Eligibility Votes - March 2022

[hamish olson]

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?"

I can understand Hamish's incredulity.
It would be astonishing if a condition that was added as an additional *necessity* was construed as being *sufficient*.

It should be clear that a condition which was clearly aimed at RESTRICTING eligibility can not somehow EXPAND eligibility.

I don't think you can cite the EWP as being in support of the bad LOGIC. Those in CS favouring expansion of eligibility criteria, whether by conferring eligibility from temporary residence or in the special case of Matthew, have been saying 'SCO code guarantees eligiblity', or full rights, since before 2016.
That doesn't make it true. 'SCO gives eligibility' was tested in the 2015 constitutonal proposal brought to the EGM, and failed.

Well it's not a question of what I believe or don't believe.

However if the motion has only been published in the two sets of AGM documentation that Alex and I have quoted, I don't see how it can be interpreted any other way than being the addition of a necessary condition, and not a sufficient one. It was certainly my understanding from memory before this thread happened that SCO was necessary but not sufficient.

There may have been a different verbal understanding at the time of the meeting or afterwards but I don't see how that can have any standing. I will admit I have not checked our constitution or similar to check!