The issue doesn’t apply only to tournaments and organizers. And frankly, it’s quite possible to set minimal standards for decorum; it happens all the time.
However, in addition, I suggested long ago that an enhanced level of decorum should be available for tournaments that would be designated as “family friendly”.
Oh yes, please lets establish special officious rules of decorum. We need more reasons for players to feel uncomfortable and not play in chess tournaments. The rules already in the Rulebook give the TD the discretion to deal with players who cause a problem in a tournament, with an ascending order of penalties based on the severity of the behavior exhibited. There is no need to have greater specificity to handcuff the ordinary TD/organizer or give him a reason to act on a hair trigger based on a new special decorum rules list.
Your response is exactly my point. And in addition, NO ONE said anything about these being rules that impact only organizers? Where is that coming from?
Funny how this stuff works, and apparently works reasonably well, in other organizations. We, who refuse to even try it, complain about how it works.
We want chess to grow, yet we refuse to address some of the most fundamental issues that impede that growth!?
I love your argument - essentially “let’s keep the quality low so that anyone can join” rather than "let’s raise the quality a little and get people more committed to a lifelong avocation.
Let’s also keep in mind that this twist in the discussion was triggered by a shortcoming in the rules that to you are sufficiently complete.
There are about half a dozen good reasons for dropping out of competitive chess. I am contemplating it myself. Hearing someone scream “$#@($(&@#$(&@” is about 37th on the list, right behind “Only five of the six elevators in the three-story hotel were working.”
Burnout should be high on the list. Their lives change, things they like about the game don’t bring as much of a “high” anymore and the irritants grow bigger and bigger. His suggestions for changes may have some sense though.
And many of the changes have a very low cost - so the question becomes what’s the risk to giving it a shot?
One side effect of colorful metaphors peppering one’s vocabulary is that it often gives some people in authority a nice big red herring to chase out instead of addressing the issues that have originally been raised. 
Banning a player based upon vocabulary choices alone would be silly but people posing a threat to the working order of an event and/or interfering with other player’s or causing multiple disturbances over period of time should be removed from those events.
Banning player from future tournaments should be elevated to the bureaucratic level and is one of the few justifications for having a larger body politik – so that they can deal with administrative justice instead of allowing any single person’s version of “fairness” dictate who can and cannot play.
There are many parents who feel otherwise. Would you allow adults to swear at a little league game? I don’t know many leagues - if any - that would
In many cases, colorful language is viewed as “posing a threat to the working order of an event.”
Chess clubs can have their rules; why not an individual business owner?
BTW - I noted earlier in this thread that it would be wise if we had a “Family Friendly” designation that would make it clear that there were higher behavioral standards in order to avoid some of the lack of clarity.
I have kids and they hear colorful words all the time. It causes them no harm whatsoever. In fact, they laugh at those words. They were never inculcated to believe in such a thing as ‘bad words’. Controlling language is not about kids…that is a red herring…it is all about adults trying to control other adults.
It is a form of abuse to teach kids nonsense that there are bad words. There are no bad words.
There are bad behaviors, and someone yelling at a tournament is a bad behavior, regardless of the vocabulary. Truth is people can be just as nasty and offensive without having to use any salty language.
Teach kids to laugh at curse words and the word is a better place and it extinguishes the phantom power of these words.
On another note, I found that getting security involved to remove a disruptive player from a venue is far more effective than getting the event organizer to do it. 
If a person is really a threat, then the real law provides an ample and viable way to solve the problem without having to go through the muddled bureaucracy that is the USCF. 
There are credible people who would disagree with you.
There are parents who don’t want their kids to learn colorful language as being acceptable in a public place.
Nope. Your answer is a red herring, as noted by the fact that my suggestion is to have “Family Friendly” tournaments. I have no problem with adults using what words they want - I also have no problem with making sure that there are environments available where such words are not to be used.
Society would disagree. Try telling a judge NFW some time.
I agree, and no one said that such behavior should be allowed. This argument is a “red herring.”
Not at all. It makes them funny, but it doesn’t teach that they are disrespectful.
No one argued that the organizer should do it.
Perhaps, but there is certainly inappropriate language. Come to work for me and use “bad words” and you won’t work for me much longer. Volunteer with the scout troop where I do and use such language and you won’t be a volunteer much longer, because the church chartering the troop says we won’t do it that way. Likewise we teach the kids certain language in inappropriate to use in those settings and require that such be followed.
When we have scholastic tournaments - or any tournament for that matter - in a school or a church then certain language is a not permitted due to the rules of the venue. And don’t talk to me about “free speech”. It doesn’t apply. That is about the government regulating speech. In my space, or space I rent, I can limit speech all I want. You don’t have to come there if you don’t like it.
