AGM

[Javaness2]

In case anyone is interested in what's going on, the motions submitted to the Annual General Meeting are here
http://www.eurogofed.org/egf/index.htm#agm2013

[Boidhre]

The Romanian proposals would effectively make turning up for votes optional for the small countries. Though they do have a point that the current system is unfair to larger countries and contributors.

[Javaness2]

A lot of the small countries don't turn up at the moment anyway, perhaps since it is quite expensive to go to congress just for an AGM. Maybe a case for postal voting to be allowed.

[Boidhre]

True, the smaller countries paying for a junket out of members' dues isn't really an option. Off-topic there's quite a lot of noise being generated about such in the Irish Chess Union at the moment from what I've been hearing.

[Javaness2]

I don't think there is enough money floating around for the term junket to crop up when discussing the delegates for the EGF's AGM. Interestingly, the membership totals page was updated recently. I added in an extra column (Total Current List)

Code: Select all

Country   Total 6 Years   Total Current List   Paid Membership
Germany    2623   1160   2187
France    2461   1016   1372
Russia    1926   796   500
Romania    1375   428   200
Turkey    751   358   200
UK    810   332   467
N.lands  599   306   650
Poland    606   233   200
Ukraine    518   219   200
Italy    552   210   200
Spain    532   209   200
Czech    517   196   255
Finland    428   170   200
Hungary    275   123   200
Switz.    266   90   200
Sweden    298   89   250
Austria    207   87   200
Slovakia    137   84   200
Serbia    130   65   200
Croatia    126   63   50
Slovenia   85   61   200
Belgium    177   55   109
Lithuania   135   55   50
Israel    87   45   50
Ireland    85   39   50
Norway    86   36   200
Denmark    60   27   200
Latvia    16   15   50
L.bourg    13   15   50
Cyprus    45   14   50
Portugal    32   13   50
Bosnia    61   8   50
Belarus    22   8   50
Bulgaria    33   6   50
Azerbaijan    10   4   50
Kazhakstan    10   2   50
Armenia    5   1   50

[Javaness2]

For no particular reason, I thought I'd pretend to vote here Well okay, it's hot outside

France-1

We propose to suppress the sentence "no handicap in the top group"
in the definition of Class A tournaments.
In fact our feeling is that a game should be ranked only by taking
into account its characteristics (duration, handicap) and without
considering the other games even if they take part in the top group
games.

No permission was given to change the definition of Class A in the first place, so it is annoying that we have to propose a vote to change it back to what it ought to be. (FOR)

France-2

Actually the lower level of the EGF ranking database is 20 kyu.
This lower level is not coherent with the use of various European
GO federations, which rank the beginners as 30 kyu. Then we propose
to start the EGF ranking at 30 kyu, this is also important for youth
who can see their progress more accurately.

If the EGD are able to easily make such a change, there would only be a positive impact on the ratings from making the change. (FOR)

Germany

The EGF used to have a tradition to disallow those countries from voting at
the AGM, who did not paid their membership fee. Unfortunately, this
tradition has become somehow forgotten in the past years. If I remember
correctly, last year 14 EGF members did not fully pay their membership fee.
I am aware of one single country (there may be more), who were granted to
pay a reduced fee by the EGF board, but, according to the General Secretary,
the majority of the non-paying countries just did not pay even the minimum
membership fee of 200€. In other words, there were many EGF members
eligible to vote at the AGM although they did not pay their full fee.

While Germany are completely in favour of the 'developing country rule' to
allow the EGF board to reduce the membership fee for individual EGF members
with respect to their economic situation, we do not consider just-not-paying
as appropriate. This completely contradicts the spirit of the original
agreement.

Therefore, in order to enforce the collection of the membership fees as
agreed by the EGF, Germany propose to enforce the existing rules in the
following way.

1) By 31 January of each year, every EGF member -- also the ones who wish
to apply to pay a reduced fee -- have to report the number of their regular
members and their youth members. EGF members who fail to do so are treated
as having 1,000 regular members. (The General Secretary or treasurer of
the EGF may want to send out reminders in due time.)

2) Based on the reported number and the valid EGF membership fee (1€ per
regular member, 50c per youth member), each EGF member is assigned a debit.

3) If an EGF members wants to take advantage of the 'developing country
rule' they may apply for a reduction of their fee to the EGF board by end of
February in writing, explaining their reasons (email is sufficient). The
application as well as the written decision of the board will be provided to
all EGF members on request and at the AGM. If the request gets approved by
the EGF board, the EGF member's account is updated accordingly with the
agreed debit of the reduced fee.

4) If an EGF member applies for a reduction of the membership for three
consecutive years they need to present their case to the AGM before they can
get a further reduction in the fourth year.

5) EGF members who fail to pay their appropriate membership fee by 31 March
are debited with an appropriate penalty fee.

