[gordontd]

I've been in situations like this more than once. I would ask Player A to apologise for the bad language. If he refused to do so, I'd suspend him for the rest of the session. Then Player B would have nothing to worry about. If he did apologise, I'd insist on Player B playing the remaining board. If he refused, I'd suspend him for the rest of the session.

The aim is to keep the game going with the minimum of disruption for everyone else. Players can't pick & choose who to play against, and must expect to comply with any reasonable request of the director. Being asked to apologise for bad language is a reasonable request, and so is being required to play the scheduled boards.

The usefulness of suspending a player for the rest of the session under L91, as a method of control, is that the player can't appeal against it, and so it avoids them disrupting the game further.

[TimG]

Cyberyeti, on Oct 12 2009, 10:21 AM, said:

If somebody has said things about me that I find offensive, I can understand refusing to play on without an apology.

What does this accomplish?

[gnasher]

TimG, on Oct 14 2009, 12:49 PM, said:

Cyberyeti, on Oct 12 2009, 10:21 AM, said:

If somebody has said things about me that I find offensive, I can understand refusing to play on without an apology.

What does this accomplish?

It causes them embarrassment and humiliation, and reduces the chance that they will repeat their offensive behaviour.

[bluejak]

gnasher, on Oct 14 2009, 12:52 PM, said:

TimG, on Oct 14 2009, 12:49 PM, said:

Cyberyeti, on Oct 12 2009, 10:21 AM, said:

If somebody has said things about me that I find offensive, I can understand refusing to play on without an apology.

What does this accomplish?

It causes them embarrassment and humiliation, and reduces the chance that they will repeat their offensive behaviour.

Personally, I find my refusal to follow the Laws and instructions from the TD causes me "embarrassment and humiliation", not my opponent.

[Cyberyeti]

TimG, on Oct 14 2009, 06:49 AM, said:

Cyberyeti, on Oct 12 2009, 10:21 AM, said:

If somebody has said things about me that I find offensive, I can understand refusing to play on without an apology.

What does this accomplish?

It means that I don't have to play a further board against an opponent who's called me for example an effing cheat with the morals of Charles Manson while angry enough that I would probably give them a top on the board anyway.

Having 10 minutes to calm down can work wonders here.

[Trinidad]

Cyberyeti, on Oct 14 2009, 03:21 PM, said:

TimG, on Oct 14 2009, 06:49 AM, said:

Cyberyeti, on Oct 12 2009, 10:21 AM, said:

If somebody has said things about me that I find offensive, I can understand refusing to play on without an apology.

What does this accomplish?

It means that I don't have to play a further board against an opponent who's called me for example an effing cheat with the morals of Charles Manson while angry enough that I would probably give them a top on the board anyway.

Having 10 minutes to calm down can work wonders here.

If I am directing and a player calls an opponent "an effing cheat with the morals of Charles Manson", that player will be disqualified immediately, no matter how much he apologizes. The extent of his apologozies will only affect the time of his suspension.

I strongly believe in a 10 minute calm down period, but some offenses need an immediate penalty.

Rik

[shintaro]

Trinidad, on Oct 14 2009, 09:56 AM, said:

Cyberyeti, on Oct 14 2009, 03:21 PM, said:

TimG, on Oct 14 2009, 06:49 AM, said:

Cyberyeti, on Oct 12 2009, 10:21 AM, said:

If somebody has said things about me that I find offensive, I can understand refusing to play on without an apology.

What does this accomplish?

It means that I don't have to play a further board against an opponent who's called me for example an effing cheat with the morals of Charles Manson while angry enough that I would probably give them a top on the board anyway.

Having 10 minutes to calm down can work wonders here.

If I am directing and a player calls an opponent "an effing cheat with the morals of Charles Manson", that player will be disqualified immediately, no matter how much he apologizes. The extent of his apologozies will only affect the time of his suspension.

I strongly believe in a 10 minute calm down period, but some offenses need an immediate penalty.

Rik

Hanging might be too lenient in these cases

[Vampyr]

Cyberyeti, on Oct 14 2009, 02:21 PM, said:

It means that I don't have to play a further board against an opponent who's called me for example an effing cheat with the morals of Charles Manson while angry enough that I would probably give them a top on the board anyway.

I think that being called a cheat is in a category of its own as far as bad language is concerned, and I think that the penalty for this should be higher, no matter what came before.

[blackshoe]

I had a player accuse me of cheating once, though not in so many words. She said that I deliberately took an action I knew to be illegal in order to deceive her. The director responded with "We're just going to let that slide."

[lamford]

Sadie3, on Oct 12 2009, 07:33 PM, said:

As for the foul language, that is a zero tolerance issue and I would give a 30 day suspension to that player as well

That sounds a bit excessive, a bit like the American interpretation of zero tolerance as shown in:

http://news.bbc.co.u...cas/8305987.stm

The majority view to just apply the Laws seems right; most sports have regulations of what to do for foul and abusive language - whoever it is directed against; in Serena Williams' case, recently, it cost her a point and the match and a fine; in football it is normally just a yellow card, but can be a red if there is any racist overtone, or if the abuse is extreme; this will lead to typically a three-match ban. Each case should be judged on its merits, and the remark that was made. In cricket, for example, "foul or abusive language to fellow player, club or league official or spectators whether on or off the field" has a 14 day tariff, but this works out at an average of only two matches.

Gordon's proposed method of handling seems more balanced.

[peachy]

gordontd, on Oct 14 2009, 03:11 AM, said:

I've been in situations like this more than once. I would ask Player A to apologise for the bad language. If he refused to do so, I'd suspend him for the rest of the session. Then Player B would have nothing to worry about. If he did apologise, I'd insist on Player B playing the remaining board. If he refused, I'd suspend him for the rest of the session.

The aim is to keep the game going with the minimum of disruption for everyone else. Players can't pick & choose who to play against, and must expect to comply with any reasonable request of the director. Being asked to apologise for bad language is a reasonable request, and so is being required to play the scheduled boards.

The usefulness of suspending a player for the rest of the session under L91, as a method of control, is that the player can't appeal against it, and so it avoids them disrupting the game further.

I like the ACBL ZT idea of penalties to anyone who engages in unacceptable behavior or bad language "irrespective of who initiated the unacceptable behavior". Some folks have a sharp tongue, large vocabulary and a quick mind and they insult without using "foul language" while others may lack such skills and they will use foul words instead. Both are equally guilty and there is no need to find out who started it, IMO.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on Oct 15 2009, 12:04 AM, said:

I had a player accuse me of cheating once, though not in so many words. She said that I deliberately took an action I knew to be illegal in order to deceive her. The director responded with "We're just going to let that slide."

Sorry to have been unclear. I don't think that the penalty for an accusation of cheating is something that should be handled by the director on the floor. I would take it up with my country's Laws and Ethics Committee. They might just demand a written apology, but at least the offense would be on record and the person might think twice about doing it again.

In this case I would also, of course, discuss with the committee the director's attitude.

[blackshoe]

As I understand the most recent information I've seen from Memphis, the ACBL has basically decided that what goes on in clubs is none of their affair. So a player faced with this kind of thing has no recourse other than voting with his feet, particularly where, as is often the case, the TD in question owns the club.