Posts: 1,923
Threads: 262
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation:
5
The good thing is there is now a working party that are going to resolve this. I was merely pointing out that the usage of code has different meanings. If I recall correctly Dougie made a minor amendment to the motion to change it to Country to get around this, but the initial wording was indeed ambiguous!
If you are wanting clear definitions
FIN - Player number assigned to players by FIDE containing a Country Code (normally 2 or 3 characters) and the players number
Country Designation - The three letter ISO 3166-1 alpha 3 code of a countries name
So SCO code can be either the Country code (40) or the ISO 3166-1 alpha 3 code but this was not defined in the motion hence I also believe this rendered it incompetent.
As an aside, I am also not going to be involved with the running of the Scottish this year. I have a residential part of my Uni course at the same time. I had thought about trying to get the dates changed so I could be there, but after what has happened and Alex's resignation because of it, I don't have the appetite to do so
"How sad to see, what used to be, a model of decorum and tranquility become like any other sport, a battleground for rival ideologies to slug it out with glee"
Posts: 40
Threads: 10
Joined: Jul 2012
Reputation:
0
(05-11-2019, 09:03 PM)Alex McFarlane Wrote: Resignation Statement – Alex McFarlane
It is with considerable regret that I confirm that I have stepped down from my position as Director of the Scottish Championships.
This is as a direct result of the Chess Scotland AGM’s decision that the title should be shared between players on different scores. I cannot accept that such a decision makes any sense whatsoever. Had the decision been to withdraw the title from Matthew Turner and award it to Colin McNab due to a misinterpretation of the qualification regulations on my part then at least that result would have had some logic attached.
It probably would not have affected my decision if that had been the motion passed, however, as there is a second matter which has to be taken into account.
I was asked by two players to confirm that Mr Turner was eligible for the title. I replied that he was. As the AGM has now ruled that I was in error in this respect I therefore misdirected these players. This erroneously given 'confirmation' may have deprived them of the opportunity of becoming Scottish Champion. That reason alone is a sufficient cause for my resignation.
This decision was not taken lightly. It was considered over a period of some weeks and it had been intimated to the President before the meeting took place that if it was passed then so too would be my time running the Scottish Championships.
I am proud and privileged to have run the event and to have been an arbiter at it for the number of years I have. I wish the Championships and my successors as Director and Chief Arbiter well for the future.
It was a shock to read this. I think that you should reconsider because it will be a big loss to Chess Scotland. The problem, as usual, is that the rules are too complicated. Surely every player should belong to one country and are eligible to be champion of that country and no other. OK I realise that the rules are not as simple as that but why not? Anyway I repeat - Please reconsider.
Good sense is of all things in the world the most equally distributed, for everybody thinks himself so abundantly provided with it, that even those most difficult to please do not commonly desire more of it than they already possess. Descartes
Posts: 462
Threads: 14
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation:
1
17-11-2019, 03:11 AM
(This post was last modified: 17-11-2019, 03:15 AM by Alan Tate.)
Donald is right - Alex you should reconsider.
Also, something is really bothering me... The AGM report says I seconded the joint champion motion. I did not officially second anything?? I think I agreed in principle for the sake of diplomacy in a private email (or maybe on the forum) but I would have needed more facts, and the opinions of the people actually affected to make this decision and there were basically none available at that time.
Posts: 360
Threads: 97
Joined: May 2012
Reputation:
3
well, there's a cat to throw into the pigeons. Did the AGM then pass a motion not properly seconded?
Can that motion stand or does it make the motion incompetent and despite passing does not now exist?
Posts: 1,923
Threads: 262
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation:
5
Double checking with the CC but I believe it still stands as there were two seconders.
Proposed by Matthew Turner,
Seconded by Alan Tate and Jonathan Grant
"How sad to see, what used to be, a model of decorum and tranquility become like any other sport, a battleground for rival ideologies to slug it out with glee"
Posts: 462
Threads: 14
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation:
1
Perhaps someone could enlighten me as to what the official process is for seconding a motion?
Posts: 929
Threads: 126
Joined: May 2012
Reputation:
4
Hi Alan
I am commenting as a CS member and not admin director. I believe the process lies with the proposer submitting the motion who also supplies the names of the seconders.. Mathew indicated his intention way back in July when he named his seconders on the forum. I also believe he also followed the correct procedure in formally submitting the motion. I presume he would have checked with you as the seconder what exactly the wording on the motion should be and if you were happy with it. In other words the communication to Chess Scotland comes from the proposer and nowhere else. Are you now suggesting we now check every seconder for validity for every motion or are you just making a general enquiry. I am also surprised and shocked to find you were unaware of being put forwarded as a seconder for that motion
Posts: 360
Threads: 97
Joined: May 2012
Reputation:
3
Indeed you would expect the proposer not only to make sure of their seconder(s) but to provide the evidence on demand if the named seconder was not attending. Whilst there are 2 seconders named I would question the stance that it's all right, we still have one.
Would not the position be that if 2 seconders are named both have to legal, as it were, for the motion to be competent.
Otherwise, taking it to extremes, a motion could proposed with many seconders in the hope at least one would be willing to do so.
With a fair few people taking no interest in the workings of Chess Scotland naming a few of them as seconders wouldn't be a problem as they would never find out.
Posts: 462
Threads: 14
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation:
1
It was 4 months ago at the end of a tiring 9 round tournament. I can't remember exact details but one would expect some sort of follow-up, especially if there was new information available (unfortunately there was complete radio silence everywhere). If I had known people were going to resign over it then that would change things. With all these rules, regulations and meetings, then yes... I'd suggest seconders receive more than a couple of emails 4 months before.