To what extent, if any, does a Tournament Director have the authority to withdraw unilaterally someone from a tournament who appears to be sick and possibly in danger of infecting others (coughing, sneezing, maybe febrile)?
I think it has to do with whether the player is in the middle of the game and the willingness of the organizer to offer a refund. I don’t see how this is a campaign issue and suggest the moderators move this to another topic. Presumably the answer to Mr. Immitt’s question is pressing enough that he’ll want guidance before August.
Alex Relyea
I agree 100 percent with Alex - and, in fact, Steve’s question was part of the reason I started a thread on single issue voting (short summary: don’t do it).
We bend over backwards–too far backward, in my view–to ensure players are not denied the right to play tournaments without being provided “due process”. The over-the-top application of this standard has led in the past year to at least one high-profile ridiculous result, in which a participant at the United States Championship was permitted to enter a weekend Swiss across town, showing up late for a game in the former and forfeiting a game in the latter as a highly foreseeable consequence.
“Due process” is only that process that the situation requires, no more and no less. Where a player is visibly sick, or where a US Championship participant wants to play in a concurrent event in a manner that is likely to disrupt both events, here is the amount of process that is due:
TD: “It appears your [conduct|health] is or will likely negatively impact the other players in this event. I invite you to show cause why we should not [refund|decline to accept] your entry fee and invite you to go elsewhere.”
Player: "Duh . . . "
TD: “[Keep|Here is] your entry fee. Please go elsewhere.”
The due process rule is designed to protect from unlawful or immoral discrimination. It is not designed to permit people whose conduct or presence puts the integrity of the event or its players at risk.
Use your best judgement and prepare to defend it on appeal if the player goes away mad.
And I agree with Randy that this would be a stupid single issue to base one’s vote on. Particularly if used to justify a vote for the one past board member about whose tenure the kindest thing one can say is that it was, at its worst, no worse than the fifth worst train wreck in US Chess history.
+1