Eligibility Votes - March 2022

[WBuchanan]

Lol to the humour in your post. Why, it's that Andy Muir's fault again, getting Jacob banned from arbitering in Scotland.
But maybe you will say that motion of his would make Matthew eligibile to arbitrate again!

OK, Real world check.

Finding inconsistencies in rules is the easiest thing in the world.
Rules are drafted with main purposes in mind.
You don't turn them inside out because of some angle that had never been considered.
If it's a serious point the answer would be to introduce consideration of the arbiter scene at some level of priority.
You can then argue for the priority to be increased.
Meantime it's easy enough for CS to draft contingencies for exceptions, applying common sense.
Strength of feeling drives rules. Players LOVE arbiters and would never dream of questioning their eligibility

Isn't the highlighted sentence the reason we are here!!??

Rules should be drafted for all purposes, not just the main ones.  Sometimes things will be missed.  I do not consider arbiter and FIDE Commission appointments to be an insignificant matter.  Indeed, I know a former refugee arbiter now resident in England who was worried that if she changed to ENG it could restrict another arbiter's chances of appointments at World events.

"Isn't the highlighted sentence the reason we are here!!??"
 
Yes, but note the last part.
There are reasonable assumptions within which the rules hold up well enough.
To draft rules for all purposes, and for all contingencies, would be impossible without vastly more resources than CS has.
 
General rules honed over time applied with wisdom and oversight work well for the common good. The oversight is needed in case of differing visions of what the common good actually means. I think over the last decade there has been this divergence in visions. A strong, star-studded international team is probably desirable for most players, but I don't think members in general would say they want that at any price. That's where it kind of breaks down. Oversight has reduced over time to the point where members views can be largely ignored. That allows rules that were devised to be followed in normal circumstances get breached, or  at least do not get maintained.
 
I don't say anything is an insignificant issue, but you shouldn't argue by exception alone - you'll end up with a free-for-all.
I'm not sure why arbiters should have the same set of rules as players. It's not a competitive sport. I think you'd need to start by instigating that discussion.
But it's not right to suddenly pull out perceived inconsistencies on issues that aren't already in the discusson as a pushing mechanism, that's kind of bouncing us.