As International Director I see my role as someone who is there to help Scottish chess players play internationally.
The following is my personal view and if it involves you don't take it personally. I'm just telling it how I see it. Sorry, it's a bit of an essay.
Communication
One thing I've noticed since I became ID is that it takes up a lot of my personal time. When you put a lot of time into something and then someone comes along and criticises or makes it harder for no reason, it can really grate. So perhaps this is the reason for some of the official outbursts on here. We are all doing our best and even well-intentioned suggestions can be amplified and feel like criticisms.
There seems to be a kind of 'us and them' attitude regarding the forum and CS officials. Chess players do tend to have a natural wariness of authority so I suggest that we drop terms like 'management', and increase communication between the people running the place and everyone else. We all want the same thing. When there is poor communication it's not surprising that minds wander into conspiracy theories or just downright apathy.
The Law
Chess Scotland is a non-profit organisation that is run by volunteers. These volunteers are not necessarily the best candidates for the job, sometimes they are the only ones willing to, or the only ones with the time to help out. One example of this is Alex's latest thing of talking about legal implications.
Alex, What knowledge of the law do you have for you to make that statement?
(If Alex is right then the vote should be pulled)
Anyway... is anyone in CS a lawyer? No - that would be very expensive. Yet the legislation that is created is expected to hold up to legal scrutiny? Good luck with that. Anyway, I still have enough faith in people that they will not sue a non-profit organisation, but who knows.
Here's an idea, let's ask Matthew.
Matt, do you intend to take legal action or seek compensation if motion 2 is rejected?
Flawed logic based on rule following
This is the most frustrating thing that I'm seeing over and over again on this thread. Rules are there to help us, not to rule us! I think what is happening is that certain people see rules as absolute authority and that you cannot diverge from them. This leads to going round in circles with no way out. We are not robots. We are human beings. Think outside the box people.
A human perspective
What was the intention of the original motion for MT?
The intention was to give Matt SCO because the ECF were enforcing compulsory membership and we decided to help him out (All players must have such a code to play Fide rated games).
There was a gentleman's agreement that MT would not be eligible for Scottish Champion or for Scottish team spots.
That's it. Chess Scotland did Matthew a favour - he is not a victim here. Matt has clearly shown that he is a man of his word and as far as I know has never pushed for this.
How did we get from gentleman's agreement to this? An agreement between people is more valuable than grasping at technicalities in an attempt to justify something based on past mistakes.
The simplest solution would be to ask Matt to honour this agreement and continue as before. Able to play with SCO; Ineligible for Scottish Champion and Scottish Team events.
All parties have shown that they are able to uphold such an agreement. There is no need for any of this.
Can't see the wood for the trees
At times it really does feel like those involved are in too deep to see the simple things. For instance the motions deserved to have a short summary explaining why they are being made, and what the key changes and implications would be. Not everyone wants to wade through documents for hours on end to vote on something that they probably don't care all that much about (let's face it, the people who care about this the most are those who have ambitions for the Scottish team or title).
Matt was mistakenly awarded the Scottish title in 2019. Congratulations Matt - you got a Scottish title! I'm happy for you and you deserve it. Did this really affect anyone (apart from Colin McNab)?
This does not mean that he is all of a sudden fully SCO (don't say that he already was. There is too much lost documentation and no one can prove it). It takes a massive leap to do this. It was a mistake. What are mistakes? They are things that happened by accident as a result of human error. In case anyone is having difficulty following my train of thought, here's a little multiple choice question for you:
What do we do when we make a mistake?
a) Compound the mistake by continuing down the same path
b) Correct the mistake and choose the path that was intended
Are we really so afraid to admit when we're wrong, or is Matt a political pawn?
All we need to do is keep the status quo. It's fine. Don't worry all you rule fanatics, no one will die and the world will not end. CS will not be sued. Matt will not be left stateless. It has worked perfectly well barring the 2019 blip which was a result of poor communication, and will not happen again providing communication is improved.