And where I come from - rural redneck country - there may not be any “bad words” but there sure are “fighting words”. And you better know what those are or risk serious injury! 
I totally agree.
I respectfully disagree, as such teaches them that such language is indeed OK in certain situations, and for many reasons I do not thnk that it is.
Oh yes indeed.
<teacher_hat>
“Bad words” fall into three categories: blasphemy, vulgarity and contempt.
Blasphemous words are those that violate a religious taboo. The less religious you are, the less meaning they have, and so they tend not to be taken very seriously unless the person who utters them really believes what he’s saying.
Vulgar words are those considered inappropriate to the situation, to the audience or just in general. They’re “bad” only in the sense that they betray a lack of self-cultivation and/or verbal imagination. Those who consider themselves more respectable are offended by them, not so much because of their literal meaning but because those who use them are not observing the bounds of propriety. On the flip side, those who make the most extensive use of them probably relish the opportunity to flout the “respectable” notion of “propriety,” having little or no respect for the “respectable” to begin with and welcoming the opportunity to emphasize the social distinction.
Contemptuous words are those that demonstrate hate or extreme disdain for an individual or the group to which he or she belongs. They are intended as put-downs, assertions of the target’s inferiority, if not outright declarations that the target is no one of value or consequence. In a sense, they’re an attempt to pull rank, to claim social status or power and to deny it to someone else. They’re the stock-in-trade of the bully and the bigot. In my opinion, they are by far the worst and most inexcusable of the three.
</teacher_hat>
So, yeah, I use vulgar language fairly frequently at home. But would I permit it at a club? Let’s say, I would strongly discourage it. Because a club is supposed to be a comfortable, welcoming, hassle-free place, and while it would be ideal to be able to cater to everyone, all the time, if I’m forced to choose, I’m going to cater to the folks with the higher standards.
Use contemptuous language on my turf, on the other hand, and you’re out on . . . the sidewalk.
Can anyone say that speaking in a vulgar way, is an example of good sportsmanship? Let’s be real: No, especially in a school with legal “minors” hanging around.
“Good sportsmanship” is a term long ignored by TDs, who fear setting standards, or, who lack any personal ethical standards.
Chess has become so competitive, from Kindergarten up, it is far from the gentlemen’s game it once was. The example tournament here is about as much of a gentlemen’s event as is possible, barely covering the rating fee, and without any prizes.
I see nothing wrong in this case, in adding “rounds”. Technically yes, these extra games should be submitted as extra games. Just not calling them “an extra round” would avoid any problems of meeting USCF standards, which we must maintain in all events.
If I was the TD, and a player, especially an adult player, used vulgar language, such as language that could cost a licensed teacher his job in that location, I would ban him, or at least warn him, that should he do that again, he’s banned.
Common sense always helps a TD.
All the best, Joe
In S.F. (AKA Looneyville) you have a legally protected ‘right’ to eat naked in a restaurant. One of numerous reasons that I avoid that foul city these days.
@ KeithAmmon
I suggest a 4th scenario of bad words.
Try hitting your thumb with a hammer (or leaving your queen hanging) and automatically shouting out " Oh no woe is me!" 
Ain’t gonna happen.
Moderator Mode: Off
No, what should and would be said is, “Alas! Asunder! I have made a blunder!”
It happens so fast that there’s no time for an eleven syllable phrase. Many only have time for one syllable, perhaps prefaced by [size=150]“Oh, …”[/size].
And then there’s the Dodd Gambit. You hang your queen, and then you shout “@#$% DODD GAMBIT %$#@ !!”.
Bill Smythe
Best one yet!
I’ve read four pages of various people chiming in on the legality of whether or not the TD was “allowed” to add another round to his tournament. I will tell you from a players perspective (and I play regularly across the east coast); I was involved in a tournament where the organizer decided to reduce the number of rounds. I had to drive around 200 miles to get to that tournament as well. I had been to other tournaments that he had run and was familiar with him and his tournaments (which generally were quite good even if his way of running them was somewhat antiquated).
On this particular occasion though, we had something like 5 players for a 4 round tournament. The organizer before the event made an announcement that we were only to have 3 rounds (instead of the advertised 4). Needless to say I was not pleased (after waking up at around 6 to get to this tournament). It was quite a disappointing scenario because I didn’t need to drive 100+ miles to play 3 rounds, I could have done that where live and not wasted the time and energy going out there. After this tournament I decided that I would not play in another one of his tournaments until he proved that he could provide the adequate number of players. It seems that thus far he has been having some good tournaments and I am considering my return to his events.
So long story short, it stinks when things don’t live up to your expectations.