A “theoretical” question: can I, as an organizer, unilaterally ban a play from participating in any tournament I run?
This topic comes up from time to time in the forums.
See the following for some recent discussions
censorship empowerment for clubs - I think that they may have meant “Censure” not “Censor”.
Can I ban a player from my tournaments?
See “Code of Ethics”. Check the Rulebook and main.uschess.org/content/blogcategory/84/189/ . In particular under “Code of Ethics” look at the subsection called “Standards of Conduct”. (Do not confuse this subsection with a similarly titled section called “Standards of Conduct of USCF Executive Board Members” which you can find on the same url/webpage.)
This thread covers this topic. I think the major points in all the banning threads tend to be the same, though.
Many Years ago, I was the Chairman of a local organizing committee to try and bring the U.S. Open to our city. There was a person of ill repute that was a known Child Molester, and made the bold stance of looking into banning this person to reduce the risk of the local organizing committee being named a Co-Defendant in any lawsuit that could rear its ugly head. Some kids back in those days were traveling alone.
Needless to say, we were not considered for this bid as we were told it was against the USCF Bylaws to ban anyone from a National Tournament, but I felt as a leader of the local organizing committee, that the young players should feel safe coming to our city by eliminating this known “Threat”.
Any Thoughts??
Here in California we have laws against Child Molesters coming in contact with children.
I think that the Bylaws could be updated along with the Code of Ethics for membership obligations. I like the Mensa approach to this.
That said, here is the current Code of Ethics (Standards of Conduct section). Perhaps section h) creates an issue with a limitation, but perhaps section i) corrects it depending upon applicable state law. And if there isn’t a state law, perhaps there is a city ordinance.
STANDARDS OF CONDUCT
6. 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.
(a) Intentional violations of tournament regulations, or of any other regulations pertaining to USCF activities and goals, particularly after being warned.
(b) Cheating in a game of chess by illegally giving, receiving, offering, or soliciting advice; or by consulting written sources; or by tampering with clocks; or in any other manner.
(c) Deliberately losing a game for payment, or to lower one’s rating, or for any other reason; or attempting to induce another player to do so. Deliberately failing to play at one’s best in a game, in any manner inconsistent with the principles of good sportsmanship, honesty, or fair play.
(d) Deliberately misrepresenting one’s playing ability in order to compete in a tournament or division of a tournament intended for players of lesser ability; players with foreign ratings are expected to disclose those ratings.
(e) Participating in a tournament under a false name or submitting a falsified rating report…
(f) Participating in a tournament while under suspension.
(g) Purposely giving false information in order to circumvent or violate any rule or regulation or goal recognized by the USCF.
(h) 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 then only 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 Violating federal, state, or local laws while participating in activities that are associated with the USCF.[/b]
I would think that convicted criminal behavior, esp the violent kind, and that against minors, would,
be something, not chess related, that should bar attendance. Secondly, what kind of liability would
a tournament, or organizer face who knowingly let a convicted perp into their midst??
Rob Jones
Hi Rob,
If minors came to that tournament, and came in contact with “The Perv”, and “The Perv” gained the trust of these minors and took him/her on a tour of the city, “And You Know What Later”, then not only the USCF, but the local organizing committee could be sued by the parents of these minors for ignoring a known danger as this perv would have been 100 times more dangerous on his home turf. This is precisely the reason why I wanted to have the USCF look into this at the time, and their stance was that it is not their jobs to do background checks on the 80,000 members to determine if they have a criminal conviction that could constitute a danger to any member of the USCF.
You’re mixing two topics - a known (assuming convicted) criminal, and 80,000 other members. These are two very different use cases.
On the part of background checking 80,000 people or the organizer background checking them - I don’t think that’s a viable option.
