Logos, Banner by KaitlinB and Tom45.

Steering Committee members:
      Permanent Members:  chesskix, DaveTheRook (chair), rgadoury, SandiaCaveMan
      General Members:  A-Ru, bmw2002, BosqueVerde, Gomer, Kingofknights, nursey.

Standing Subcommittee (Rules):
      bmw2002, BosqueVerde, chesskix, rgadoury (chair), SandiaCaveMan

The role and purpose of the Steering Committee is to manage the affairs of the league, to set its direction and expansion, see to its advertisement and management, writing the Constitution, Statutes and Handbooks, and reviewing the rulings of the previous Oversight Committee. This is the ultimate governing body of Team 45 45 League with all rights and responsibilities. (Article III of the League Constitution)

League Members may stay informed of potential rules changes by watching this page. Prior to voting results being displayed here, members may make their comments known by notifying any Steering Committee member, who may choose to forward your comments to the Steering Committee. The Committee members will not disclose any details of the Committee discussions.

Item 1. T31 tournament parameters

Time Control: 45 45
Sections: 5 (U2200, U2000, U1800, U1600, U1300)
Rounds: 6 - (possibly 7) followed by Playoffs

Team entries accepted: May 30 to June 13, 2006
Team Entry Deadline: June 13, 2006
Ratings "fixed" starting May 10, 2006.

Round 1 Posted: 22:00 June 20, 2006
Three rounds of playoffs will end August 29, 2006.
Tiebreak rules start with board 1 this tournament.

Approved 10-0; 17 May 2006

Item 2.   A proposal by the Rules Subcommittee that minor editorial or clarifying text changes to the Statutes approved by Rules Subcommittee be posted as an agenda item and be accepted by default in one week if there is no objection by any SC member. Text of the motion is:

“A motion that league site editors can edit statutes to clarify or correct verbiage as needed. Obviously, we don’t want statute intent to change so these text changes would be posted on the current SC agenda page. If any SC member wants this item to go to vote it will become an agenda item, if not, it is final after one week.”

(In the example below, red text would be removed from the statute. Bold text would be added)

What brought this about was a computer cheat. Section 17.A.iii covers cheating, but the specific reference to paired, but not yet played, games in regulation play was not addressed. Rules proposed changing the wording of the second sentence, to be consistent with the remainder of the paragraph and consistent with past practice.

Section 17.A.iii reads: A player is issued a Double Red Card and lifetime ban for known cheating.  All scores received by the cheating player for the tournament are set to zero and forfeit wins granted all their opponents.  All games and/or pairings of the cheating player in the tournament shall be forfeited. Prior to the start of playoffs, team standings will be adjusted for the change in results, with appropriate changes made to playoff teams and seeding. Once each playoff pairing deadline has passed, no substitutions of teams or their seedings will be made. The player's game in the "current" or prior playoff round will be forfeited as well.

Under this proposal, a change like the one in the above example would not go to full SC agenda discussion unless a SC member raises a concern about it. The SC would be notified that “Rules Topic 1 is proposed as a clarifying text. Something like: ”Rules has approved a minor text revision to x. y. z, reading as follows: ‘ ….’ The new wording will be posted to the web one week hence.”

Approved 10-0; 2 June 2006

Item 3.  A proposal by the Rules Subcommittee, addition to Statutes, Section 10.

T-30 adjudication reversals concerning Forfeit/Set-Game criteria for unplayed games revealed an important statute interpretation disparity.

Explanation: The OC found ambiguity in the statutes concerning Set-Games for this situation: “It is the opinion of the Oversight Committee that the Statute 17.A.i does not adequately cover the circumstances in which a player gives reasonable warning that they will not be able to play the game as arranged”. (So called Advance Notification)

Recommended Solution: Rules Subcommittee recommends that a new paragraph be added to Section 10 incorporating a more complete statement regarding rescheduling, advance notification of an absence, how “Conceded games” are to be handled, the definition of a game not played, and the penalties (Reliability Rating point reduction) to be applied.

