What is the rule when a USCF rated tournament is being run on private premises?
Does the premises take priority over the USCF rated event or the other way around?
Such as with my chess center, if I am running a USCF rated event, and an individual who is a USCF member comes in wishing to register and play in the event, do I have to allow them?
What about when it’s a premises such as a hotel?
If there are going to be restrictions on which USCF members are allowed to participate in a tournament, those restrictions should, if at all possible, be announced in advance. If the facility is going to place restrictions on which USCF members are allowed to participate in a tournament, the ideal would be to find out in advance what those restrictions will be so that they can be publicized in pre-tournament advertisements.
But Rule 1A and Rule 25 provide ample basis for a TD to make exceptions to this principle when needed. I could certainly imagine, for example, excluding a USCF member from participation in a tournament because I felt that their presence would be more or less guaranteed to annoy or distract other players (see Rule 20G).
Bob
You should also look at the Standards of Conduct in the USCF Code of Ethics in the rulebook: Chapter 6, 5h:
If a player has been previously banned from being on the premises by the owner or occupant of the premises, I don’t think there’s a problem with USCF rules. It would help if such notification had been given in writing, preferably by registered letter. But that’s not absolutely necessary.
If the player in question has not been previously banned, I imagine one would have to show sufficient cause to require that player’s exclusion from the event. Given the USCF code of ethics, that “sufficient cause” bar is pretty high.
I know that the Pittsburgh Chess Club has banned a few people from the use of its premises. Those players would, of course, be excluded from participating in any tournaments there.
On the other hand, there is a well-known and fairly sordid case involving a now-inactive director and player who was allowed to play in various St. Louis area tournaments, even after his unsavory conduct was brought to light. (This particular individual was active in the late 80s and early 90s.)
The key word is open, If you run a select tournament then you can restrict entries.
When I was on the ethics committee (lo! these many years ago), several cases came up where a player complained because an organizer had banned him for cause. It was always some kind of bad behavior or other on the part of the player.
In all cases that I remember, the committee ruled that the organizer was within his rights to ban the player.
Bill Smythe
Moderator Mode: Off
The words, “Private Premises”, are at the beginning of the title of this thread. That is significant.
Sevan has a private business, The North Shore Chess Center. Let’s just call it The Chess Center for discussion purposes.
I have been there and it is not a large place, but very well appointed and a well lit, cleanly appointed place to play chess.
If Sevan has a particular individual, imagine a master that had a cell phone ring during one of his FIDE games and that being later linked to some type of conspiracy, that he chooses to not allow on the premises of his business, he should be able to do that.
For that matter, let’s say there is a person that is known and identified as an enemy of Sevan and his business, by trying to not only compete but to actually do things to put him out of business.
Sevan is not alone in these possible scenarios.
Anyway, what if Sevan runs a USCF rated tournament and one of these miscreants, that he chooses to keep off his premises, attempts to come and play in that tournament?
Sevan or any other business owner, should have the right to exclude that person from that tournament on his private premises, especially if he believes that individual might harm his business or premises while there.
I’m all for the rights of the individual player. Heck, I’m one myself. I certainly would not want to be wrongly barred from a competition. However, if there were a person running a chess business or a TD that I didn’t care for, I certainly would not play in that tournament. The problem is that not everyone is as good and altruistic as me.
I feel that the rules should allow for someone, like Sevan, to keep individuals off his premises and away from those tournaments on those premises.
Now, if Sevan chose to run a tournament in a major hotel or something like that, we have a very different story.
A short letter stating cause should be sufficient to ban someone. It is always best to do it in writing. Keep a copy in case the USCF has some questions.
Still, I have a problem with banning someone for “personal reasons” without further explanation. How are we to know that someone is not being discriminated against, on basis of one of the protected statuses?
Another scenario would be if you ban someone for their political philosophy or “opinions expressed in an online forum.” I believe that goes too far, but YMMV.
Michael Aigner
I think the original question contains two subquestions with potentially different answers:
Is it OK to tell someone he’s not welcome in your tournament venue because of the things he’s done there before?
Is it OK to tell someone he’s not welcome in your tournament venue, period, if he’s on your doorstep for the first time ever?
The way I read the ethics clause that Bob Messenger cited, the answer to the first question seems like a probable yes; to the second question, a probable no.
