7. Motion 2012-G Class Certificates Amending Motion (Chris Mallon)

[Christopher Mallon]

Thanks Chris, I missed that. Now having read it, would you mind confirming that I understand it correctly so that I can deal with any appeals? In fact, I received one this evening already.

The new article 738 does away with the 24 game rule. The new rule is retroactive.

There are 2 ways to get a class certificate:

a. At any point, even if only once, a player achieves a post-event Regular rating (not provisional) at least 1 point above the floor for his/her class. Matches may count; or

b. Three times in a lifetime achieved a Performance Rating 100 or more points above the floor for his/her class in events of at least 5 games. Matches may not count.

This is correct, except in a. the rating must be at least 100 points above the floor, not 1 point.

The old Section 738 was eliminated 3 months ago so definitely nobody should be trying to "sneak through" under that rule, although getting the online handbook updated would be helpful too.

[Bob Armstrong]

I was the only governor voting against this motion. I feel it is helpful if I say why.

The first standard for getting a certificate in my view is much too low, and lessens substantially the meaningfulness of the certificate. If absolutely everyone can get it, is it worth much?

The second standard requiring 3 norms was in my view a tough but not impossible test ( even I got an A Class Certificate under it! ). It meant that you achieved something of meaning, at least that's the way I viewed it.

I hope in future some time, this issue will be revisited, with a different result that time.

This is not sour grapes, but opening up a further future debate on this issue, when the circumstances may be right.

Bob A

Added on further info: The motion is that option a. is to be 100 points above the floor, not 1 point as Paul wrongly stated. Though this is at least a somewhat decent standard now, my position that it should be harder than that, and that " b " should be the sole option, still stands. The three norms ( performance rating above 1900 ) are harder to do than merely incrementally, against weak opposition, slowly building one's rating to 100 points above the floor. The performance standard demands some wins against stronger players in the one tournament. But this argument was soundly rejected, and I will leave it to any future review of the section, should that ever happen.

Bob A

[Paul Leblanc]

I don't see where it says 100 points:

b) To achieve standing for any class or title, the player must:
i. Have at some point had a published CFC rating above the minimum rating floor for that category or title

[Christopher Mallon]

I don't see where it says 100 points:

b) To achieve standing for any class or title, the player must:
i. Have at some point had a published CFC rating above the minimum rating floor for that category or title

That's to achieve it via norms. 3 norms at floor+100 and achieve a published rating above the rating floor, OR achieve a published rating of floor+100

[Paul Leblanc]

There is no "AND" between i and ii in the text.
I had mentally substituted the word "or" when I read it.
To make the wording foolproof, I recommend re-organizing the presentation slightly to link i and ii with the word "and". I think that is just an editorial change that would not affect the validity of the motion.

[Christopher Mallon]

More likely part b) should be split up a little bit.