Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 34

Thread: 5B1 - NEW MOTIONS - Olympic Team Selection (Moved Victor Plotkin, Seconded Fred McKim

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    125

    Default

    Furthermore, there are wording updates to the original motions:

    1) Suggested by Garland, agreed by Victor

    The formula uses the FIDE rating only as a base for the team if the average FIDE rating of top-5 eligible players is above 2300. The formula uses the average FIDE and CFC rating as a base for the team if the average FIDE rating of top-5 eligible players is below or equal 2300.

    2) Agreed by Victor and Michael Barron

    +20 points for 2nd place
    +10 points for 3rd place
    -10 points if the player did not participate or withdrew.

    to:

    +10 points if player played all rounds of Canadian Closed
    +20 points for third place
    +30 points for second place

    How and when will the above be updated in the motions? By amendment before the voting ends? Can we still modify the motions after the voting?

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Lo View Post
    Furthermore, there are wording updates to the original motions:

    1) Suggested by Garland, agreed by Victor

    The formula uses the FIDE rating only as a base for the team if the average FIDE rating of top-5 eligible players is above 2300. The formula uses the average FIDE and CFC rating as a base for the team if the average FIDE rating of top-5 eligible players is below or equal 2300.

    2) Agreed by Victor and Michael Barron

    +20 points for 2nd place
    +10 points for 3rd place
    -10 points if the player did not participate or withdrew.

    to:

    +10 points if player played all rounds of Canadian Closed
    +20 points for third place
    +30 points for second place

    How and when will the above be updated in the motions? By amendment before the voting ends? Can we still modify the motions after the voting?
    I believe, the president is supposed to answer these questions. From my point:

    1. I fully accept "grammar" corrections by Christopher Field. I am sure, we do not need the special voting for it.

    2. I never agreed to change the motion about Canadian Closed. It was just an example how we can avoid the word "penalty" if some governors are so unhappy with this word. Actually, the initial wording is more logical and looks better for me. I do not see any reason to change anything in this motion.

    3. About FIDE and CFC-FIDE ratings. Yes, the wording with 2300 borderline looks better and more logical. If Vlad can change the wording without any additional voting, it's great. If not - I prefer not to have another voting. This motion was very important for me, the 2nd most important among 6 motions. Only the elimination of the Selection Committee was more important.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Lo View Post
    I am in support of most if not all of Victor's motions, but have a few procedual concerns. Please see whether the President and the Secretary could clarify on the following concerns. I do not wish the see the motions get passed but are not able to implement due to procedural errors.

    1) Minimum games played (10 games, not 20 games)

    Handbook section 906.a.iii) Have played at least 10 regular CFC rated or FIDE rated games during the year prior to the start of the selection process (which begins 180 days before the start of the Olympiad).

    Other than the minimum games rule, there are also the residency rule and membership rule stated in section 906.

    It is ambiguous to which section(s) of the Handbook are being affect/replace by Victor's motions. It would be best if the motion(s) could state this clearly.

    2) Status of Selection Committee

    From what I gathered from Victor's comments, his motions are intended to eliminate the Selection Committee, but this is not being explicitly stated in his motions. Victor's motion 5B1 "Motion #1. Selection of payers." corresponds to the Handbook section "906. Selection of the players". Even if Victor's motions are passed, I do not see that it will affect the Handbook section "905. The Selection Committee". Thus, I would expect there will still be a Selection Committee executing Victor's proposed selection rules. Victor, is this your intent?
    Michael,

    Our handbook was not updated a very long period of time. The 20 games requirement was accepted by governors about 2 years ago. The next (2018) campaign will the first one with this 20 games requirement.

    About the Selection Committee. My main goal for all 6 motions was ELIMINATING of this committee. I prefer motion 1 to pass and all other motions to fail then the opposite scenario (motion 1 fails, all other pass). According to motion 1, the team will have 5 players (the champion + 4 players by rating). There will be no space for any nominee of any committee.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    125

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Victor Plotkin View Post
    I believe, the president is supposed to answer these questions. From my point:

    1. I fully accept "grammar" corrections by Christopher Field. I am sure, we do not need the special voting for it.

    2. I never agreed to change the motion about Canadian Closed. It was just an example how we can avoid the word "penalty" if some governors are so unhappy with this word. Actually, the initial wording is more logical and looks better for me. I do not see any reason to change anything in this motion.

