WCL 2022: rules

You're basically accusing team Tabriz of using players that don't actually live in Tabriz. Just because players have an Azerbaijan flag on their profile, it doesn't mean they don't live in Tabriz.

Either you have misunderstood this simple concept, and thus the reason an exception has been granted, or you are purposefully trying to stir up conflict.

 dear JFSebastianKnight

You got it wrong because I do not agree with this law and even though I represent a small island, I prefer to enter the competitions with the real power of my team! We try and we do not need any team or country because defeat but fairness is more worthy than unequal and cowardly victory.

My eyes are astigmatic and as I grow older , I feel that others can read more easily . I don't think there is a particular problem!

The hardest thing in the world is to judge ! and I hope you judge fairly

Cheers

Im sorry but your information is 100% wrong about Tabriz because that in my country city and if want you can ask about that of Iranians

You are clearly someone who cannot be reasoned with and will probably continue to rant and rave in circles as long as people try to understand and engage with your protest. At first I thought, through no fault of your own, that something was being lost in bad google translations to English, (the post above for instance makes no sense) but I now get the feeling that's only a small part of it.

To the admins: sorry for feeding the troll. I didn't realise and will now disengage. Thanks for all the work you put into the league.

Frankly, I do not really understand the proposal.

Specifically, what is the rule you want to modify/add?
Do you want to remove the Azerbaijan flag exception for Tabriz (from Appendix C of the rules?
And the rest of the exceptions too? Like Sevastopol, Prishtina and Bijeljina?

If this were to happen, the rules still allow for 25% "foreigners". Do they also want to reduce this percentage to 0?

Also, I would like to see what Tabriz administrators think.

Complaint is based on assumption that majority of Tabriz players with Azerbaijan flag are not really connected with Tabriz but recruited from Azerbaijan cities to play for Tabriz just because that team received special exception for another flag.

However, noone here is able to prove that even when flag is matching that "home" flag of country players are really connected with that City or not - so unless there is a bigger issue here we should not talk anymore about the same thing here when the easiest solution is already made by league organizers and it works just fine until now (noone complained that teams are winning divisions only because they are allowed to use different flags and we are just starting new season here so the timing of this complaint is very strange IMO).

I do not understand you and I do not know why you would like to forcefully give wrong information about my mother country !!!!
I have no problem with you and I just have no reason to be more accountable.
The managers of this league must be held accountable because their task is to solve problems

I also can talking about rules league and my team problems

If in future in cities league will use vote please use of your vote
Bye

@JFSebastianKnight: Your proposal needs clarification, indeed. Is it meant to be a re-wording of the current rule? Or is it meant to be a change?

Currently, one "foreign" flag is allowed in each block of four players. "Foreign" flags are all flags that are no "home" flags. "Home" flags are the flag of the country in which the city/region is located + those explicitly mentioned as exemptions in Appendix C of the rules.

Let's finish useless discussion of this case. I think the rules and the exeptions are good enouth and don't needed to be reformulated. And Tabriz is a one of this exeptions.

That is your mind  and your idea but we didn't think like you

 We  sure 100% that is really funny and wrong rule we don't want use that because we play like real team not like fake teams

My proposal Is to: allow additional flags, but to limit their use, for example to 1 in each block of 4.

In the case we are considering, Tabriz would be allowed to have 1 foreign flag + 1 Azerbaijani flag for every block of 4

The only problem with that is that it creates an extra layer of problems and exemptions that the current rules deftly avoid.

English cities for instance can have players flying both the UK and English flag and would be absurd to say that only 1 in 4 players can fly one or the other. So it's not very controversial to say that both should count equally as a home flag.

Scottish cities can have players flying the Scottish and UK flags, but maybe some people are more attached to one vs. the other based on political persuasion. Which group are you going to tell that they are the "additional flag" and not the "home flag?" In this case, it also makes more sense to count both as home flags, since there is no question the whole point of the rule is to sidestep politics and just play chess.

So which cities count as ones which have two "home flags," and which ones fall into the category of being allotted a lesser amount of "additional flags?" I don't want to start naming examples, but look down the list of cities with exemptions and you can see some very good reasons why it would be insensitive to demand that one group of players in a club must limit their participation in that club. Once you start moving into geographical areas which have experienced greater and greater degrees of civil disruption it becomes more and more of a minefield.

I honestly think the rules are as good as they can be and should be left alone.

I'm not really a flag fan, anyway..

There are cases in which 2 flags exist for the same town (ex. Barcelona Is both Spanish and Catalan and chess.com included both flags, probably to aknowlege some form of regional autonomy); 

and cases in which the city Is indisputably part of a state represented by a given flag and not part of a state represented by another flag, but still shares a part of its cultural heritage with a more or less neighboring region and/or state (consider Singapore and China, or Taiwan and China).

Exemptions in these 2 cases fall in completely  different categories. 

Exactly, rather than one simple rule, you start making different categories. I understand what you're saying, but I purposely gave very mild examples in my post because I didn't want to start a political discussion. But since there are no Taiwanese or Chinese teams in the league, let's use that as an example.

China has always claimed that Taiwan is Chinese territory, and not an independent country but Chinese territory. Taiwan disagrees. How should the league organizers weigh in on this when deciding which flag counts as the home flag?

Say next month, China invades Taiwan and annexes half of the country. It is indisputably part of China. Do players from this fictional Taiwanese club now have to change their profile flags to a Chinese ones or else face limits on the number of them that can participate? They've grown up Taiwanese and think of themselves as such, but your proposed rule would state that because China annexed them, they should say they are Chinese.

It brings political conflict into a space where there doesn't need to be any. The current rule is simple: if it's a grey area, the exemption can be applied liberally to avoid offending one side.

Well we don't agree about this, do we?

I can take an argument, but there is no need to try suggesting I am speaking about politics.

I sincerely hope the government of China will not be so foolish as to invade any state.

If that did happen I think nobody's concern should  be about what flag to use on chess.com

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you were speaking about politics, I meant that the proposed change would force league admins to pick a side in a political conflict when deciding in each case. 

It's not a hypothetical situation. That scenario with different countries literally happened within the past decade to an area with a team in this league.

I agree. They shouldn't have to think about it, which is why liberal exemptions should be applied rather than creating more restrictions.

As I tried to say beforeI don't fancy your... erm.. angle

My point Is there are two types of extension, one Is automatic and derives from chess.com's choices regarding flags; the other one is different and broader and should be treated differently

And my point is: how exactly would your proposal work in the scenario described above? It's a real situation so any proposed change would have to address it adequately.

Hmm.. 

It would work exactly as It works for foreign flags.

If there Is more than 1 additional flag in a block of 4, the opponent team may ask for the additional flags in excess to be counted as losses...

In practice of how it could work, it really doesn't look much more complicated, and it sounds like a more fair way to resolve this.

But, problem is in implementation - league admins will have to decide for each specific case if it is allowed to have 2 home flags or just and "additional" flag, and that is where problems would begin and talk will have to go toward politics (there is absolutely no way to avoid that)

That is why current mild rule is much better even accepting that it is not 100% fair for all specific cases.

If some club is recognized by organization that is misusing the current rule just to gain unfair advantage over opponents - I am sure that punishment would not be only removing right for additional flag, but much more serious.

Complaint that came here was not even from opponents of the team in question and was not based on any real proof IMO - just saying that players with 1 flag can not play because 2nd flag is allowed is not even true, because having an exception doesn't mean that there is an automatic restriction of the "main" home flag (if one can even be objectively considered as such).