Eligibility Votes - March 2022

[WBuchanan]

"There couldn't be a verbal understanding with the proposer that expanded eligibility - as the stated intent was to restrict eligibility, as everyone knew. Not unless the proposer was duped or something." - Walter Buchanan

But the amendment did expand eligibility.  Under the proposed wording neither Jacob Aagaard nor Donald Heron and many others would have been able to win the Scottish or Scottish Senior titles.  Keti Arakhamia-Grant would not have qualified either.
The wording of the original motion was so bad that I actually consider the accepted amendment to be a major change and therefore should not have been allowed.  You seem to be in agreement with that opinion from your statement.

Hi Alex.

I wouldn't argue with your view on whether a 'major change' should be accepted, though to me it's conceivable the proposer might willingly agree to this with their eyes open.
But they wouldn't agree with a 'reversal' of the meaning - so where is the evidence that this was what happened?
There doesn't seem to be a record of the amended wording.
Maybe I've missed it and somebody will come up with it. It would then raise further questions.

As an aside, this illustrates the inadvisability of relying on a single code to replace rules defining exactly what is wanted, on something so important.
Maybe in accepting the amendment, Andy Muir was bamboozled by the discussion taking a technical turn on code complexities and trusted that what was being put to him was equating to what he wanted the motion to achieve.
But whatever the amendment was or meant, the aim of the motion was still known.

Cheers