Team 45 45 League
Serious Chess and Team Spirit on the ICC
T45-46 STEERING COMMITTEE AGENDA
Steering Committee members:
Permanent Members: DaveTheRook (chair), BosqueVerde, chesskix, rgadoury
General Members: bmw2002, fledermaus, Invicta-knight, Kingofknights, RedAttack
Standing Subcommittee (Rules):
rgadoury (chair), BosqueVerde, chesskix, Invicta-Knight
Standing Subcommittee (Technology):
bmw2002 (chair), BosqueVerde, chesskix, DaveTheRook, fledermaus, rgadoury
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 T46 Tournament Parameters - Approved
Item 2 RR -1 for players returning from forfeit suspension - Approved
Item 3 Clarification of consequences for partial compliance with contact requirements, Editorial Revision
Item 1. T46 tournament parameters
Item 1. T46 tournament parameters
Time Control: 45 45
Sections: 6 (U1200, U1400, U1600, U1800, U2000, U2200)
Rounds: 6 - (possibly 7) followed by Playoffs
Team entries accepted: July 13-27, 2010
Team Entry Deadline: July 27, 2010
Ratings "fixed" Date: July 6, 2010
(Some ratings may be adjusted by the Entry Clerk)
Round 1 Posted: 22:00 August 3, 2010.
Three rounds of playoffs will end October 12, 2010
Count of team RR reductions (if any) precedes board removal tiebreak.
Tiebreak board removal rules start with board 4 this tournament.
Item 2. Change RR for players returning from forfeit suspension to start at -1 instead of 0. - 2.a Approved ; 2.b NOT Approved
Submitted by SC member
Item 2 is in two parts. 2a is change RR to -1 for returning players. 2b is a suggested change to the penalties for excessive forfeits.
Item 2.a. - It was understood at the time Reliability Ratings were modified (April 2008) that players returning from a forfeit suspension (-2) would return at -1 instead of zero, but Section 3.A.vi (a) never got changed. The entry clerk has been applying that policy ever since. The Chief TD has written Administrative Rule 11 to correct the omission. The main argument for returning at -1 RR is that players already forfeited at least two games to get suspended, and should be on “probation” once they return. Proposed: Revise 3.A.vi (a)
Current 3.A.vi: New members, and those returning from a suspension, begin with a RR of zero (0).
Proposed Revision 3.A.vi:. New members start with a RR of zero (0). Players returning from a forfeit suspension start with an RR of -1.
Item 2.b. - A suggestion has made that perhaps a two-tourney suspension for the forfeits is too severe if the player is starting at -1. It has been proposed that we change back to a one-tourney suspension for a first offense, and a two-tourney suspension for a second suspension within four tourneys of the first.
Revise 17.A.i.(a) to read: 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 the entire next one. (SC 39-40)
Revise 17.A.i (c) to read: A player who receives another forfeit suspension within four tourneys after being reinstated from the previous suspension shall be suspended from league play for two complete tourneys.
Vote, July 9, 2010:
Part 2.a: APPROVED - 9 yes, 0 no
Part 2.b: NOT Approved - 2 yes, 5 no, 2 abstain
Item 3. Partial compliance with contact deadline.
Submitted by Rules Subcommittee, July 10th, 2010.
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.
There is confusion, even among some TDs, about how to handle fewer than three offers. Rules Subcommittee has made some text additions to 10.C, 10.D, and 15.A. and propose a table to be added to the TD menu to clarify the existing rule. Partial compliance with the first contact deadline results in partial blame only; as such, negotiations are to continue.
Blue are the additions.
10.C (portions of)
Contact Procedures - Both players shall make contact with his/her opponent via Game Forum posts as soon as possible prior to the deadlines in order to negotiate a time to play, either meeting the Initial Contact Requirements, or accepting an offer made by his opponent. (see Section 15 for consequences for not fulfilling these requirements)
- Initial Contact Requirements: Players shall specify three or more distinct times to play on at least two different days within the one-week playing period of the round.
- A range of times, or several distinct times within a three-hour period, counts as one offer.
- A range of times equal to or greater than 3 hours is counted as two offers (e.g. 7:00 - 10:00). ¶ SC 36-37
- If a range is offered (e.g. Saturday 07:00 – 15:00 or “How about Tuesday”), the other player could accept any time within those ranges or on that day (Tuesday 00:00 to 23:45), and be binding on both players. The accepted time, however, must be exact, such as 13:30 Saturday. ¶ SC 33-34.