Section 10. G. (new). Rescheduling Agreed Games, Advance Notice, and Game Not Played

1. i. Reschedule: A game time that has been agreed upon by both players is binding on both players and can only be changed (rescheduled) to another time if both players agree. The agreement to reschedule, if any, must be made (as evidenced in the Game Forum) prior to the end of the 30-minute grace period and is subject to all applicable scheduling and deadline rules. Should there be no reschedule and the game not be played, a Reliability Rating Point must be deducted from the player who was unable to honor the scheduled game time.
2. ii. Advance Notice and Conceding a game: Should a player post before game time that he/she is unable to be present at the agreed time, and concede the game to the opponent; the opponent will receive the game point and need not be present at the agreed time. Conceding a game before it starts constitutes a forfeit (automatic Reliability Rating point reduction).
3. iii. Game Not Played: Any game that is not ruled set game draw, and is not played, for whatever reason, is a forfeit with an automatic reduction in Reliability Rating. The forfeit is applied to the player who has greater or full blame, and/or to both players with full blame (double forfeit).

Approved 7-3; 6 June 2006

Item 4.  A suggested change to Statutes, Section 17, separating Yellow cards from Reliability Rating reductions.

Problem: During the course of T30, several players felt they were being unfairly stigmatized by receiving yellow cards for forfeited games that were beyond their control, equating forfeits with misbehavior. This was even part of the basis for the OC overturning the yellow cards when advance notice had been given.

Solution: Separate reliability rating point reductions from behaviour issues. Revisions to Section 17. A, B, E. accomplish this. (The document below contains new material in bold. Deleted texts are not shown. A few texts were moved around)

Section 17 -  Reliability Ratings and Punitive Actions

1. Penalties are imposed for forfeited games, general misconduct, and cheating in any form. These penalties take the forms of reductions in a player’s reliability rating (RR) for each forfeited game, and the issuance of Yellow Cards and Red Cards for misconduct. .
   1. Reliability Ratings. A player receives a one-point reliability rating (RR) reduction for each forfeited game.
      1. Multiple RR reductions can result in a suspension from league play. One RR Point is deducted for each forfeit; at "-2" RR a player is suspended from the remainder of the present tourney and all of the next.
      2. The suspension upon reaching a RR of –2 shall take effect immediately following any round in which the offending player has already been declared as a player. The player may arrange and play such games.
      3. Each RR point reduction is "forgiven" when the player completes the next tourney without incident (two RR points are then added) or does not compete in the tourney (one RR point added).
      4. Captains have a special responsibility to the league as well as to their teams. If a Team Captain admits blame for an unplayed game that results in a forfeit by posting that admission in the game forum, then the captain will receive the RR point reduction that the player would otherwise have received.
   2. Violations of Section 3(B), 3(D), and the most serious of violations of Section 11(B) shall warrant a Yellow Card. No further action is taken when the violating player immediately ceases their conduct upon receipt of the card.
   3. The most serious violations of Section 3(B) or 3(D) shall warrant a Red Card.  Misconduct in the extreme may be punished by a Double Red Card.
   4. A player is issued a Double Red Card and lifetime ban for known cheating. All scores received by the cheating player for the tournament are set to zero and forfeit wins granted all their opponents. Prior to the start of playoffs, team standings will be adjusted for the change in results, with appropriate changes made to playoff teams and seeding. Once each playoff pairing deadline has passed, no substitutions of teams, or banned players on the team, or the seedings of the teams will be made. The player's game in the "current" or prior playoff round will be forfeited as well.
2. A Yellow Card is a Formal Warning of an infraction of the rules of the league. After the issuance of the Yellow Card, the matter is considered closed (except for any appeals that may be filed). An Appeal against a Yellow Card must be filed within 48 hours of the card being issued. No RR point reductions are applied to Yellow Cards. Yellow cards are “forgiven” six (6) months after issuance, if no additional cards have been received. A second yellow card in six months shall earn a Red Card.
3. "Red Cards
   1. A Red Card has the effect of suspending a player from all League activities from time of issuance through the next complete tourney. SC 20-21.
   2. The penalty imposed for a Red Card shall take effect immediately following any round in which the offending player has already been declared as a player even if the game for the round has not yet been arranged or played. An Appeal against a Red Card must be lodged within 48 hours of the card being issued and if the offending player is then selected for a subsequent round prior to the Appeal being heard and a game takes place it shall be declared a forfeit win for the opponent in the event that the Appeal is dismissed. SC23-24
4. If a player receives a second Red Card within one year of the issuance of the first Red Card, that player is suspended from league play for one year (4 complete tourneys) following the issuance of the second card. A player who receives a third Red Card is banned forever. A player who receives a Double Red Card for cheating or gross misbehavior is immediately banned forever. SC 27-28
5. Appeals: The issuance of any Card except for cheating is subject to appeal. The appeal is filed with the current Oversight Committee during the tournament, or with the Steering Committee between tournaments. Appeals of RR reductions are limited to disputes arising from whether or not a game was scheduled, and determinations that one player had “greater blame” in a game that was not played.  (Sect. 10.G.iii).
6. Penalties for Kibitzes (SC26-27)
   1. Non-league observers: Kibs by a non-league observer shall have no remedy to any team, since the players CAN turn off kibs and set quietplay if they so choose. If the occasion warrants, such observers may be banned from future league participation.
   2. League Players
      1. Kibs of a general comment are presumed inadvertent and receive a warning from an official, whispered in the game, or message or mail after the fact. No further action or any card.
      2. A second kib of any kind in a game, or a second kib suggesting a move or line of moves in a tournament, yellow card to the offender. No change to any game outcome.
      3. Persistent kibs by the same player, red card and immediate suspension from the tourney, regardless of status of any games by the offender in the round.
         