If there is a known (and assuming) convicted pedophile, that’s a different scenario, however, to play devils advocate, at what point does it stop - the convicted rapist, thief, murderer, drug dealer/user. It’s a sticky situation not doubt. If we ban the pedophile but we don’t ban the rapist and something happens, then we could be in as much hot water as we chose to protect one class of potential victims and not the other.
Probably legal advice would be good to get here on this topic.
[quote=“davidacole”]
Hi Rob,
If minors came to that tournament, and came in contact with “The Perv”, and “The Perv” gained the trust of these minors and took him/her on a tour of the city, “And You Know What Later”, then not only the USCF, but the local organizing committee could be sued by the parents of these minors for ignoring a known danger as this perv would have been 100 times more dangerous on his home turf. This is precisely the reason why I wanted to have the USCF look into this at the time, and their stance was that it is not their jobs to do background checks on the 80,000 members to determine if they have a criminal conviction that could constitute a danger to any member of the USCF.[/quote
there are legal questions dealing with privacy in regard to background checks. Certainly, it would make
sense to have staff of such events go through such background checks, and for a fact, many schools
and organizers do require this, currently. Players is another topic all together. I would think this
is impossible given the nature of walk-ins, and the time it takes to properly perform such checks.
A sound policy used by most of the chess-in-education firms I know of is that there are certain
rules that must be used when dealing with minors:
A. no closed on-on-one meetings (Open Doors)
B. No escorting of minors into restrooms.
C. No transporting of minors to events (unless with permission slips and other adults present)
Use of such rules generally minimizes the opportunities, and thus the risk.
Rob Jones
Even doing a background check of every player would not take care of non-playing spectators, or passers-by that have other reasons to be at the hotel the tournament is at.
For that matter, if you have a scholastic tournament with even 50 players from various schools it would be essentially impossible to do a background check on every spectator (relative, friend, etc.) that comes. If memory serves, there was a case some time back at an event in a hotel where a young scholastic player almost walked off with a non-playing spectator, and a spectator would have more opportunity time than a player (due to no requirement to spend some of the time on actual games).
Moderator Mode: Off
Don’t convicted child molesters have a prohibition on them to not be around children?
In the case of the OP, I would say if this is a convicted child molester, contacting the authorities before the event would be the thing to do.
I would also have no problem telling the individual they were not welcome at the tournament.
Yes, contacting the authorities would be the right thing to do if this were a scholastic event or there was going to be a number of children present.
As Kevin seemed to imply, following the laws might eliminate the need to even consider whether or not to prohibit an entry. And it can work with spectators too.
I’m not sure of the truth of the following story (it’s probably apocryphal), but it is an example that makes many people hesitant to take some countermeasures if they cannot be guaranteed to be enough to prevent every risk.
STORY
Two people are walking after a snowfall. One slips, falls, and suffers an injury on an unshoveled walk. The other suffers the same injury on a shoveled walk.
The judge declares the injury on the unshoveled walk to be due to an act of God (a snowfall that was obvious and gave the walker a reason to take care) and absolves the homeowner of any responsibility. The judge also declares the injury on the shoveled walk to be due to negligence (incorrect or incomplete shoveling that gave the walker a false sense of safety) and requires the homeowner’s insurance to pay for the injury.
If a kid were travelling to a tournament alone, he/she would already be at risk of encountering countless dangers (including molestors) while travelling to and from the tournament and while not in the playing room. A tournament organizer or director cannot be expected to assume the role of a babysitter to children who attend the tournament. It must be the responsibility of a child’s parents to determine the level of supervision the child requires and to insure that the child receives that degree of supervision.
Bob
I believe the laws were like that at one time, but have been changing the last 30-ish years or so.
Yeah, these days everybody gets sued.
I didn’t believe this until 2005, when the incomprehensible quasi-legal screed better known as Bennett v. USCF, et al. landed on my doorstep, with me as a twice-named defendant. 
What, did the plaintiff sue both Boyd M. Reed and M. Reed Boyd?
Did you think - “I’ve been screed?”