Code of ethics question

[michaeldlawson]

As I read the USCF code of ethics, they apply only to play and perhaps general conduct at a tournament? And therefore not to non-play issues. Is that right?

Recently I receive an email that accused me of bashing another player’s skill by that player in the email exchange. Also his skill as an organizer. There is no evidence that would support that I bashed him as player. (And actually none as organizer but that can be subject to interpretation) But I felt that his accusation was simply unacceptable. In a sense he claiming that I was being unsportsmanlike. We are both close in ratings. But this is not apparently not covered by the USCF code of ethics. Agree? Disagree?

Unfortunately I lost my temper and fired off flame email to him and another player who have battling each other senseless. That I do regret but have not yet addressed that regret. I certainly do feel I didn’t overstate the problem in the flame email. I had asked also in that email for the original player to retract his statement. He has not. That I don’t care about. I said my peace anyway.

As you can tell I still very angry. In a sense I am divided between a gut reaction and mind reaction that realizes that I am possibly over reacting to abuse that others have faced as well. I also understand that no one is perfect.

Sorry for the rant. But I think the issue (as a general case not this specific incident) might need to be addressed by the USCF. But perhaps others feel differently? A counter argument can be made for respecting freedom of speech for instance. However libel is libel and also free speech.

Any thoughts or definition would be greatly appreciated.

[rfeditor]

This has been debated several times on other threads (mostly in “USCF Issues”). In my opinion, the USCF has absolutely no standing to regulate the private conduct of its members – that is, anything other than tournaments and rated play. Others have taken a broader view of the Code of Ethics, but I am curious as to whether they will still do so when it’s not their ox being gored. As a practical matter, I am almost certain that the Ethics Committee would decline to accept a complaint of the sort you describe.

[michaeldlawson]

I will check out the USCF issues forum then. Do you know of any threads specifically discussing this.

Another point against it being reviewed by the USCF is that is private email. That more or less goes back to what I said about not being during play or a tournament.

There is a concept in the Game of Duplicate Bridge called Zero Tolerance. Zero Tolerance reads exactly like the USCF code does. It is more about Play then non-table time. However many Bridge Players reference Zero Tolerance as if it is on all the time. Which clearly it isn’t because we would have at least one less Bridge Player at the local club.

[kevin_bachler]

The USCF Code of Ethics used to include language that limited the ability of our members to make public accusations of cheating. Somewhere between the last rulebook and the current rulebook that wording was removed. In talking to the Ethics Committee, the office, and the rulebook editor, no one was able to describe how or why.

Contrary to the opinion of some members, many organizations, including sports organizations, schools, etc. have rules regulating the behavior of their members even when not directly involved in a competition. Clearly, the EB Code of Conduct provides some limitations. In the thread Improving Organizational Behavior I proposed:

Advocating that this language be added to the Standards of Conduct

As a membership organization USCF feels it is very important that all members follow the rules that we have agreed upon as an organization so that the rights of all members are protected. USCF also believes that to defend the rights of all members, proper decorum and due process are important in considering any allegations of rulebreaking. Therefore, a USCF member who suspects another player of cheating or otherwise violating any tournament rule, rules of Standards of Conduct, rules of Executive Board Code of Ethics or any other USCF rule should make the allegation only in private to an appropriate official depending upon the offense, and should have, or be able to provide, clear and concise documentation. Depending upon the type of offense/allegation, an appropriate offical may be a tournament director, the Ethics Committee, Tournament Director Certification Committee, other committees, a USCF staff member (? just ED?) or a member of the Executive Board. (Questions about the appropriate entity to contact can be directed to the Executive Director or the Ethics Committee Chair.)

Any public accusation of cheating, rulebreaking or otherwise violating any rule or law that impacts USCF members with respect to their membership in the organization, without appropriate attempts to uphold our standards of decorum and due process, is unacceptable conduct under the terms of this Code.

Additionally, here is what the SOC currently says:

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.

When reading this, note the parts italicized. It is clear from this wording that it doesn’t have to be a tournament, and it is strongly implied (if not clear) in the latter half of the rule that it is not limited to USCF only. Specifically:

… any action or behavior … or [that] 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.

I think you should make this argument and go for it if you think you’ve truly been wronged and have tried other reasonable means to resolve the situation.

[rfeditor]

@kbachler

Additionally, here is what the SOC currently says:

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.