Does a business, which is presumably open to the public, qualify as ‘private premises’?
What differentiates such a business from a hotel or other business?
We are talking about Chess businesses. The Saint Louis Chess Club banned Sam Sloan from its premises a number of months ago, and that was only to spectate at a tournament.
Is that against the USCF rules? Would you let them do that because they are the Saint Louis Chess Club and/or it is Sam Sloan, and not allow another owner or proprietor of a Chess business to do likewise? That’s not just or equal.
So, it really doesn’t matter if a private business, open to the public, qualifies as private premises or not. What matters is if they can exclude someone from coming on those premises, even to play a USCF tournament.
I guess the precedent is set with the Saint Louis Chess Club and its actions with Sam Sloan. They did not notify Sloan in writing either, so that would not be necessary for Sevan or anyone else to do so.
To narrowly focus onto the issue of private premises, I would say that the easiest answer is that if an individual has access to the site, then they would have an expectation of being able to play.
If I want to hold a USCF rated tournament on the Navy base that I work at, then anyone with base access should expect to be able to play. If I want to hold a USCF rated tournament at an Elks lodge that I am a member of, then anyone who is a member of the Elks should expect to be able to play.
I would not expect anyone to be able to reject a player at a hotel; I would not expect anyone to reject a player for a random reason at a chess center.
The USCF rules already allow an organizer to ban a player for cause, with prior notification.
If an organizer wishes to hold an invitational or closed tournament, then by all means, pick and choose. However, I am not aware of any rule that allows someone to pick and choose who is allowed to play in an open tournament. Just because St. Louis kicked Sam Sloan out without prior notification doesn’t make it the right decision. However, that really isn’t a precedent here, since the post said that he was only there to spectate, not play. Spectators have no rights. (And if they said, “And we don’t want you playing here, either!”, then they covered the bases correctly.)
Of course this falls under 20M1. I have, in certain tournaments, kept people from spectating at events that I’ve directed, and I suspect most other TDs here have as well. If Mr. Sloan was attempting to play in a tournament (for which he was otherwise qualified) at the CCASC of SL, then you might have a point here.
Alex Relyea
Ok, you lawyer types out there might know this: . My question is can a site/venue ban an individual. It may or may not have anything to do with chess. but, can the venue enforce a legal, not USCF, ban? What does the law say about such bans?
A hotel is free to ban someone from their premises for any reason. I ran a hotel-based event for many years. A player feuded with the organizer and was always banned. The hotel eventually banned him due to behavior at the hotel. After Hotel Security carried him out of the hotel, he never came back. Had he come back, they were within their rights to have him arrested for tresspassing. As it was explained then, a hotel event is a private function that can ban people. The tournament is also a private function in the case of someone who wants to be there and is “not wanted.” If a hotel has banned someone for any reason, they can enforce it. I doubt they would enforce a USCF or tournament ban the same way they enforce a hotel ban, but in this case, the tournament ban eventually became the hotel ban.
As for what the law says…how could any law say a hotel cannot restrict someone from entering who has already been banned? I watched security at past World Open events escort homeless people out of the hotel when they slept under the tables. But, just the opinion of a non-attorney. Gary/Greyson - are you out there anywhere?
Mike
While the Tournament Organizer is paying rent for a hotel hall, the hall is close enough to being the T.O.'s private premises, for the purposes of this discussion.
No T.O. could ban a person from playing in the public park during the T.O.'s tournament. But the T.O. can ban the player from playing in the T.O.'s park tournament (if reason is legitimate).
It all depends on how legitimate the reason for ban from the tournament is.
If the reason is disruptive behavior at tournaments, that example is legit (regardless of venue).
If the reason is insensitive statements about touchy political issues on a non-chess forum, that is likely not legit.
Why does this distinction matter at all? All that matters is what eviction authority the Naval base commander cares to delegate to the T.O.
(EDIT: Oops, I see now that RobG was writing about the importance of prior notification to a player would would be barred from playing.)
.
