Motions that have been passed but that are not in the CFC Handbook

[Pierre Dénommée]

I am starting a new thread to separate this subject from the NFP transition project.


CFC Code of Ethics Voted in this GL http://chess.ca/sites/default/files/06-07gl4.pdf The motion itself is in GL2 of the same year.

CFC Tournament Rules, voted here http://www.chess.ca/sites/default/files/07-08gl4.pdf

Translated here http://chess.ca/sites/default/files/07-08gl6.pdf

The motion itself, with both passed and defeated section is there chess.ca/sites/default/files/07-08gl6.pdf

The French version is the most accurate because it has been translated after the final vote and contains only approved content. I likely have a correct English version with the renumbering caused by the removal of the defeated sections. I do not believe that this is in the GL.

Those Tournament Rules were voted to replace obsolete Tournament Rules that were based on the 1977 FIDE Laws of Chess. They are the best Tournament Rules that we could agree upon at the time. A little housekeeping could be done, for example Article 4.3 in the French version (measures to prevent short draws) has been adopted by FIDE and should be removed.

[Vladimir Drkulec]

No wonder the handbook is such a mess. For the Code of Ethics, Five people voted yes. Three people voted no. Two abstained. Nobody noticed long enough to put it in the handbook. It really makes me feel better about the relatively high response to some of our current votes. Obviously this rule was never implemented.

[Pierre Dénommée]

Implemented or not, any member of the CFC could at any moment file an ethical complaint.

This was an excellent motion, a text full of chess content that describe the expected behaviour of CFC members. This is far better then a generic members' discipline text that could easily apply to a golf club or a hockey team.

It should be noted that the majority a motion had or the number of voters is no excuse for the failure to implement a motion that has been voted.

[Garland Best]

For those who want to read the original GL wih the ethics text, it can be found here: http://www.chess.ca/sites/default/files/06-07gl2.pdf

[Vladimir Drkulec]

I think the executive and governors were probably wondering if the CFC would be around in six months and probably weren't thinking beyond the next day.

[Pierre Dénommée]

I think the executive and governors were probably wondering if the CFC would be around in six months and probably weren't thinking beyond the next day.

At least one Governor was not that pessimistic .

It was a very serious motion dealing with a very serious subject. During a Canadian Open in Montreal, one player did pay his opponent to loose a game. The guilty player could win a class price with a victory but the opponent could no longer win any prize. The players were caught by the Chief Arbiter and the result of this game has been changed to 0-0.

Just before a CFC rated Quebec Open, a player did registered for a small round robin. The player then defaulted 5 rounds which, according to the FQE rules of this time, were all rated losses. Those intentional losses would have enable the player to play in a lower section. The player was denied access to this lower section.

During another CFC rated Quebec Open, a foreign player made an attempt to register as an unrated player. The organiser notify the arbiters that this unrated player has defeated Alexandre LeSiège in a blitz game. The player was forced to play in the Open section where he achieved a score of 4.5/9 .

This demonstrates that the problems covered by the Code of Ethics are in no way academic. If nobody knows that the Code exists, nobody will complain, but the problems that the Code address are very real.