When reading this, note the parts italicized. It is clear from this wording that it doesn’t have to be a tournament, and it is strongly implied (if not clear) in the latter half of the rule that it is not limited to USCF only. Specifically:

… any action or behavior … or [that] 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.

I think you should make this argument and go for it if you think you’ve truly been wronged and have tried other reasonable means to resolve the situation.

Since some reading this forum may not be familiar with the earlier exchanges under “USCF Issues,” I think I should point out that I (and a good many others) do not agree with your reading of that passage. It is by no means “obvious” that it should be read as you suggest, it is almost certain that this was not the intent of those who drafted it, and what you are suggesting is essentially an attempt to regulate the private conduct of USCF members. Maybe you can get away with that sort of thing when dealing with children, but adults won’t stand for it. Certainly I wouldn’t.

And, as a practical matter, you know as well as I do that, whatever you may think if it, the Ethics Committee wouldn’t touch this. Isn’t it a bit irresponsible for you to suggest that the poster pursue it anyway?

[kevin_bachler]

@rfeditor

Since some reading this forum may not be familiar with the earlier exchanges under “USCF Issues,” I think I should point out that I (and a good many others) do not agree with your reading of that passage. It is by no means “obvious” that it should be read as you suggest, it is almost certain that this was not the intent of those who drafted it, and what you are suggesting is essentially an attempt to regulate the private conduct of USCF members. Maybe you can get away with that sort of thing when dealing with children, but adults won’t stand for it. Certainly I wouldn’t.

And, as a practical matter, you know as well as I do that, whatever you may think if it, the Ethics Committee wouldn’t touch this. Isn’t it a bit irresponsible for you to suggest that the poster pursue it anyway?

Again, an argument ad populum (your appeal to masses), as you tried in another argument earlier today, is also not effective here, since there are others who we can appeal to on both sides of the argument. You really should leave the logical fallacies at home, John.

I see no reason why the plain language doesn’t obviously say what it says. If anything is far from obvious, it would be that the plain language means something other than what it says.

The argument that those drafting this also doesn’t make sense since the prior version of the code of ethics had similar language that had been tested, and this language, if anything, is broader.

I also don’t pretend to speak for or no what the Ethics Committee will or will not touch. Given the language here, if they refused to touch his question, it would be inappropriate for the committee not to state a clear reason why.

Also, given the plain language, how is it in any sense irresponsible for the person to pursue his question or for me to suggest he pursue it?

So no John, I basically disagree with everything you say here. Further, I think it irresponsible of you to continue to make suggestions about what this means that are other than a plain language reading of the SOC.

Though not an attorney, I also have enough familiarity with various types of law that I know that barring markups, a bluebook, etc. that clearly establish a legislative intent, then the law does actually tend to follow the plain language.

So perhaps you would care to explain:

It says:

"… any action or behavior … "

Why do you think that means something narrower than that?

It says:

“…or [that] is inconsistent with the principles of fair play, good sportsmanship, honesty, and respect for the rights of others,…”

Again, this seems pretty darn clear that you need to be nice, respectful, etc.

“… may be considered to fall within the scope of this code of ethics”

This seems to pretty clearly define the scope, because the word “may” here has a specific meaning, and as an attorney, you know that. The meaning is this: “Whenever a statute directs the doing of a thing for the sake of justice or the public good, the word may is the same as shall.”

Hence, this is VERY obvious, John. It’s pretty hard to say that the plain language here isn’t abundantly clear.

[tanstaafl]

Kevin,

None of that language you keep quoting applies to ANYTHING outside of “USCF activities”. IMHO, there’s no way private speech by a USCF member would be considered as falling under the code of ethics unless it took place in the context of a USCF activity – at the board during a tournament, in a USCF election campaign, at a delegates meeting, posting to these forums, etc.

[Hal_Terrie]

@tanstaafl

Kevin,

None of that language you keep quoting applies to ANYTHING outside of “USCF activities”. IMHO, there’s no way private speech by a USCF member would be considered as falling under the code of ethics unless it took place in the context of a USCF activity – at the board during a tournament, in a USCF election campaign, at a delegates meeting, posting to these forums, etc.

This is exactly correct. During my last 4-5 years of service on the Ethics Committee, we rejected jurisdiction in a number of cases on the basis that they had no link to “USCF activities.”

