29-03-2022, 09:34 PM
(This post was last modified: 29-03-2022, 09:47 PM by hamish olson.)
So is this the final wording?
"The current rules to be eligible to be Scottish Champion are set out in Section A of “Scottish Champion Entry Rules”:
An additional sentence shall be added: To be eligible to be Scottish Champion or Scottish Senior Champion a player must also be FIDE registered as Scotland with a SCO federation designation.
Proposed: Andy Muir – Seconded: George Neave"
I changed "with a SCO code" to "with a SCO federation designation" - otherwise it's as I quoted initially
I've just seen your edit 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?"
This is exactly the confusion I'm trying to clarify, and why I want the exact final wording of the 2016 motion, if it exists.
If not then I think the documentation I have provided backs up "my" version sufficiently (with the amendment you refer to).
The version I am quoting currently makes it very clear that SCO is a necessary condition for eligibility.
At no point does it state that it is sufficient.
The wording ("also", "additional sentence") clearly refers to the existence of other criteria that must additionally be fulfilled.
"The current rules to be eligible to be Scottish Champion are set out in Section A of “Scottish Champion Entry Rules”:
An additional sentence shall be added: To be eligible to be Scottish Champion or Scottish Senior Champion a player must also be FIDE registered as Scotland with a SCO federation designation.
Proposed: Andy Muir – Seconded: George Neave"
I changed "with a SCO code" to "with a SCO federation designation" - otherwise it's as I quoted initially
I've just seen your edit 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?"
This is exactly the confusion I'm trying to clarify, and why I want the exact final wording of the 2016 motion, if it exists.
If not then I think the documentation I have provided backs up "my" version sufficiently (with the amendment you refer to).
The version I am quoting currently makes it very clear that SCO is a necessary condition for eligibility.
At no point does it state that it is sufficient.
The wording ("also", "additional sentence") clearly refers to the existence of other criteria that must additionally be fulfilled.