4b) Motion 2013-T Olympic Regulations (McKim/Rekhson) - discussion only

[Michael Barron]

I could well agree with you on that, Michael - provided we dig a bit deeper into the topic.
Every player's buddy? Wonderful! That's really a perfect case scenario.
But what should we do if several objectively strongest players do not happen to be the Captain's buddies - disregard them?
And if so, what is the Captain's responsibility? Who is he accountable to - and to what degree?
I hope you don't disagree with me that rights and responsibilities must go hand in hand - the more you are entitled to decide, the heavier is your responsibility.
In our case, what happens to the Captain who did handpick every player, played and seated them as he saw fit - and failed big time?
A pat on the shoulder and "good job" like it was the last time? A resignation from an UNPAID job after he has effectively gone on vacation with everybody around him being a buddy at the CFC expense? If that's the case, quite a few would love to captain!

This is what we really need!
And you could be the first in the line...

Only a professional contract with clear-cut defined responsibilities (including financial rewards for a success and punishments for a failure) would justify vesting such a tremendous power into the Captain - and we clearly don't have the means to provide for that. And even in this case, one question would remain: WHO and HOW will choose the Captain, to start with? In my opinion, that should be done strictly on merit of a competitive program presented by the aspiring candidates. The Captain should prove that he knows how to help EVERY player on the team to produce his very best - let alone his understanding of possible team strategies based on the players' personal strength and weaknesses
And the choice should be made at the very top - either by the President or at least by the Executive.

The choice should be made by the Assembly of Governors - the same body that elect the President and the Executive.
The Captain should be responsible to the Assembly of Governors - the same way as the President and the Executive, and the newsletter editor, for that matter...

Finally, about personal ambitions.
If a knowledgeable Captain presents his motives in a distinct way, and those motives are FAIR (which necessarily means that everyone is treated equally, as a valuable team member - and the same principles apply to everybody to the same extent), ambitions would cause little trouble in most cases as it would be relatively easy to sacrifice them for the Team. Yet, when an incompetent amateur (who is totally unable to help anybody chess-wise) uses the power he hasn't deserved by any objective criteria (like a competitive program approved by those in charge of the Federation) to trample upon some to make life easier for the others, it hardly contributes to anything like a Team spirit. A team is one body - and as in a body, if you abuse even the smallest finger, the whole body is going to suffer!
And humans aren't fingers - that's why one's bias is poisonous and lethal for any team. And bias is inevitable where subjectivity rules...

Edward, there could be different opinions, but some people just can`t be team players...
It`s in the best interests of all involved to avoid selecting such players for the team.

[Edward Porper]

I could be in line because - unlike the individual who was unfortunately selected - I am a professional titled player with many successes and a coach with 20+ years of experience. I worked at the WYCC, and there was nothing but favourable reports about my job.
As for the Assembly of Governors, let the Governors decide if they agree with the motions.
Regarding some people who can't be team players, you are absolutely right. The question is, who is going to decide the identity of those people.
Judging by your remarks, you fancy yourself in the judge's mantle quite well. And I understand that: some people just need to feel important.
It's a pity, not everybody can...

[Pierre Dénommée]

There is nothing mild about bias. Bias is defined as a lack of neutrality to such an extent that the decision-maker is unable to consider other views or that the decision was made on the basis of, or significantly influenced by factors unrelated to the merits of the decision. Bias can lead to litigation.

Pierre, the problem is that in this particular case subjectivity is nothing but bias, to choose the mildest word.

[Edward Porper]

There is nothing mild about bias. Bias is defined as a lack of neutrality to such an extent that the decision-maker is unable to consider other views or that the decision was made on the basis of, or significantly influenced by factors unrelated to the merits of the decision. Bias can lead to litigation.

You are right, of course - and I didn't mean that bias is something neutral. Far from it!
Yet, that was the most"civilized", so-to-say, word that occured to me to describe what Selection Committees are guided by, oh so often. Impunity combined with an unmerited authority is much more than certain people can cope with - and you are right again, their action could (sometimes should!) lead to litigation. The only way to avoid all that is to disband this committee once and forever!

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

Have you checked this site http://www.crdsc-sdrcc.ca/eng/team-selection.jsp

Would "Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada (SDRCC)" take any dispute/issue coming from a chess organization? I could not find their description of "sport" :/

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

You are right, of course - and I didn't mean that bias is something neutral. Far from it!
Yet, that was the most"civilized", so-to-say, word that occured to me to describe what Selection Committees are guided by, oh so often. Impunity combined with an unmerited authority is much more than certain people can cope with - and you are right again, their action could (sometimes should!) lead to litigation. The only way to avoid all that is to disband this committee once and forever!

The selection committee is not one person's band.

[Edward Porper]

Would "Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada (SDRCC)" take any dispute/issue coming from a chess organization? I could not find their description of "sport" :/

Does it mean that their principles should not be applicable to chess, Egidijus?

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

Don't make a question from a question especially extrapolating far beyond my question.

[Edward Porper]

Don't make a question from a question especially extrapolating far beyond my question.

It's a pretty important question - and I wonder why would you choose not to answer it...

[Christopher Mallon]

I could be in line because - unlike the individual who was unfortunately selected - I am a professional titled player with many successes and a coach with 20+ years of experience. I worked at the WYCC, and there was nothing but favourable reports about my job.

You are also starting to step a bit close to a conflict of interest, FYI...