Approved 9-0, with 1 abstention; 8 June 2006

Item 5.  Proposed Revisions to the League Constitution, Article IV
Submitted by the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Oversight Committee. 

The initial part of this proposal is targeted at changing the definition if you will, of the Oversight Committee, as is reflected in our League Constitution. The composers of the proposal feel that these suggested changes are improvements to our Constitution, and that if implemented will impact the League in a positive manner going forward.

It would be appreciated if the following proposals could be submitted to the Steering Committee to amend the Constitution of the Oversight Committee. They are offered as improvements and to remove any points of possible dispute.

PROPOSAL 1. Delete the last sentence of the first paragraph as the Rules Sub-Committee are in permanent session and it is not thought to be the purpose of an Appeals Committee to create rules anyway.

PROPOSAL 2.  Delete the second paragraph and replace it with “The Oversight Committee shall be seated for the duration of the event and shall be composed of a Chair, a Deputy Chair and seven other members who shall be volunteers from Team Captains and other experienced active league members. The Chief TD shall appoint the Chair and the Deputy Chair.

PROPOSAL 3. Delete the first sentence of the third paragraph.

PROPOSAL 4.  Delete the third sentence of the third paragraph.

PROPOSAL 5. Rewrite the fourth paragraph to correct minor grammatical errors. “The Oversight Committee shall establish its own rules and is not subject to any Statutes or Administrative Rules whilst acting on Oversight Committee affairs.

PROPOSAL 6. If Proposal 1 is approved arrange with the Steering Committee for the item 9, IV – OC shall ask Rules (Subcommittee of the SC) to make Interim Rule recommendations to be deleted. This was approved in Steering Committee SC29-SC30.

The overall Article IV of the Constitution would then read as follows:

Article IV – Oversight Committee

The purpose of the Oversight Committee is to oversee the management of the specific Team 45 45 League Tournament for which it is seated, to provide adjudication of any disputes occurring during said Tournament, and to serve as an Appellate Board in any decision made by the Tournament Director.

The Oversight Committee shall be seated for the duration of the event and shall be composed of a Chair, a Deputy Chair and seven other members who shall be volunteers from Team Captains and other experienced active league members. The Chief TD shall appoint the Chair and the Deputy Chair.

At the conclusion of the Tournament for which it is seated, after all results are in, and all adjudications are completed, the Oversight Committee shall be dissolved until the next Tournament.

The Oversight Committee shall establish its own rules and not be subject to any Statutes or Administrative Rules whilst acting on its affairs.

