Not allowing players to enter or play in USCF tournaments

[Ron_Luther]

What are the guidelines for refusing a USCF player in good standing, to play in an USCF rated event?

Also what are the penalties to those TD’s who wrongfully do so?

Ron

[rfeditor]

@Ron Luther

What are the guidelines for refusing a USCF player in good standing, to play in an USCF rated event?

Also what are the penalties to those TD’s who wrongfully do so?

Ron

The only thing I can think of that applies is DACI-1:

“Sites of USCF-Sponsored Tournaments. Since the U.S.
Chess Federation is open to all players, regardless of race,
sex, creed, religion, or national origin, and is interested in
promoting chess among all groups, all tournaments sponsored
by USCF are to be conducted at sites accommodating
the right to play of all USCF members. (1960)”

This was important in 1960, but it’s a little anachronistic now, since racial discrimination is against Federal law. Aside from this, an organizer may refuse to accept an entry for any reason or no reason. Being a USCF member, in good standing or otherwise, does not guarantee you the right to play in any particular tournament. It is necessary but not sufficient.

[Grant_Perks]

Somewhat poorly worded, here are the rules with regard to barring a player from an event:

Standards of Conduct
5. The actions and behavior of individuals participating in USCF activities, or in events sponsored by or sanctioned by the USCF, shall be lawful and in accordance with all USCF rules and regulations, and consistent with the principles of fair play, good sportsmanship, honesty, and respect for the rights of others. The following is a list of examples of actions and behavior that are considered unethical. The list is not intended to be exhaustive, and any action or behavior that is unlawful or violates USCF rules and regulations, or is inconsistent with the principles of fair play, good sportsmanship, honesty, and respect for the rights of others, may be considered to fall within the scope of this code of ethics.

b Attempting to interfere with the rights of any USCF member, such as by barring someone from entering a USCF-sanctioned event for personal reasons. Generally, no individual should be barred from a USCF-sanctioned event for which he or she meets the advertised qualifications, without appropriate due process, and for behavior inconsistent with the principles of this code and/or the rules of chess. If a ban on future participation is imposed, the individual should be notified of the ban prior to his attempting to appear at future events.[/b]

[nolan]

‘Refusing to let someone play’ covers a wide variety of situations.

For example, a player who withdraws from the tournament without notifying the TD (and forfeits a game as a result) can be fined by the organizer and not permitted to enter any additional tournaments by that organizer until the fine has been paid. (I also know of situations where multiple organizers have had a ‘mutual assistance pact’ regarding such players.)

Can you give some specifics?

[Grant_Perks]

The code of conduct would cover all of those scenarios. For example, if a player who was fined was notified in advance of the restrictions, that would be covered by the due process and advance notice provisions.

[nolan]

What if you have no way to contact the player who walked out, for example someone who registers on-site, pays cash, shows you a current USCF card but does not give you an address or phone number? Would posting a sign advising players who withdraw without notifying the TD constitute adequate notice?

[Ron_Luther]

Here we have a junior player, 17 years old and a USCF member with no history of withdrawing early, or causing a scene at a tournament.

He was told by the director that he had to have a parent present to play in “The Chess Club” (now “The Kansas City Chess Club”) which was where the tournament “The Kansas City Open” was held.

Of course there have been many players under 18 who have played both at this site as well as the tournaments that were held there without their parents present.

The only thing that seems to have prompted this “discrimination”, is the young player questioning why he had to become a member of the KCCA to play and if this could be waived.

It was answered with a not very nice e-mail to this junior player.

Ron

[rfeditor]

I wonder if it’s time to revisit (and streamline) the USCF Code of Ethics. Parts of it read like they had specific individuals in mind (always a bad way to make law), and other parts suggest that the writer was in love with the sound of his own voice.

The section Grant quotes seems to be saying that players should not be banned/sanctioned for non-chess reasons. This sounds good until you actually think about it. How about a player who never bathes, clips his toenails during the game, and is generally so disgusting that he drives away your customers? While it’s repugnant, it’s hard to argue that such behavior is “inconsistent with this code and/or the rules of chess.”

I have no quarrel with the “due process” part to the extent that it means only notifying the player in advance that he’s unwelcome. However, the phrase “due process” has some heavy-duty legal connotations that we really don’t want. (Is a player entitled to call a lawyer before you kick him out for throwing a game?)

[nolan]

And is KCCA membership required of other (presumably local) players of the same age?

John, revisiting the Code of Ethics may not be a bad idea, but the history of the USCF is rather like the history of Congress, they never make ANYTHING shorter when they rewrite it. Look at the number of pages in the 1st through 5th editions of the USCF Rulebook.

I once got a good laugh out of former Treasury Secretary William Simon when I suggested at a Q&A session that we should propose a constitutional amendment placing a word limit on federal laws, so that if Congress wants to pass a new law they have to find an equal number of words in out-of-date laws to delete.

