As I said, an extra round isn’t “giving more”. It is changing the conditions of the tournament. If you want to give players the opportunity to play an extra game, that is fine, but report it as a separate one-round section, rather than as a fourth round in a section advertised as three rounds.
Those really are supposed to be just for the TD.
Sez who? The Route 20 Chess Club ran a $5 open in which the advertised prizes were a free doughnut for every participant.
You could retort that you have freedom of association.
Well of course then you’re obligated to give the players donuts in that case. But the unadvertised donuts are really supposed to be just for the TD.
People often seem to have no clue what freedom of speech means.
Freedom of speech means that the GOVERNMENT cannot restrict speech.
I can exercise control of the speech of anyone who is on my property. I can remove employees from my company who engage in speech I dislike.
Well, strictly speaking, you can exercise control over whether the offender remains on your property, or in your employ. You can’t actually control that person’s speech.
IMHO, the most common misapplication of the concept of freedom of speech is that many people assume the First Amendment allows them to say whatever they want without legal consequences. The larger point you’re making, if I read you correctly, is quite right, of course: such an assumption is pure folly.
Would you ban a chessplayer with Tourette’s syndrome (often sudden utterances of curse words) from your tournament?
You read me correctly.
The player is technically correct.
A bit of imagination was called for. You should have offered to play the fourth round as “fill in” games, Section 2 in effect, but base the prizes only on the three rounds.
As for his “dirty word” was it something so vile, so strangely beyond normal human discourse, that scandalized children ran to the door holding their ears, grown men rent their clothing, and hoofed barnyard animals swooned?
Or was it a word that everyone in the room had heard 10,000 times before?
Now that I’m a chess parent, I find myself having to resist the urge to torture TDs at my son’s tournaments with inquiries like these. 
It appears that you have already made one player feel unwelcome.
Does it matter? I’ve had people tell me that this sort of routine behavior at tournaments (with impunity) has caused them to drop out of chess. Chess doesn’t have enough resource to lose resource over something so stupid.
Mike N - didn’t the naked guy cause someone in Nebraska to lose their site? Or was that in Iowa?
Does it matter? I’ve had people tell me that this sort of routine behavior at tournaments (with impunity) has caused them to drop out of chess. Chess doesn’t have enough resource to lose resource over something so stupid.
Mike N - didn’t the naked guy cause someone in Nebraska to lose their site? Or was that in Iowa?
Does it matter? I’ve had people tell me that this sort of routine behavior at tournaments (with impunity) has caused them to drop out of chess. Chess doesn’t have enough resource to lose resource over something so stupid.
Mike N - didn’t the naked guy cause someone in Nebraska to lose their site? Or was that in Iowa?
The naked guy was in Iowa (he got arrested for driving naked more than once, too), but there was a player (possibly the same one) who nearly got the Lincoln organizers kicked out of a community college site because he refused to wear shoes, saying the TLA didn’t say they were required. (Several Lincoln organizers added ‘footware required’ to their TLAs.)
Another player (identity unknown) got organizers kicked out of a local motel because he wrote all one of their tablecloths in ink. And a local shopping center first decided that organizations using their space had to have a $1 million liability policy, then decided that only events run by not-for-profit organizations that didn’t charge a participation fee were eligible to use their space. That space is used no more than two or three weekends a year now, the rest of the year it sits idle.
For this (and a few other reasons), Lincoln used to have 10-15 adult tournaments a year, in 2010 there was just one and there were three in 2011.
None of these difficulties are unique to Lincoln, similar stories (and even worse ones) have been told by organizers all over the country.
But Lawdy, we can’t possibly do anything about the way our members express themselves or have rules on member decorum. 
Moderator Mode: Off
Kevin, you have made the case and argument for having membership decorum rules numerous times before. I am not saying we should not have such a rule.
The problem, as I see it, is first to get this rule or set of rules established and in place. The place and time to get such rules implemented would be at a Delegate meeting.
Do you have any such rules phrased and written down?
I suggest you simply write such rule proposals in a separate thread on this forum and have a delegate bring it up at the Delegates Meeting.
The second problem that I see would be in the implementation of said rules. Breaking decorum rules doesn’t necessarily come under the jurisdiction of the Ethics Committee. Yes, we might be able to extend the reach and reign of the Ethics Committee but that would come under another proposal and vote by the Delegates.
Thirdly, how would these rules be implemented and enforced? The topic of this thread concerns the ability of an organizer and/or director from banning a player from his tournaments. Should we make the rules of decorum such that if a person does something that warrants banning from a tournament, he would also fall under the jurisdiction of such a decorum rule and be banned from all USCF tournaments?
How would you have the USCF implement and enforce such rules?
I’ve provided examples of how all this can be done. It’s easiest if we talk to other organizations and then tweak what they’ve done to fit us. Mensa has an extensive rules set, for example.
I don’t see anything in the rulebook which would prohibit an organizer from announcing “decorum” rules for a tournament (e.g. tuxedos and evening gowns required). In fact, there is already a form of “decorum” rule in most tournaments; namely, “no smoking”. It seems to me that the only requirement is that the decorum rules be fairly and evenly enforced.
If tournament organizers have expectations about the dress and decorum of the players at tournaments, those should be stated in the tournament publicity. A tournament held at a beach or for kindergarteners might have different requirements as regards “decorum” than the World Championship.
Organizers shouldn’t assume that everybody shares their ideas about what constitutes proper “decorum”, or blame the players if they don’t conform to unstated decorum rules. In general, the dress code and behavioural norms for tournament chess players are rather low. A stereotypical homeless person would not be out of place at some tournaments. So it is especially incumbent on organizers with higher expectations to state them.