You’re not wrong, other than the point Caleb made about the club TD exam. If we lose TDs, it will be because they feel insulted or just generally ticked off that TDs are bearing the burden, not because of the objective barrier constructed by $19 and 45 minutes.
You are correct. It is not the cost or the time—it is the responsibility that you are trying to add to a TD at a tournament. That is what many consider unacceptable. Perhaps you should consider what the women who are complaining about “sexist or sexual violence” (see the letter released today at Open letter / Lettre ouverte - Google Docs) are really saying. They contend that this is a widespread problem at chess events. I have never seen or heard of such conduct in my state. If you believe that this problem exists in local organizations, then please share these facts so we can evaluate them.
4 Likes
I’ve had four daughters and my wife play in tournaments (not all have played rated events yet, and two of my girls are still little), but I’ve never heard from them or anyone else I know of sexual assaults.
For me personally, I object less about the cost than the pointlessness of the cost. Just hire an expert to make a brief presentation and make it available on the USCF web site forever for a fraction of the eventual cost involved here, then raise membership dues by a penny or so. The company is getting $22,000 the first year and $11,000 each additional year from the directors alone, plus any further subsidy from USCF - in ten years time that’s a pretty hefty windfall for a single 45-minute video. I bet some of the signors of that letter would be willing to research and do it for free, given the passion they are showing.
That is a really impressive letter!
The point is well taken that it’s not fair to TDs. It’s even more unfair that Ramírez sexually assaulted a minor (as reported in the WSJ). For that, I do tend to blame the culture at the St. Louis CC. Would training have stopped the sexual assault? Unknowable; let’s ascribe a ~10% chance to that.
So (skipping several logical steps, I know), would we be willing to pay a $120,000/10% = $1.2 million annually to insure that ONE minor/year is not sexually assaulted? Utilitarians among us might argue whether it’s the best use of the money. But I’m willing to pay my share.
Forget about the money, back to your question of fairness. If some jerk is being racist, it’s unfair that we have to intervene to call the jerk on racism. If some jerk is mugging an elderly person on the street, it’s unfair that we have to intervene. It’s a burden we shouldn’t have to bear all day long. But it’s our contribution to a more civil society.
1 Like
I haven’t seen any evidence either that any of this is as widespread as claimed. I think this is yet another instance of a current social trend: a serious – but very rare – incident occurs and a small group of advocates takes up the cause and campaigns relentlessly for dramatic reforms, as if an epidemic of offenses is occurring. Anyone who disagrees with their demands is either “cancelled” or subjected to savage online criticism. Most businesses and organizations faced with this kind of thing just meekly concede. That’s what I think US Chess has done.
I went through my memories from the last 40 years and identified exactly ten instances where I know of behavior that would likely fall under the new safe play guidelines. Of these, I personally observed only two. Based on this, I don’t see any necessity to rope in every TD in the country with a draconian mandate.
– Hal Terrie
5 Likes
Put maybe more precisely, why did US Chess not just hire experts to produce its own trainings that could then be provided to tournament directors for free?
Not only would this have allowed for the trainings to be customized to our organization’s specific needs but it would also be much more cost efficient. If two thousand directors are taking the refresher courses each year and two hundred new directors are taking the initial trainings each year, the aggerate cost is $21,800 annually or $1.09 million over a 50 year period. The actual amount would be far higher because the annual cost of trainings will surely rise over time due to inflation and hopefully an increase in the number of tournament directors. By contrast, it would surely cost far less than a million dollars for US Chess to produce the best possible training its tournament directors could ever need.
1 Like
As one might guess from some questions and comments I’ve made, I’m not convinced this policy will have a material impact on the frequency of incidents. It may or may not have much impact on the ability of TDs to respond properly when they become aware of incidents. And I certainly understand that US Chess might have been able to hire experts to produce free training.
That said, I would hardly consider $19 and 45 minutes “draconian”. Moreover, it seems likely to me that there will be (and probably already are) lawsuits related to incidents in locatl events, cases you and I have not heard about. In such a case, they will sue everyone and their mother. US Chess generally won’t be liable and the case against us will get dismissed, but there is a cost to defend. Having this program in place might make it easier to get it dismissed more quickly and save money. In that event, I wonder if a home-grown training program tailored to our situations would be more effective than SafeSport or if would be given less credibility by a court because it was home-grown. Both statements could be true. Would is undeniable, however, is that we don’t have such a program now so SafeSport is the most pragmatic option we have.
