6.1 MOTION - National Appeals Committee Rules Revisions

Motion moved by Aris Marghetis, Seconded by Hal Bond

Motion to change CFC Handbook Articles 1206 & 1246, regarding the appeals deposit. This change is to reflect that most events now have an appeals deposit of at least $100, and also that most people now use more modern payment methods. The proposed effective date of these changes is September 3rd, 2019.

Current Article 1206:

All appeals must be accompanied by a $35.00 fee, to be refunded to successful appellants. [see Motion 85-20; August 1985, p. 1-20]

Current Article 1246:

A person appealing to the NAC must write to the CFC Business Office stating his intention to appeal, and enclosing the $35.00 fee. [ref: Motion 85-20; GL#1-20]

to be replaced by:

Proposed Article 1206:

All appeals must be accompanied by a $100 fee, the appeals deposit. This will be refunded to successful appellants. In addition, if the NAC judges that a rejected appeal was made in reasonable very good faith, then the NAC may decide to refund to that appellant.

Proposed Article 1246:

A person appealing to the NAC must contact the CFC Office by email or letter, stating his/her intention to appeal, and arrange his/her $100 appeals deposit with the CFC Office.

-------------------------------------

This thread is reserved for discussion of the motion. Discussion will continue through the end of the meeting with voting to begin at 6pm ET on day 4 (August 28). Voting will take place in a thread labelled "The Voting Booth"

Proposed Article 1206 - I am not a lawyer or a wordsmith, but can we change 'reasonable very good faith' to just 'good faith'? Good faith clauses are very common in legal contracts. Not sure why we are adding 'reasoanble very' ? I am in favour of both these motions in principle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ian findlay

Proposed Article 1206 - I am not a lawyer or a wordsmith, but can we change 'reasonable very good faith' to just 'good faith'? Good faith clauses are very common in legal contracts. Not sure why we are adding 'reasoanble very' ? I am in favour of both these motions in principle.

---

I second the amendment, I have never seen reasonable very good faith anywhere.

Thinking where the $100 amount came from - why not to connect it to the CFC annual membership fee? Like ~2 (or three) times the CFC annual membership fee.
"CFC – federal portion (pre GST/HST, any Provincial Dues) 36" ( https://chess.ca/membership-rates )

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Egidijus Zeromskis

Thinking where the $100 amount came from - why not to connect it to the CFC annual membership fee? Like ~2 (or three) times the CFC annual membership fee.
"CFC – federal portion (pre GST/HST, any Provincial Dues) 36" ( https://chess.ca/membership-rates )

---

Nice idea, it would allow for easier modification without the need for a separate motion. We would only need to change that if we decide to reduce the membership fee, which is very unlikely.

The fee is almost irrelevant as I believe we have refunded it in every case going back to 2013.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir Drkulec

The fee is almost irrelevant as I believe we have refunded it in every case going back to 2013.

---

I disagree. I know of one case this year, where someone did not appeal their case, because they were told that it was frivolous and they would not get their money back. So perhaps it is relevant in that
it reduces the number of frivolous appeals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ian findlay

I disagree. I know of one case this year, where someone did not appeal their case, because they were told that it was frivolous and they would not get their money back. So perhaps it is relevant in that
it reduces the number of frivolous appeals.

---

I agree. The fee is mainly there to discourage frivolous appeal. The last time that I have been on a local Appeal Committee, we did hear an Appeal from a player who claimed that he has made 40 moves in 2 hours but that he just didn't have time to press his clock, so he cannot loose on time because he has made 40 moves in 2 hours as required by the rules of the event. Off course, the rules of the event clearly stated that the player must complete 40 moves in 2 hours, not make 40 moves in 2 hours. The Frivolous Appeal was quickly dismissed. This is the kind of case that we do not want to go to the NAC.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pierre Dénommée

I agree. The fee is mainly there to discourage frivolous appeal. The last time that I have been on a local Appeal Committee, we did hear an Appeal from a player who claimed that he has made 40 moves in 2 hours but that he just didn't have time to press his clock, so he cannot loose on time because he has made 40 moves in 2 hours as required by the rules of the event. Off course, the rules of the event clearly stated that the player must complete 40 moves in 2 hours, not make 40 moves in 2 hours. The Frivolous Appeal was quickly dismissed. This is the kind of case that we do not want to go to the NAC.

---

Excellent example. I have dealt with unhappy players making claims equally inane. (Most of these claims are withdrawn after the player realizes what he said and often laughs at himself for having said it) I even had one involving a player claiming he needed extra clock time because he was about to promote an extra queen even though I (as TD) had seen that promotion was potentially likely in the position and a couple of minutes earlier had placed a queen of each color close by the player's clock in plain view. As in within 6" of the clock.

Told him I thought he would have had a case had the queens not been immediately available but since the queens were in easy reach of the board.....

On another occasion I had a player whose flag fell when he punched the clock on move 40 and on inspection the clock proved to be in perfect order. (This ruling was easy as I assume everyone knows an analog clock's flag must remain up to be considered to have made the time control) I also assume you all know that a mate or stalemate immediately ends the game irrespective of the clock.

I particularly agree with Pierre's last sentence as that's the sort of claim that would bring the rules into disrepute if accepted.