The Steering Committee approved the following revision of this proposal:

Article IV - Oversight Committee

The purpose of the Oversight Committee is to provide adjudication of any disputes occurring during the specific Team 45 45 League Tournament for which it is seated and to serve as an Appellate Board in any decision made by the Tournament Director. Decisions are made in accordance with the Bylaws. Where no Bylaw exists, decisions are made in a manner consistent with the spirit and intent of the Bylaws. The Oversight Committee may recommend Bylaw changes or additions to the Steering Committee.

The Oversight Committee shall be seated for the duration of the event and shall be composed of a Chair, a Deputy Chair and seven other members who shall be volunteers from Team Captains and other experienced active league members. The Chief TD shall appoint the Chair and the Deputy Chair.

At the conclusion of the Tournament for which it is seated, after all results are in, and all adjudications are completed, the Oversight Committee shall be dissolved until the next Tournament.

The Oversight Committee shall establish its own administrative procedures for use while acting on its affairs.

Additionally, references to Interim Rules in Article IIV of the Constitution would be deleted, as is shown below in [brackets]:

Article VII - Precedence and Amendments

This Constitution, the Statutes, [Interim Rules,] Administrative Rules, Handbooks of Play, FAQ's, and any other document regulating the governance of Team 45 45 League shall be considered in total the By-Laws. If there exists inconsistencies or contradictions within the By-Laws, the following order of authority shall be used, from the highest authority to the lowest authority: The Constitution, the Statutes [and/or Interim Rules], Administrative Rules, the Handbooks of Play, Statements of Opinion by the Tournament Director, any other document regulating the governance of Team 45 45 League, and Tosses of the Coin.

The Constitution shall only be amended or changed by the agreement of at least seventy-five (75) percent of the permanent members of the Steering Committee and a majority of the entire Steering Committee. ¶ SC25-26 The Statutes shall only be amended or changed by a majority of the Steering Committee. [Interim Rules shall be established, amended or changed by the rules of the Oversight Committee.] Administrative Rules shall be amended or changed by the Tournament Director. The Handbooks of Play shall be amended or changed by the person designated by the Steering Committee to write them. Statements of Opinion by the Tournament Director shall be superseded by more current Statements of Opinion by the Tournament Director.

Approved 9-1; 14 June 2006

Item 6.  Proposal to facilitate sharing of the website costs. 
Submitted by the Chief TD.

In order to insure the future existence and success of Team 45 45 League, it is my belief that we need funds to subsidize and offset the costs of operation. These costs may include our domain fees, storage needs, software, and hardware such as a server may be covered as well. Currently and recently, these costs and needs have been incurred by SandiaCaveMan and rgadoury.

It is my suggestion that we approve a Pay-pal button at the League website for voluntary contributions. We would have a League Treasurer reporting to the Chief TD. The Steering Committee would have to approve any spending. The SC would direct the Chief TD to instruct the Treasurer to disburse the approved spending.

Example: Russ says that the bill for $256.50 is due to the ISP. The spending request is submitted to the SC, the SC approves the expenditure and the funds are allocated and disbursed to cover the bill. Example #2: Chuck says we need a server which will cost $500.00 and submits a request to the SC. The SC approves the expenditure, and the funds are allocated and disbursed. The Steering Committee would be the decision maker for all monetary transactions.

As our costs keep rising, and our needs increase due to our growth, etc. we need to insure the continued existence and success of the League.

Item 7.  Proposed Revision for Clarification - Rules for posting less than four boards.
Submitted by Rules Subcommittee, 4 July 2006.

A captain has raised a question about how missing boards are assigned, and could not find the solution in the Captains Handbook. It is buried in the statutes.

We have Section 15.B.i “ "Set Game" can be used to award one player a game point and the other none. This can be used in situations such as when the opposing team has posted fewer than four boards or to a withdrawing player if a pairing is outstanding at that time.” Our current programming automatically assigns the players to boards 1 2 3, as it should, and a set game loss (no RR reduction) is charged at board 4.

Rules wishes to add a clarifying text to Section 9.B. as well.

ii. Should a team submit fewer than four boards, the available players must be placed in descending rating order starting at board 1.

Under Item 2 of SC 30-31: As this is not a change to the rules, this clarifying text will be added to the statutes in one week unless a SC member wishes to have further discussion.