- Once a player has met the initial contact requirements (10.C.i), he is not obligated to make any other offers until the opponent posts offers. Subsequent posts may contain fewer than three offers. ¶ SC 38-39
- Offers still outstanding by either player may be removed or amended until accepted. ¶ SC 33-34.
- The timeliness and workability of each successive message shall be evaluated by the dTD if a dispute arises. ¶ SC 33-34.
- The back and forth offers should be done within 24 hours of each other, preferably even more quickly.
- Once both players have made the required initial offers, the Thursday and Friday deadlines (described next, in 10.D) are no longer applicable. In this case, negotiations can extend to as late as the Game Completion Deadline. ¶ SC 33-34.
- A reasonable amount of time must be allowed between the acceptance of an offer and the accepted time, in order for the second person to react. 24 hours is considered reasonable. To be binding on both players, an offer accepted less than 24 hours before game time must be confirmed by the offerer. (This means, if I make an offer and you accept it less than 24 hours before the game time, I must confirm your acceptance, or I cannot be held to my initial offer). SC23-24.
10.D (portions of)
Deadlines for scheduling. The following two deadlines, inimum Offer Deadline and Offer-or-Forfeit Deadline, carry consequences (See Section 15)for players who fail to meet them.
- Minimum Offers Deadline = Thursday, 22:00 ICC server time By this deadline both players are expected to have offered at least three times to play, or have made counter offers, or have accepted a playing time. ¶ SC 38-39
- If Player A posts three offers and Player B makes no offers, B has just 24 more hours to select one of the remaining offers. B cannot make offers of his own. ¶ SC 38-39
- If Player A made fewer than three offers, Player B has 24 more hours to respond, but may make offers of his own. If he makes offers, the second deadline is no longer in effect and negotiations may continue until 22:00 Tuesday. ¶ SC 38-39
- If both players have at least partially (one or two offers) fulfilled the contact requirements of 10.C.i. prior to the Minimum Offers Deadline, negotiations shall continue until 22:00 Tuesday.
- Offer-or-Forfeit (No Contact) Deadline = Friday, 22:00 ICC server time If a player has neither posted offers of play times, nor accepted an offered time by this deadline, he forfeits the game. The forfeited game becomes official at the deadline. ¶ SC 38-39
15.A (portions of)
- A game can be designated as a forfeit when the game is not played, and blame for this can be clearly established on the one of the players. The "offending" player is that player who bears a higher level of blame, the "offended" player is the player who is either blameless in the matter or has a lower level of blame.
- Blame can be clearly established when:
- The offending player was not present to play during the 30-minute grace period following the Agreed Game Time. ¶ SC 27-28
- The offended player sends contact messages to the offending player conforming to the requirements of Section 10 and receives no reply after 72 hours of the Pairing Posting Deadline. ¶ SC 27-28.
- The offending player fails to agree to a playing time offered by the offended player when the offending player is required to do so. ¶ SC 11-12.
- The offending player refuses to play their designated opponent, regardless of the reason.
- Two occurrences of partially established blame by one player in regards to one game shall constitute clearly established blame. Blame can be partially established when:
- A player fails to meet the 48 hour contact deadline established in Section 10(D), but makes contact within the next 24 hours agreeing to one of the three times the offended player has set in their original message. ¶ SC 27-28
- A player only partially fulfills the contact requirements of 10(C.i) prior to the 48-hour deadline. ¶ SC33-34
- During the continuing communications, the offending player fails to reply in a timely manner as determined by the Tournament Director. ¶ SC 27-28
- A player makes offers during the first week, but fails to make three distinct offers as specified in 10(C).
- The offending player logs off before the end of the Grace Period. ¶ SC 27-28
- Each single action or forum post may constitute at most one incident of partial blame, even if more than one statute has been violated. ¶ SC 35-36
- In cases of partially established blame, both players are required to continue negotiating until Tuesday 22:00; adjudications will not take place until then. In cases of clearly established blame, the game shall be ruled a forfeit. ¶ SC45-46
- A double forfeit may be issued if blame can be clearly established for both players.
Previous SC Agendas: