England or the Christmas Isles as this topic pertains to selection for Scottish national team.
Growing old is compulsory, growing up is optional!
Reply
#68
David (Deary),

Selections committees will, choose between all the the players that thay are allowed to pick.
They will not necessarily pick the strongest available players. If they have a good reason for not doing so that is good enough for me.
If there were no published rules or guidelines international selections would still happen.

You may not be concerned with ECF matters but you are not the only reader of this notice board. The ECF runs the British Championship, last time I looked we were all British and all potential entrants to the event.

My comments about Andorra and Christmas Island selection committees was made in response to David Congalton's posting. Only the board moderator (who if you like is a one man standards committe) can declare the subject matter inappropriate.

And what is wrong with cheap points on this notice board. On this occasion I did not consider it a cheap point, I considered it a highly relevant linkage.

Whether you like it or not the agm is the ultimate authority of Chess Scotland. That meeting takes decisions most notably to appoint directors for the next 12 months.....whose remit is (at the risk of making a cheap point) to direct.
Reply
#69
Quote:Whether you like it or not the agm is the ultimate authority of Chess Scotland. That meeting takes decisions most notably to appoint directors for the next 12 months.....whose remit is (at the risk of making a cheap point) to direct

I have no issue with this, the AGM is the ultimate authority as it should be!

However, I wouldn't say the AGMs have been particularly well attended in last couple of years which is a concern in itself. The AGM should hold Directors to account but most of the attendees are Directors - something has gone wrong there. We need to arrest the sliding attendance if we dont then for me the AGM loses its authority and is in danger of becoming meaningless.
Growing old is compulsory, growing up is optional!
Reply
#70
In general people only attend meetings when they have some sort of significant interest. They will not turn up for general business.

Another organisation to which I belong also struggles to get members to turn up for the AGM (two recent ones being inquorate). On one occasion a huge rise in the membership fee was proposed for those using the building regularly. Outcome - a very large attendance. Such is the way of life.
If you want a large turnout at the next AGM then Ayrshire should propose that the grading fee be increased to £5 per game or that Membership at £40 a year should be compulsory.

Whilst unsatisfactory a poor attendance merely means that Chess Scotland is doing nothing to attract major criticism.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)