It is important to remember the origin of this word. It comes from Draco, the first legislator of Athens in recorded history who began his work around 621 B.C. His laws demanded the death penalty for almost all criminal offenses, including stealing a cabbage. He also made borrowing money punishable by slavery in some cases. Requiring tournament directors to surrender 45 minutes of their time and $19 does not seem to rise to the level of Draco’s harshness. Therefore, it is historically inaccurate to describe this mandate as draconian.
Would you be happier, historically speaking, if one suggested this might decimate the TD ranks? 
3 Likes
Fine. Allow me then to substitute “excessively harsh” for “draconian.”
– Hal Terrie
Both of those substitutions would suffice.
The ‘50 year cost’ is a silly aggregation. Training programs are not trivial to set up, deliver and maintain. It is far more likely that the Center for SafeSport training will be far less costly because of the economy of scale.
The stuff the training is meant to cover are common topics associated with awareness, prevention, reaction, etc. They transcend chess and relate to numerous other sports and activities - which is why this Center exists and is universally relied upon.
There is no new ‘responsibility’ that us Chess is ‘trying to add to a TD at a tournament.’ The responsibilities are no more or no less than they have been. If the FAQ implies a new set of responsibilities, then it isn’t accurately communicating the purpose of the training. Again, the various sports and activities that use this training do not, as far as I know, use it with an expectation that it creates some new ‘policing’ responsibilities.
I agree with Mr. Bauer. Even for extremely price-sensitive chess people, the idea that $19 and an annual training is going to decimate activity is absurd. While I do think US Chess should pay for the training, $19 isn’t going to change my tournament director work. It likely won’t for most people.
Of course it will not decimate activity…of existing TDs. Only a small percentage of active TDs now on the books will simply drop out because of this training and fee. Most drop outs will be people who do not direct anymore, or perhaps, people who are already on the way out and psychologically use the training and fee as one more reason to retire. That is, however, only a short-term problem and one that probably is not of much significance. The much greater, and long-term, problem are people who have yet to become tournament directors.
1 Like
1,913 US Chess tournament directors worked at least one event in 2022-2023. How many do you think will do so in 2032-2033?
Not that it’s particularly relevant to your point but the announcement says it’s a 90 minute course, not 45 minutes.
Randy, that’s not what the FAQ says. If it is poorly worded, then please get US Chess to clarify.
It says the training is “…to identify and respond to misconduct of all types. TDs are our eyes and ears at tournament sites and are the event officials who are best suited to receive and address safe play complaints.”
TDs have to “receive and address” safe play complaints? Does the training cover legal responsibilities for handling potential criminal activity, in every jurisdiction that US Chess operates in? I doubt it. I do not believe TDs are “best suited” for this responsibility. And it most definitely is a huge added responsibility if we are on the hook for dealing with what could be an egregious crime. Unless there is some assurance that we won’t be subject to legal, or civil peril because of this expectation from US Chess, I won’t go near a large event ever again (maybe as a player, but not as a TD).
Please have US Chess address this new responsibility vis a vis our legal exposure.
-Matt
3 Likes
Matt, I think you might be reading more into this statement than is warranted. Suppose someone feels they have been a victim of a Safe Play violation while at your tournament. They will do one of three things. Either they report it to the TD, they wait until they get home and report it to US Chess, or they do neither (maybe they report it to someone else, maybe they suffer in silence). If they don’t report it to the TD, the TD does nothing now. That won’t change under ths policy. If they do report it to the TD, the TD now may or may not know what to do. After this training, they hopefully will have a better idea. Their responsibility hasn’t changed, they are just better equipped.
What about Safe Play violations they actually observe? I’m not equipped to say what their legal responsibilities are, but they aren’t changed by this policy. Their responsibilities exist because of laws, not US Chess policies. Again, hopefully TDs are better equipped to discern when a violation occurs. From this FAQ US Chess serves notice that they expect TDs to act on complaints they receive. But I don’t think this policy creates any new liability.
Maybe there just needs to be a new role at chess tournaments. A Safe Play Coordinator. They would be specifically trained for the role, and not even need chess experience. Then require tournaments over a certain size have a Safe Play Coordinator or more with larger tournaments. That way TDs can focus on their responsibility of running a tournament.
1 Like