– Hal Terrie

[kevin_bachler]

@Hal Terrie

@tanstaafl

Kevin,

None of that language you keep quoting applies to ANYTHING outside of “USCF activities”. IMHO, there’s no way private speech by a USCF member would be considered as falling under the code of ethics unless it took place in the context of a USCF activity – at the board during a tournament, in a USCF election campaign, at a delegates meeting, posting to these forums, etc.

This is exactly correct. During my last 4-5 years of service on the Ethics Committee, we rejected jurisdiction in a number of cases on the basis that they had no link to “USCF activities.”

– Hal Terrie

I’m curious as to how you reconciled this with the wording quoted under the SOC, since the plain language does not require a link to USCF activities. Even so, how much of a link is required for it to be a link if one were to take an interpretation other than the plain language interpretation?

[kevin_bachler]

@tanstaafl

Kevin,

None of that language you keep quoting applies to ANYTHING outside of “USCF activities”.

How would you come to this conclusion based on the plain language in the SOC, which does not require this? And, even if you did come to that conclusion, how would you determine how much of a “link” is necessary? Is private speech claiming that someone did something irreputable at a USCF event a sufficient link?

[Hal_Terrie]

@kbachler

@Hal Terrie

@tanstaafl

Kevin,

None of that language you keep quoting applies to ANYTHING outside of “USCF activities”. IMHO, there’s no way private speech by a USCF member would be considered as falling under the code of ethics unless it took place in the context of a USCF activity – at the board during a tournament, in a USCF election campaign, at a delegates meeting, posting to these forums, etc.

This is exactly correct. During my last 4-5 years of service on the Ethics Committee, we rejected jurisdiction in a number of cases on the basis that they had no link to “USCF activities.”

– Hal Terrie

I’m curious as to how you reconciled this with the wording quoted under the SOC, since the plain language does not require a link to USCF activities. Even so, how much of a link is required for it to be a link if one were to take an interpretation other than the plain language interpretation?

From the Code of Ethics:

3. The standards, procedures, and sanctions set forth in this code of
   ethics shall apply only to:

(A) actions and behavior by members of the USCF that occur in connection
with tournaments or other activities sponsored by or sanctioned by the
USCF; and (B) individuals and entities acting in an official capacity as
officers or representatives of the USCF.

What part of “shall apply only to” don’t you understand?

As for how much of a link is required, that is a matter that the Committee decides on a case by case basis.

– Hal Terrie

[Harry_Payne]

@Hal Terrie

@kbachler

@Hal Terrie

@tanstaafl

Kevin,

None of that language you keep quoting applies to ANYTHING outside of “USCF activities”. IMHO, there’s no way private speech by a USCF member would be considered as falling under the code of ethics unless it took place in the context of a USCF activity – at the board during a tournament, in a USCF election campaign, at a delegates meeting, posting to these forums, etc.

This is exactly correct. During my last 4-5 years of service on the Ethics Committee, we rejected jurisdiction in a number of cases on the basis that they had no link to “USCF activities.”

– Hal Terrie

I’m curious as to how you reconciled this with the wording quoted under the SOC, since the plain language does not require a link to USCF activities. Even so, how much of a link is required for it to be a link if one were to take an interpretation other than the plain language interpretation?

From the Code of Ethics:

3. The standards, procedures, and sanctions set forth in this code of
   ethics shall apply only to:

(A) actions and behavior by members of the USCF that occur in connection
with tournaments or other activities sponsored by or sanctioned by the
USCF; and (B) individuals and entities acting in an official capacity as
officers or representatives of the USCF.

What part of “shall apply only to” don’t you understand?

As for how much of a link is required, that is a matter that the Committee decides on a case by case basis.

– Hal Terrie

I am glad “and(B)” was included. Because an Executive Board member represents both the members and the USCF organization when on forums discussing other members, such as a past president, or a WGM, or other members of the USCF, even if they do it under the guise of another name.
Either the USCF has, or it does not have, a Code of Ethics, and Standards of Conduct, that it’s members, (Most especially those elected representatives), should adhere to. I am also certain that the SOC, and the COE, include one’s fiduciary responsibilities, and compliance, with legal representation of the USCF.
If, as some allude, it does not, than the SOC, and the COE, are a sham, and should be tossed, along with the committee, which enforce them. IMHO

[kevin_bachler]

@Hal Terrie

From the Code of Ethics:

3. The standards, procedures, and sanctions set forth in this code of
   ethics shall apply only to:

(A) actions and behavior by members of the USCF that occur in connection
with tournaments or other activities sponsored by or sanctioned by the
USCF; and (B) individuals and entities acting in an official capacity as
officers or representatives of the USCF.