[Ron_Luther]

The young player in question was going to pay for the membership. What makes this even more bothersome is that he was to ride to the tournament site with another player who was going to play in his 1st USCF rated event.

Add to this that the TD in question made a statement to the effect that he had some people that this junior player needed to talk to. Since it is common knowledge that this TD has used letters from his lawyers to threaten others in the chess community including the MCA, this junior player was intimidated and afraid.

Obviously from what has been done in the past few months it seems that this person/TD/Affiliate is not a good representative of the USCF or its goals.

It also seems that there may shortly be a statement filed by this young player to the USCF pertaining to this and wanting action taken against said TD.

Ron

[rfeditor]

@nolan

And is KCCA membership required of other (presumably local) players of the same age?

John, revisiting the Code of Ethics may not be a bad idea, but the history of the USCF is rather like the history of Congress, they never make ANYTHING shorter when they rewrite it. Look at the number of pages in the 1st through 5th editions of the USCF Rulebook.

I once got a good laugh out of former Treasury Secretary William Simon when I suggested at a Q&A session that we should propose a constitutional amendment placing a word limit on federal laws, so that if Congress wants to pass a new law they have to find an equal number of words in out-of-date laws to delete.

Christopher Anvil once wrote a short story in which there was a a limit on the number of laws, so if they wanted to pass a new one they’d have to repeal an existing one. In addition, all laws had to be reviewed for comprehensibility by a Board of Dunces, who were forbidden to have any legal training.

[Hal_Terrie]

@rfeditor

The section Grant quotes seems to be saying that players should not be banned/sanctioned for non-chess reasons.

That is not the way the Committee has interpreted this section in the past. There have been many “banning” cases accepted by the Committee which had to do with non-chess reasons.

This sounds good until you actually think about it. How about a player who never bathes, clips his toenails during the game, and is generally so disgusting that he drives away your customers? While it’s repugnant, it’s hard to argue that such behavior is “inconsistent with this code and/or the rules of chess.”

Wrong. There have been several cases I can remember which were about this very kind of thing - unacceptable personal behavior. As long as the organizer/TD gives adequate advance notice that an individual’s behavior was unacceptable (and the Committee agrees that this is so) and that future infractions may lead to a ban, the Committee has ruled that it’s OK. In the most recent case, notice in writing had been provided to the individual of a potential ban. The Committee agreed that the behavior in question was way over the line and that he had received plenty of “due process.”

I have no quarrel with the “due process” part to the extent that it means only notifying the player in advance that he’s unwelcome. However, the phrase “due process” has some heavy-duty legal connotations that we really don’t want. (Is a player entitled to call a lawyer before you kick him out for throwing a game?)

[b]The Ethics Committee is the sole judge of what any phrase means in the context of the Code of Ethics. There is no correlation in definitions between any phrase in the Code and a similar phrase in the legal realm unless the Committee agrees that it is appropriate.

– Hal Terrie (former member, USCF Ethics Committee) [/b]

[rfeditor]

@Hal Terrie

@rfeditor

The section Grant quotes seems to be saying that players should not be banned/sanctioned for non-chess reasons.

That is not the way the Committee has interpreted this section in the past. There have been many “banning” cases accepted by the Committee which had to do with non-chess reasons.

This sounds good until you actually think about it. How about a player who never bathes, clips his toenails during the game, and is generally so disgusting that he drives away your customers? While it’s repugnant, it’s hard to argue that such behavior is “inconsistent with this code and/or the rules of chess.”

Wrong. There have been several cases I can remember which were about this very kind of thing - unacceptable personal behavior. As long as the organizer/TD gives adequate advance notice that an individual’s behavior was unacceptable (and the Committee agrees that this is so) and that future infractions may lead to a ban, the Committee has ruled that it’s OK. In the most recent case, notice in writing had been provided to the individual of a potential ban. The Committee agreed that the behavior in question was way over the line and that he had received plenty of “due process.”

I have no quarrel with the “due process” part to the extent that it means only notifying the player in advance that he’s unwelcome. However, the phrase “due process” has some heavy-duty legal connotations that we really don’t want. (Is a player entitled to call a lawyer before you kick him out for throwing a game?)

[b]The Ethics Committee is the sole judge of what any phrase means in the context of the Code of Ethics. There is no correlation in definitions between any phrase in the Code and a similar phrase in the legal realm unless the Committee agrees that it is appropriate.

– Hal Terrie (former member, USCF Ethics Committee) [/b]

I’m pleased that the Ethics Committee has construed the CoE that way, but the underlying problem remains. All that expansive language encourages people to drag the CoE and the Committee into areas where they doesn’t belong. A less restrained or less responsible Ethics Committee could make a real mess before it was curbed.