I run a small (during our off-season) monthly 3 round G/60 tournament with a $5 entry fee and no prizes at a High School. All the money (after USCF fees etc.) goes to the High School’s chess team.
Yesterday, our first two rounds went by super fast and four or more players asked if we could play a fourth round. While personally, I would have like to go home early, I announced that if they wanted to play a fourth round, we would. One older gentleman became upset, it seems he couldn’t stay (why not, I don’t know, we got done with the event at the same time as our other 3 round events) and was incensed that there was a fourth round added. He claimed that I advertised a 3 round event in Chess Life (true enough) and that it would be breach of the clearly stated tournament conditions for us to have a fourth round. He threaten (or was it a promise?) to never play in one of my tournaments again. At one point while he was ranting at anyone who might listen to him, within hearing distance, he uttered a vulgar word.
One part of me thinks I should leave it alone and hope he never comes back. Another part of me thinks that his rude behavior merits being banned from any of my future events. The fact is this person is difficult to be around when he likes you.
Actually, the player has a legitimate point. Any prize, regardless how large, cannot
be characterized as insignificant, or close to it–for that is a perception. Now, how can
you reall ADVERTISE a prize, with the idea regardless of what it is, and regardless
of the EF, hoping for the sufficiency of folks to come, and then, on the other, when
they do come, act as if the prize is not sufficient for them to raise Cain at tournament
moderation??
Understand, I am not at all faulting adding another round, but suggesting that just
perhaps he should have been offered a full point bye, or other compensation, such
as free entry at a future event, to defuse the situation??
In regard to his language–that is not something allowable. But, perhaps a different
approach could have kept the kettle cool??
Consider this: It is one thing to tell someone to “hit the road-Jack”, who comes and expects
you to alter the event to his liking. It is another to change the event from that advertised, esp,
towards the end of the event, and expect all to be happy with such.
There were no prizes (as I mentioned in my message).
People where playing for the honor of playing a USCF rated game and nothing more. And it wasn’t like he was leading the tournament in order for there to even be bragging rights at stake.
While this guy was clearly being a jerk, he does have a point: You do have an obligation to adhere to whatever tournament conditions you’ve advertised. A flexible solution would have been to declare the tournament complete after round 3, sing the praises of the winners, let Mr. Crankypants go home, then play round 4 as extra rated games.
I don’t think his bad attitude rises to the level of a banning offense. If he repeats it over something else minor, perhaps.
It is unusual, but not unheard of, for players to object to an additional round when there are no prizes at stake, as was the case here. Was his subsequent action sufficient to justify banning him from future events? Is there still a way to resolve this amicably?
Perhaps the player either knew the event was likely to finish ahead of schedule based on prior experience or had already come to that conclusion, and was making other plans.
A better way to handle it might have been to point out that the event was running ahead of schedule and ask all the players if they would like another round, saying that those who said no would be paired as having a zero point bye in that round.
Whether the 4th round was submitted as an extra games section or not could have an impact on the post-event ratings for all the players (including those who decline to play in the extra game/round), in part because it could change who was eligible for bonus points. Thus it might affect everyone’s preliminary post-event rating, which is the “opponent’s rating” used in the final stage of computing the updated ratings from the event.
It’s a free country. You can hold a private chess tournament and invite anybody you wish. If it is a chess tournament open to the public in a hotel, restaurant, or some other public place, you probably can’t discriminate on the basis of race, gender, and few other categories, but apart from these limits, you get to set the rules.
However, if it is a USCF-rated tournament, or advertised in Chess Life, you have to follow the USCF’s rules. If you don’t like these rules and want to do what you want, don’t hold USCF-rated tournaments and don’t advertise them in Chess Life.
it is a violation of the USCF Code of Ethics for you to bar USCF members from a USCF-rated tournament for personal reasons. If you wish to bar a USCF member from your tournaments, you must do it with due process, and only for behavior inconsistent with the USCF Code of Ethics.
The Code of Ethics gives some examples of behavior which might rise to the level of justifying such a ban. The list includes such misconduct as cheating, throwing games, falsifying ratings, or giving false information in order to circumvent the eligibility rules of a tournament. The list also includes banning USCF members from tournaments for personal reasons, or without due process.