I think that you missed my point. I don’t feel that an organizer has the right to bar a player without having given prior notification that the player is banned. (Obviously the player can be removed for cause during an event, but that isn’t what was originally asked.) So any player should be able to show up at any open tournament (not closed, not invitational) and expect to play. In the example that I gave, look at the other side of the coin. While anyone with base access should expect to be able to play, a civilian WITHOUT base access should not be surprised to be turned away at the gate. So while it is an “Open” tournament, there is a valid reason why a player is being denied the right to play.
There are certain situations that might constitute civil rights violations that could get an organizer or hotel in trouble, depending on local, state, or Federal law. IIRC as an example - Philadelphia had an issue with a cheese-steak provider who had a sign that said you must order in English or you won’t be served.
In a case like Sevan’s what if Mr. X had never been to Sevan’s place, but for argument’s sake, had published anti-Sevan diatriabes on the Internet, which Mr. X claims are well reasoned. If Sevan runs an open event, does he have to allow Mr. X to play?
Alternatively, suppose Sevan runs a closed event, but one where any player may apply for entry online. Once their application is approved by Sevan and they receive a confirming letter, then they can enter online. Doesn’t that effectively accomplish the same thing? Or should this be substance over form?
I agree with Rob Getty. If a player can gain access to the tournament venue, and is a USCF member, the USCF rules and Code of Ethics indicate that he should be able to play in a USCF-rated tournament at the venue. The bar is high in the USCF rules and Code of Ethics for banning USCF members from playing in USCF-rated tournaments.
You can’t create your own reasons for barring USCF members from USCF-rated tournaments. If you don’t want to admit all USCF members to your tournament, except those where you meet the USCF requirements for barring them, then don’t hold USCF-rated tournaments. It’s a free country. You can hold any kind of chess tournament you want to hold. But if you hold USCF-rated and USCF-advertised tournaments, you have to let all eligible USCF members play in them, unless you follow the USCF-defined process for barring them.
The tournament organizer may not control the tournament venue. There may be a “landlord”, such as a hotel manager, with his own ideas about who can come onto his property. The landlord does not give up those rights because he allowed his property to be used for a USCF chess tournament. The landlord is not beholden to the USCF. The tournament organizer cannot be faulted for following the policies of the landlord regarding access to the property, even if those policies are not aligned with the USCF’s policies. However, a tournament organizer who had a reasonable choice of venues and knowingly chose one with restrictive policies which prevented some USCF members from participating might have some explaining to do to the Ethics Committee. If you hold your tournament in the Ku Klux Klan hall and exclude USCF members based on their race from your tournament, don’t come crying to the Ethics Committee that you were only complying with the landlord’s requirements.
(Generally, though, having some explaining to do in front of the Ethics Committee does not seem to be something to be feared in this kind of case, other than the hassle. As Bill Smythe has told us, the Ethics Committee more often sides with organizers than USCF members in this kind of case.)
What about situations where the tournament organizer is the landlord or has a great deal of influence over the policies of the landlord? (The landlord is a company and the organizer is the CEO). For example, a chess club with its own facilities, or a chess center? Can such an organizer put on his landlord hat and ban a person whom he would be obliged to admit under USCF rules? Somebody he does not like, for example. Or somebody that other players might find offensive. My answer is No: your status as “the landlord” does not change your USCF obligations as “the organizer”. USCF members should be admitted to USCF-rated tournaments in which they are eligible to play unless there is very good reason why not. A landlord/organizer should follow the USCF policies. He may not substitute his own policies/preferences for those of the USCF. If that means letting USCF members onto his property to play in an “open” tournament, when he would prefer for his own reasons to keep those people out, then his only course is not to hold USCF-rated tournaments on the property.
@ Mottershead - rated closed club championships have been run for years - where one must be a member of the club to enter.
Some states run closed state championships.
I believe that those are viewed as completely valid.
So here there is an example where “…a player can gain access to the tournament venue, and is a USCF member…” and is justifiably not able to play.
In addition, if its private property, perhaps the player cannot gain access to the tournament venue, which is really the initial question, isn’t it?
So suppose that John Doe forms the XYZ Chess Club. To play in a tournament, one must be an XYZ member. Among the rules for members is that members are not allowed to openly complain about XYZ or its owners openly on the Internet. Doing so terminates membership.
Thus, wouldn’t John Doe be able to restrict participation for anyone who complained about him or XYZ on the Internet, so long as the rule was applied consistently?