7 July 2006 - In response to a leaguer concern and suggestion, an SC member  has asked for discussion. Hence, Item 7 will not be acted upon pending further discussion by Rules.

8 July 2006 - Rules Subcommittee has discussed the matter, and has voted 5-0 in favor of proceeding with the one-week count down for adding the above clarifying text, unless any SC member asks for full SC debate.

Item 8.  Proposed Revision for Clarification - Remove outdated Statute 15.A.vi
Submitted by the CD and aCD, 5 July 2006.

Section 15.A.vi reads: “The offending player may submit to the Tournament Director an excuse for the occurrence that constituted a partially establish blame or clearly established blame. If the excuse is deemed valid by the Tournament Director, then the blame shall not be established. The Tournament Director shall create Administrative Rules to define what constitutes a valid excuse and the proof required for that excuse.”

This entire paragraph is out of date, as it was the basis for appealing the REASONS for the partial or full blame, to support a set game ruling. We have changed those procedures, and have removed the excuse section of the Administrative Rules.

Under our editorial revision policy, unless a SC member wishes to bring it up for further debate, this paragraph will be removed from the Statutes in one week.

Item 9.  Proposed Revision for Clarification. Update Statute 14.C
Submitted by the CD and aCD, 20 July 2006

Statute 14 (Adjournment Procedures) Paragraph C now reads: “An adjourned game shall be counted as a draw until the game is completed.”

This paragraph is out of date in most cases. When the standings pages were done by hand, uncompleted games were shown as draws until played. This is no longer the case, since the Standings Page is automated, and shows the round-by-round results. Now, an uncompleted game is shown as uncompleted – no points to anyone until they are earned. However, the rule is still needed to count uncompleted games when determining seed order for a position round. Therefore, the paragraph should be amended to state that.

Proposed Clarifying Revision: 14.C “An adjourned game shall be counted as a draw for the purpose of determining seed order for a position round.”

Under our editorial revision policy, unless a SC member wishes to bring it up for further debate, this change will be incorporated into the Statutes in one week.

Item 10.  Guidelines for TD enforcement of statute 10.D
Submitted by the Rules Subcommittee of the Steering Committee, 31 July 2006

The Rule: Section 10.D.i states that when a player misses the first contact deadline, he loses the right to offer new times.

The problem: What happens when an offending player, who misses the first deadline, but responds before the second deadline, offers a new time to the “offended” player? Can the offended player accept that new time, or must he be required to insist on accepting only the original offer?

The attempted solution: Rules felt that the offended player should not be penalized for accepting something he might even be more comfortable with, and tried to modify 10.D.i and ii to give the offended player that option, but we soon got bogged down with concerns about appearing to permit more negotiations when the intent of the statute is quite clear.

The outcome: Rules recommends that 10.D be left unchanged, but to not forbid the offended player from accepting a “technically incorrect” offer. Instead, the following two actions should be taken by the TD:

1. – If the offending misses the first contact deadline, the TD should post nothing more than the expectation that the offender must accept an offered time. (e.g. a simple quote of 10.D.i.b)
2. – If the offending suggests a new time, the offended player is to be given a cautionary statement by the TD. The dTD or secTD statement:  "<handle 1>, this 'proposed time' is outside the range of times you had offered and that <handle 2> was required by statute to accept, having missed the first deadline. You are under no obligation to accept this time. However, should you accept it, this Agreed Time will be binding on both players.”

 We ask that the Steering Committee approve this resolution to a difficult situation, where an offended player is voluntarily giving up one of his rights.

Approved 8- 0, with 1 abstention; 13 August 2006

Item 11.  Proposed Restrictions to Posting Agreed Game Time to the Automation
Submitted by the Oversight Committee, 13 August 2006

Some members of the Oversight Committee have expressed a view that the Steering Committee consider a suggestion that there be a general tightening up of the regulation as it relates to “Post the game time”.

A simple clause would be sufficient on the lines of something like “the Post game time should be inserted by the same person who makes the final game acceptance statement”.

Not Approved 0-6, with 3 abstentions; 20 August 2006

Previous SC Agendas: