31-03-2022, 03:02 PM
(This post was last modified: 31-03-2022, 03:04 PM by Alex McFarlane.)
Walter,
I will repeat what I have said.
SCO in FIDE speak is not a code but a designation. The code for Scotland is 24 at the start of a FIN and since you missed it too, the code for England is 4 (not 40).
To talk about having a SCO code is probably fine in everyday use but should not be used in an official document when it can be used to complicate the issue. Your failure to grasp this point despite being made by several people seems to highlight the problem of being lax with words and emphasise the importance of being precise. Previous imprecise motions have landed us in this situation.
The amendment by Douglas made it totally clear in all but one case. The original motion would have meant many people's eligibility being open to interpretation.
Can I suggest that in future any ambiguous motion is ruled incompetent immediately rather than being amended on the hoof. It would have saved a considerable amount of time.
The minutes of an AGM can only be approved at the next AGM but it would have saved many problems if draft (full) minutes had been published soon after the original meeting.
I accept that with what I now see of the minutes, I would not have made the decision I did. However, I maintain that is not the info I was given. (I was doing a tournament at the time so not at the AGM.)
I will repeat what I have said.
SCO in FIDE speak is not a code but a designation. The code for Scotland is 24 at the start of a FIN and since you missed it too, the code for England is 4 (not 40).
To talk about having a SCO code is probably fine in everyday use but should not be used in an official document when it can be used to complicate the issue. Your failure to grasp this point despite being made by several people seems to highlight the problem of being lax with words and emphasise the importance of being precise. Previous imprecise motions have landed us in this situation.
The amendment by Douglas made it totally clear in all but one case. The original motion would have meant many people's eligibility being open to interpretation.
Can I suggest that in future any ambiguous motion is ruled incompetent immediately rather than being amended on the hoof. It would have saved a considerable amount of time.
The minutes of an AGM can only be approved at the next AGM but it would have saved many problems if draft (full) minutes had been published soon after the original meeting.
I accept that with what I now see of the minutes, I would not have made the decision I did. However, I maintain that is not the info I was given. (I was doing a tournament at the time so not at the AGM.)