Using a word that you find “vulgar” is not on the list.
In short, between using a vulgar word and banning a USCF member from a USCF-rated tournament for something as trifling as using a vulgar word, the USCF Code of Ethics is clear: the latter is much worse.
Foul and even abusive language has always been a bit of a problem at chess tournament. Some people refuse to moderate how they act in any situation. I remember once an adult player swearing at a kid opponent. The parent was understandable upset, but guess what the reaction was when the adult was taken to task for his language. His reply was that he could bleeping well use whatever bleeping language he wanted. I do not think it is proper to ban a player for one instance of bad language. You maybe could ask them to in the future moderate their behavior, but make sure you explain you understand how upset they were at the time. Responsible adult need to set good examples for children, even if they are their own kids. Apologize to the gentelmen and see if he doesn’t apologize as well. Tempers can easily run hot in the heat of the moment. He may be regretting his outburst now or in the future.
Given the time the idea of adding an extra round is a nice idea. However, as pointed out there are players that will object to this. Rather than have to deal with the few that would object try another tact. Next time offer any player that wishes an added additional side game. Side games occur all the time, just usually not after the tournament is over. Also, point out that this is an added expense not planned for that is being done to make the tournament a better experience for the players.
What is advertised is what you should stick with wether it is advertised nationally, statewide, locally, or in a flyer. Errors are one thing, while changes at the site are another entirely. There have been problems before in Illinois with regards to an event changing its format on the day of the tournament. There use to be a club that sometimes had Saturday events, but would regularly change the format on the day of the event. This was listed on the club web site, and they only listed events there. However, they 1 time only also listed the event on the ICA [state] web site without any notice or indication that any changes might occur. This was very upsetting to a player that drove over an hour only to find the event they expected to play in had changed. They left with a refund.
On page 233 it initially includes under the Standards of Conduct, “…consistent with the principles of fair play, good sportsmanship, honesty. and the respect for the rights of others” and states that the list which you were talking of “is not intended to be exhaustive”. So it certainly isn’t clear that vulgarity isn’t something that could be punished. You would most likely want to warn the person first in order to follow due process, but if the behavior is continually repeated it would certainly show an inconsistency with good sportsmanship and respect for the rights of others.
How well was this player doing, was he in the lead after two rounds, in contention for the lead, etc? Many players put great emphasis on winning or tying for 1st in tournaments (especially class players who don’t win too many open tournaments). If you were making it more difficult for me to win an event, I would be upset too, even if there were no prizes.
Another possibility is that he didn’t understand how ratings and byes work. I’ve had several people over the years ask me if taking a bye would affect their rating. Perhaps he thought that he would be forced to play or it would be counted as a loss.
My advice, follow the TLA if nothing else other than CYA. If players want to play a fourth round, make it an extra rated game.
In my view, a vulgar word is not enough to ban somebody from playing, but if he said that he’s never coming back, it doesn’t look like you have much to worry about unless you are the only game in town.
In the future, I will not add a fourth round, although it seemed to me to be a sensible thing to do, and most of my participants appreciated it. A couple players even asked for a fifth round.
And I’m not going to pursue the matter of a ban. Nonetheless, deep in my heart I can hope that he keeps his threat/promise of never playing in one of my tournaments.
Oh, I don’t think you need to never add that fourth round.
In this case it is obvious you were having a fun tournament, or a tournament for fun and ratings but not for money.
With the tournament going so quickly, there is no reason to not add an extra round:
As you say the majority of players not only agreed with it but were grateful for the extra game.
Yes, there was one curmudgeon that got miffed off. I don’t think the miniscule rating difference of having a fourth round mattered to him.
I would have smilingly told him that we were just going to play another game and he didn’t have to if he didn’t want to.
I actually considered making the trip to your tournament from Peoria, as I had a freakish day off. But, my wife prevailed and there was magically some work for me to do at home. I know that if I would have been there, I would have lobbied for the extra game, even with the 2 1/2 hour drive home.
For the rule sticklers that say you must adhere to the 3 rounds advertised, you can just say there will be an extra game round after the official tournament as an extension to that tournament for those that want to play.