What part of “shall apply only to” don’t you understand?

As for how much of a link is required, that is a matter that the Committee decides on a case by case basis.

– Hal Terrie

You are of course correct, I had in this recent discussion forgotten about paragraph 3. Hopefully some day we can change this and set USCF on a more productive course.

[Mulfish]

I think, Kevin, you’d find a sizable portion of the membership would side with John regarding the desirability of extending the code of ethics outside of USCF activities and whether that would be a more “productive” course.

It was refreshing to see you admit error when Hal pointed out paragraph 3. That sort of acknowledgement occurs all to infrequently on the forums.

[kevin_bachler]

@Mulfish

I think, Kevin, you’d find a sizable portion of the membership would side with John regarding the desirability of extending the code of ethics outside of USCF activities and whether that would be a more “productive” course.

It was refreshing to see you admit error when Hal pointed out paragraph 3. That sort of acknowledgement occurs all to infrequently on the forums.

I haven’t suggested extending the COE outside of USCF activities.

[artichoke]

A few comments …

1. Mr. Hillery is not a lawyer, though he does frequently play one on the Issues Forum.

2. Mr. Bachler was quoting from the Standards of Conduct. The SOC applies to EB members. This thread was started by a member who is not on the EB and therefore not subject to the SOC. I assume in the absence of further information that the others he referred to in his post are also not on the EB.

3. Mr. Bachler’s suggested amendment to the SOC involves suggestions of cheating, not insulting remarks about playing and organizing skill. So it seems that regarding the case described at the top of the thread, this would be an irrelevant modification to an irrelevant document.

4. That said, I think the SOC is a disaster that tries to mandate niceness and ends up squashing disagreement and open discussion of important issues on the EB.

5. I hope the Code of Ethics, which applies to the general membership, is never applied to non-USCF activities.

6. I believe the discussions and emails described are not USCF activities. They are simply private correspondence or communication.

[rfeditor]

@artichoke

A few comments …

1. Mr. Hillery is not a lawyer, though he does frequently play one on the Issues Forum.

David, I consider this a personal attack. I’m sorry if you resent others knowing more than you do, but I’m afraid it’s unavoidable.

[artichoke]

@rfeditor

@artichoke

A few comments …

1. Mr. Hillery is not a lawyer, though he does frequently play one on the Issues Forum.

David, I consider this a personal attack. I’m sorry if you resent others knowing more than you do, but I’m afraid it’s unavoidable.

I’m sorry but quite surprised to see you saw it as a personal attack! It was just meant as a slightly humorous way of saying that you are not a lawyer but frequently discuss issues in an apparently informed way on the Issues Forum. These discussions have apparently convinced Mr. Bachler that you are in fact a lawyer, according to his comment in this thread, despite your explicit denial of it in a recent discussion on the Issues Forum.

I’m not a lawyer either and don’t resent you for knowing more than I do about many legal issues.

If you would like, I will delete that point from my post (if you’ll also remove the quote of it) or reword it if you prefer. Please PM me and I’ll do the appropriate edits from my side.

[rfeditor]

@artichoke

If you would like, I will delete that point from my post (if you’ll also remove the quote of it) or reword it if you prefer. Please PM me and I’ll do the appropriate edits from my side.

Let it go. – jh]]

[rfeditor]

@artichoke

3. Mr. Bachler’s suggested amendment to the SOC involves suggestions of cheating, not insulting remarks about playing and organizing skill. So it seems that regarding the case described at the top of the thread, this would be an irrelevant modification to an irrelevant document.

4. That said, I think the SOC is a disaster that tries to mandate niceness and ends up squashing disagreement and open discussion of important issues on the EB.

No doubt to everyone’s surprise, I more or less agree with you on this (though I think “disaster” is too strong). The problem with the SOC is that it was written in response to actions by specific individuals, most of whom are no longer around. Instead of setting general, neutral standards, it lists behaviors that someone found distateful. This is lousy technique in lawmaking. It’s also harder to justify now on pragmatic grounds, since with the increased information flow any Board member who makes an obnoxious pest of himself will soon be outed to the voters. (This might be an argument for somewhat shorter terms, however.)