6) Only EGF members whose debits (including penalties) are cleared have the
right to vote at the AGM.

7) If an EGF member does not clear their account, the debit remains open
until it will be paid. Potentially it will stay up to the following years.

8) EGF members, who have not cleared their accounts once within three years'
time, will be expelled from the EGF.

Fees should be paid on time. The EGF imposes a late penalty on those who do not pay on time. If you don't pay, you shouldn't get a vote. [Incidentally, it is not clear who can vote at the EGF's AGM. It should be specified in the constitution if the executive and committees can vote or not.] I still find the minimum 200 euro fee to be too high. Already, many countries cannot afford to send somebody to Congress to vote, and it is exactly these countries whose wishes were ignored when they complained about the increase, which was made without consultation or notice. That aside (For).

Romania 1 -

Change the voting system in the EGMs .
Detailed description: Establish three possible ranks for each country: small, average and large. Small countries have a voting weight of 1, average countries a voting weight of 3 and large countries a voting weight of 5.
The rank of a country is influenced by two factors: number of players according to EGD and tax paid to EGF.
Large countries should have a min. of 1000 players in the EGD and pay annually 2000 euro to EGF.
Average countries should have a minimum of 250 players in EGD and pay annually 500 euro to EGF
Small countries have no limit of players and pay 200 euro to EGF.
Note. It is considered reasonable that a player contributes 2 euro by year to the welfare of EGF. National associations should separate this EGF tax from their own tax, as it is easy to convince players to pay in return for the service of having a rating in EGD. Also, proposed numbers are subject to change based on a more accurate study of the actual situation in Europe.

Right now, the cost of a rating is 800 euros. That's the fixed fee paid on behalf of the entire European Go Population to the EGD. So it is incorrect to say that you are asking for 2 euros for a member player to have a rating. If it were the case though, I'd think the EGF's finances would be healthier! Broadly I'd agree with this proposal, but it ought to be 1. formulated properly (probably better to stick to fees per rated player, + up to 1000 rated players = 1 vote, 1 additional vote for next 500 rated players up to a max of 5 votes. and 2. relies on changing the EGF finances - pay 2 euro per rated player. So [For] on the condition of further study

[Javaness2]

second batch

Romania 2 -

Modify the EGF constitution regarding the ability of the EGF executive to take important decisions only after EGM has agreed upon it.
Argumentation: Often in the past initiatives to change things and opportunities were lost because of this rule. We have elected an executive and we should let it work freely. In the case of an extremely important thing, voting on internet is a good option. This is probably done already but it still needs to be officially acknowledged. Also, this rule often served as an argument to reject proposals in the past just because it was more comfortable not to deal with them and half a year or more of waiting is usually enough to dilute the will of most people. EGF needs to be very flexible and ready to change now, if needed.

I think this would allow the EGF to become a useful organisation, so [For]

Romania 3 -

Proposal no.3 Make a set of rules regarding the European Go Congress
Detailed description:
Establish a commission inside EGF with sole responsibility to handle matters regarding EGC.
The commission’s immediate responsibility is to put together a congress organizer’s handbook with all info learned in the past.
Each year send an EGF observer to the EGC. It should be fully paid from EGF+EGC funds. This person should be trustworthy, impartial in decisions. The main role would be to supervise the congress and make sure things happen in line with EGF expectations. Also, give a helping hand in decision making of the congress organizers, as well as advice.
The EGC is the biggest EGF asset, as well as responsibility. Thus give the congress only to organizers who engage responsibly.
Expect the organizers to come up with local sponsorship; this event is the ideal opportunity to find local sponsors.
Separate the funds that an EGC receives into two streams: organizers earned money (local sponsors, partnerships, etc.) and EGF money (player taxes, official sponsors brought by EGF, etc.) . Organizers have full control of funds received through their own efforts. EGF has clear limitations on how EGF money is to be spent. The idea is that is normal that organizers make a profit, EGF makes a profit, but it should never be at the expense of participating players. To avoid misunderstanding of the last sentence: if participant players go home happy and with a fond memory of the congress, then EGF objective is accomplished.
As such, the expectations of EGF should be that organizers manage to cover most of the playing halls rental fees by local sponsorship. This allows a large part of the tax money to go back to players from all categories in form of money prizes and also pay the organization team.
There should also be a firm demand of a minimum standard of quality regarding chosen congress site.
If there are sponsors brought in by EGF the organizers should commit to a sponsor protocol that should insure sponsor happiness and continuity in sponsorship. This is very important and should be strictly respected.
In order to preserve European identity give support from EGC funds to top players participating in EC ( say top ten ) and also give priority as employed teachers to European professionals.
The top prizes should be respectably large, as this is the measure of the event in the eyes of the rest of the world and it has direct impact on reputation and sponsorship possibilities in the future.
Use the most successful children teachers from Europe in the EGC with special lessons for children participants and experience exchanges between teachers.
Make the EC a purely European one, the argument that this will discourage former Insei from Asia to come and play with us has failed; see how participation of strong Asian players has diminished once the prizes got lowered. The few top Asian players who come to EC can play friendly games at anytime during afternoon or evening with top Europeans, even a special match could be arranged, with side effect of possible local or Asian sponsorship focused on that. The mixed system used now is unfair to players and has proved strange results already.
Organizers should be obliged to announce prizes in advance of starting day of congress.
At the end of first and second week the EGF observer aided by the organizers team should collect a survey from all participant players. The players should rate the congress between 1 to 10. Based on the final rating the organizer country could have the right to immediately organize the congress again (on a rating of 9 or ten, also counting the countries who already engaged to organize) while on a rating of under 3 it would be suspended for an indefinite amount of time, until fundamental changes are being made in the respective country and EGF decides by special vote to allow the country back in the organizing race.
And the list can continue…