The following is my personal view and if it involves you don't take it personally. I'm just telling it how I see it. Sorry, it's a bit of an essay.
Communication
One thing I've noticed since I became ID is that it takes up a lot of my personal time. When you put a lot of time into something and then someone comes along and criticises or makes it harder for no reason, it can really grate. So perhaps this is the reason for some of the official outbursts on here. We are all doing our best and even well-intentioned suggestions can be amplified and feel like criticisms.
There seems to be a kind of 'us and them' attitude regarding the forum and CS officials. Chess players do tend to have a natural wariness of authority so I suggest that we drop terms like 'management', and increase communication between the people running the place and everyone else. We all want the same thing. When there is poor communication it's not surprising that minds wander into conspiracy theories or just downright apathy.
The Law
Chess Scotland is a non-profit organisation that is run by volunteers. These volunteers are not necessarily the best candidates for the job, sometimes they are the only ones willing to, or the only ones with the time to help out. One example of this is Alex's latest thing of talking about legal implications.
Alex, What knowledge of the law do you have for you to make that statement?
(If Alex is right then the vote should be pulled)
Anyway... is anyone in CS a lawyer? No - that would be very expensive. Yet the legislation that is created is expected to hold up to legal scrutiny? Good luck with that. Anyway, I still have enough faith in people that they will not sue a non-profit organisation, but who knows.
Here's an idea, let's ask Matthew.
Matt, do you intend to take legal action or seek compensation if motion 2 is rejected?
Flawed logic based on rule following
This is the most frustrating thing that I'm seeing over and over again on this thread. Rules are there to help us, not to rule us! I think what is happening is that certain people see rules as absolute authority and that you cannot diverge from them. This leads to going round in circles with no way out. We are not robots. We are human beings. Think outside the box people.
A human perspective
What was the intention of the original motion for MT?
The intention was to give Matt SCO because the ECF were enforcing compulsory membership and we decided to help him out (All players must have such a code to play Fide rated games).
There was a gentleman's agreement that MT would not be eligible for Scottish Champion or for Scottish team spots.
That's it. Chess Scotland did Matthew a favour - he is not a victim here. Matt has clearly shown that he is a man of his word and as far as I know has never pushed for this.
How did we get from gentleman's agreement to this? An agreement between people is more valuable than grasping at technicalities in an attempt to justify something based on past mistakes.
The simplest solution would be to ask Matt to honour this agreement and continue as before. Able to play with SCO; Ineligible for Scottish Champion and Scottish Team events.
All parties have shown that they are able to uphold such an agreement. There is no need for any of this.
Can't see the wood for the trees
At times it really does feel like those involved are in too deep to see the simple things. For instance the motions deserved to have a short summary explaining why they are being made, and what the key changes and implications would be. Not everyone wants to wade through documents for hours on end to vote on something that they probably don't care all that much about (let's face it, the people who care about this the most are those who have ambitions for the Scottish team or title).
Matt was mistakenly awarded the Scottish title in 2019. Congratulations Matt - you got a Scottish title! I'm happy for you and you deserve it. Did this really affect anyone (apart from Colin McNab)?
This does not mean that he is all of a sudden fully SCO (don't say that he already was. There is too much lost documentation and no one can prove it). It takes a massive leap to do this. It was a mistake. What are mistakes? They are things that happened by accident as a result of human error. In case anyone is having difficulty following my train of thought, here's a little multiple choice question for you:
What do we do when we make a mistake?
a) Compound the mistake by continuing down the same path
b) Correct the mistake and choose the path that was intended
Are we really so afraid to admit when we're wrong, or is Matt a political pawn?
All we need to do is keep the status quo. It's fine. Don't worry all you rule fanatics, no one will die and the world will not end. CS will not be sued. Matt will not be left stateless. It has worked perfectly well barring the 2019 blip which was a result of poor communication, and will not happen again providing communication is improved.