Our tournaments run from 9 to 4:30. And I show up two hours early to setup, and stay an hour afterwards putting things up (Then it usually takes me another hour or two to upload my tournament report to the USCF, I haven’t mastered that task yet). We supply sets & clocks, we have a carpeted playing room with nice wood tables, and a large skittles area. While I know that some players prefer to play for cash (there are plenty of those type of tournaments available), my tournaments are designed for players (rated roughly from 800 to 1800, occasionally someone rated higher shows up) who wish to play a series of USCF rated games for just $5. That is seven and a half hours of entertainment for only $5, that comes to 67¢ per hour.
We finished our four round tournament by 4:30. It had to be a fluke that our first two rounds went so fast.
This player is a chronic troublemaker. Today I had a Chicago area TD email me, he knew exactly who I was talking about. I took this troublemaker’s rants with an apologetic smile while he was berating me. I’m going to leave things as they are, and hope he is a man of his word.
As there were no prizes, I’m not sure what the complaint was about unless you required him to play. As for adding a round, make it clear that participation in the extra game is optional. It would appear that you’re doing something good and if one player doesn’t appreciate it, then tell him he doesn’t have to stay but he also shouldn’t deny those that want to play an additional rated game the opportunity.
As for vulgar language, I sometimes have a problem with one member of my local club whose attitude is that he has freedom of speech. When I admonish him, he usually tones it down for a while. My opinion is that I want the club to be a family friendly place. Our members range from 6 to 80+. If players or their parents are turned off by this player’s behavior, it could cost the club entries. I look at it from the point of view that if his behavior is not in the best interest of the club, then it needs to be improved. To date he has not been ejected.
That sounds so reasonable, and precisely what I told him. (And, for what it might be worth, all my rounds are optional.) Some people just want to have things their way merely because they want it.
My tournaments are held in a High School with High School (and younger) students present. While I can overlook the occasional slip of the tongue, any habitual offender would be asked not to come back. The school does us a big favor allowing me to hold these off-season (High School chess season is from October through February) tournaments, I wouldn’t want to jeopardize these tournament, or my position as this school’s chess coach, over someone with a foul mouth. Fortunately, I don’t have anyone like that attending my tournaments.
Perhaps worth considering is the addition of something like “Bonus rounds possible” to the pre-event publicity. That-a-away you can add a round when it is appropriate and still meet the letter of the law.
I understand this letter of the law approach when you are taking things away. But when you are adding bonus stuff I just don’t get it.
What if for example you have a tournament advertised with a 500 dollar prize fund and because of a good turn out or even because some individual donated to the cause at the last minute you decide to increase the prize fund to 700 dollars, are you not allowed to do that because it isn’t what you advertized?
Or say you advertise a rated novice section for players under 1600, but some higher rated players show up and ask to have quads or a section for them. Or you prevented from doing that?
Or more importantly what if you bring donuts and didn’t put it in the advance publicity?
An extra round is not like an increased prize fund. It changes the conditions of the tournament. The person who is “winning” the tournament after three rounds may feel aggrieved to have it suddenly extended to four rounds. Even when there are no prizes, a tournament is not merely an opportunity to play rated games. For some people playing in tournaments, it matters who wins or places in the tournament.
Otherwise, why bother with a Swiss System? Let people show up and pair them against people who will give them a “good game”, as they are available. Some players play three rounds; some four; some more, depending on how fast they play.
If you announce a three-round Swiss System tournament, that is what you should give the players who enter it. A four-round tournament is not an improvement on a three-round tournament, if what you expected to play was three rounds.
You just declare the winner the person in first place at the end of three rounds. The bonus round is just that, a bonus round. Although now some players might receive bonus feed back ratings points. Again an unadvertised special.
MSA will show what it is given, if it is rated as a four round event then anyone who looks at the crosstable online won’t know who was declared the winner after three rounds.
The best choice, if there are people who object to adding a round, for whatever reason, may be to enter the 4th round as a separate section. In the long term, any impact that would have on ratings is negligible, though don’t try to say that to someone who thinks he might have crossed some boundary (like making 2200) if rated the ‘other way’.
FWIW, two of the frequent complaints the USCF gets is that the crosstables aren’t in tiebreak order or that they don’t show who won various prizes or trophies. Without changing what information we get from TDs, there’s no way to show that information.