The EGF should have tighter control of its flagship event. So (For) on establishing controls , although I don't agree EC should be purely European

Ireland -

European Youth Team Championship Proposal (from Ireland)

In order to encourage the development of youth players,
the EGF should resolve to create a Youth Team Championship.
Such a championship could run with the same ruleset already
in place for the adult version, and use the same website.
The EGF's executive would be free to choose the fine details:
the server to play on, the size of teams, the maximum age allowed,
and the number of leagues, etc.

Already top youth players don't participate in the Youth Championships because they are expensive... so why not have an option that is free to all? (For)

UK 1 -

European Rating System Proposal - restriction of the display of players to those who
are members of EGF member organisation

This proposal is actually about allowing the Country in question to control the display of http://www.europeangodatabase.eu/EGD/cr ... dgob=false these pages. I think it's a waste of time and money, especially as the other pages in the EGD are not restricted. (Against)

UK 2

Although the European Cup is a worthy initiative, in trying
to encourage more of our stronger players to play in more
tournaments, it seems that only a few players have played
in more than a couple of events.

Also the participation of tournaments this year is reduced,
presumably because the organisers have decided that the payment
for entry to the Cup is not justified by additional players.

The British Go Association therefore recommends that
a) the European Cup ceases at the end of this year and
b) a review of the objectives be undertaken with the strongest
European players to determine whether they are achievable, with
a written report to the AGM in 2014.

(against) since this proposal is no longer relevant to Go in Europe. Next year the 'professional' system will be in place.

Rules Commission

In the Pandanet Go European Team Championship it is proposed that
the A League will be played with teams of six players starting from
the season 2015-2016. We will then allow 12 players to register for
the team. Other leagues will continue with four player teams.

I am not aware that this motion has any support, so I'd have to vote (against) - what's wrong with a 4 player match?

France 3 (Actually EGF President's motion)

European Championship Proposal
(by Martin Stiassny)
The basic idea of the system
• 24 Top “European Players” play 4 rounds McMahon, starting with the same
McMahon score as in the EGC Open Main-tournament
• After two lost games the players leave the EC and change with their results to
the EGC Open main-tournament (one player with two losses might stay in the
EC after round 4)
• Top 8 after 4 rounds play rounds 5,6 and 7 with knock-out-system (idea 1-8,
2-7, … but avoiding pairings already played in the first 4 rounds)
• Champion after 7 rounds (Sun, Mon, Tue, Thu, Fri, Sat, Sun)
• Exact order from 1 to 8 is possible, if all 8 play rounds 5,6 and 7 (an option for
prizes). But probably only top 4 of the EC are wished, so only 4 top European
players can’t play the weekend-tournament of the EGC.
• Top 8 enter McMahon Main-tournament on Monday (second week) with their
score of the 4 McMahon-rounds and the result of round 5. Gamesw played on
the weekend don’t count for the EGC Open
• Nice PR-event possible by presenting the European Champion in the middle of
the EGC (relaxed, no stress like on last Saturday !)

The last thing we need is yet another new half backed system to determine the champion of Europe. Pointless motion that devalues the European Congress.

Czech Proposal

The basic idea of the system (details can be tuned accordingly):
• first week, 16 (or 24) top European players play in 2 groups, A and B, each group
8 (or 12) players, seeded according to ratings, swiss system, 4 rounds
• the top 4 players from both groups qualify for knockout to decide the European
Champion
• the knockout quarterfinal is played on Friday, the semifinal and final (and a game
for a 3rd place) on Saturday and Sunday, aside the EGC weekend tournament
• the pairing for the quarterfinal is A1-B4, B1-A4, A2-B3, B2-A3, so the players
from the A group play with opponents from the B group
• the group games and quarterfinal count for the EGC Open, the weekend games
don't

I'd have to vote (Against) for the same reason as the motion I previously discussed.