    3. About FIDE and CFC-FIDE ratings. Yes, the wording with 2300 borderline looks better and more logical. If Vlad can change the wording without any additional voting, it's great. If not - I prefer not to have another voting. This motion was very important for me, the 2nd most important among 6 motions. Only the elimination of the Selection Committee was more important.
    Victor, sorry that I thought you agreed change the motion about Canadian Closed. Please note that, I personally would vote "yes" if the motion is changed to:

    +10 points if player played all rounds of Canadian Closed
    +20 points for third place
    +30 points for second place

    But would vote "no" for the original motion. Although the final point counting would be the same, the original motion explicitly penalize players not participated in the Canadian Closed which I do not agree with. To me, it is not just a change of wording, but it is a change of the objective of the selection rule.

    I also prefer not to have another voting if possible.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    125

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Victor Plotkin View Post
    Michael,

    Our handbook was not updated a very long period of time. The 20 games requirement was accepted by governors about 2 years ago. The next (2018) campaign will the first one with this 20 games requirement.

    About the Selection Committee. My main goal for all 6 motions was ELIMINATING of this committee. I prefer motion 1 to pass and all other motions to fail then the opposite scenario (motion 1 fails, all other pass). According to motion 1, the team will have 5 players (the champion + 4 players by rating). There will be no space for any nominee of any committee.
    Thanks for the clarification on the 20 games.

    So your motions are intended to:
    a) eliminate Handbook section 205,
    b) keep Handbook section 206.a, and
    c) replace Handbook section 206.b

    I am fine with all of the above, but worry that we may not be able to execute your motions as you intended. Eliminate Handbook section 205 is not mentioned in your motions at all, although it is your intent, I do not think we can execute "intent". Your motion "Motion #1. Selection of payers." corresponds to the Handbook section "906. Selection of the players", if passed, we may be forced to replace the whole Handbook section 206, including 206.a, which I do not think is your intent. Like you said, we will need the President to clarify on the situation. Vlad?

  6. #26

    Default

    Do we know how the courts might view the age discrimination clause?

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken Craft View Post
    Do we know how the courts might view the age discrimination clause?
    I don't see any discrimination here. My proposal gives a minor preference to younger players. The initial intention of the SC (selection committee) was to give priority to players "who can improve their game in the future". Definitely, younger players could do it (improve) easily.

    I want to eliminate the SC for many reasons. However, the initial goal of the SC is good. Giving a priority to juniors is very important for chess in Canada in general. I don't believe, this is a realistic scenario, that somebody lost his spot to junior because of bonus points and went to the court for justice.

    Actually, this system works well in some other sports and in some other countries. For example, the winner of World Junior gets a spot for the World Cup (interzonal in the past). FIDE doesn't give the same privilege to the winner of the World Senior, for example.

  8. #28

    Default

    I guess we will find out when the first individual losing their place because of points awarded under that clause. Preference and discrimination are essentially synonyms.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    125

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Lo View Post
    Thanks for the clarification on the 20 games.

    So your motions are intended to:
    a) eliminate Handbook section 205,
    b) keep Handbook section 206.a, and
    c) replace Handbook section 206.b

    I am fine with all of the above, but worry that we may not be able to execute your motions as you intended. Eliminate Handbook section 205 is not mentioned in your motions at all, although it is your intent, I do not think we can execute "intent". Your motion "Motion #1. Selection of payers." corresponds to the Handbook section "906. Selection of the players", if passed, we may be forced to replace the whole Handbook section 206, including 206.a, which I do not think is your intent. Like you said, we will need the President to clarify on the situation. Vlad?
    Voting is ending today. I still have the above concerns. Vlad?

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    North Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    1,709

    Default

    On a procedural basis no the mover of the motion does NOT have the right to reword motions once the start of voting has begun - all voting members have the right to know EXACTLY what they are voting for and if there are found to be overwhelming technical reasons why the vote should not proceed the president can make a ruling. However the time for this is BEFORE the start of voting. The problem with changes is that it's often a matter of opinion what is a matter of a change of substance and "minor corrections" and as such once the motion is called voting goes to a conclusion. It would be unjust for a member's yes or no vote to be taken as a yes or no for a reworded motion which they might not disagree with.

    Once a motion is passed members can move to "reconsider" (which would cancel the original motion) or make a whole new motion with the desired changed wording.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •