ICCF 2015-016: Revised Arbiters Manual
Dennis Doren, Arbiter Committee Chair
Revised "Arbiters Manual" and Related Rules
Proposal
Overall: A very large set of revisions, essentially a complete re-write of the Arbiters [sic] Manual along with changes in related rules currently found in other documents. These revisions are described below.
Any rule listed in brackets "[ ]" at the end of an entry in this list of revisions will also need to be updated to become consistent with the listed proposed revision to the Arbiter Manual.
Some of the following proposed revisions are voluminous and spread throughout the Manual (such as #2 below). They are listed here anyway so as to make the reader aware of the general change to be found throughout the revised Manual.
Rationale
Specific revisions:
(1) A completely new set of headings covering a far larger number of topics (Table of Contents) (Please be aware that the intention is to make each line in the Table of Contents into a link taking the user directly to the desired portion of the manual).
(2) Almost a complete re-writing of each section, expanding the specificity of the instructions.
(3) The inclusion of rules and procedures that are currently either only in ICCF documents outside the Arbiters Manual or are found in parts across various documents.
(4) Change in the name of the manual from "Arbiters [sic] Manual" to "Tournament Directors' Manual" (to be abbreviated TDs' Manual).
(5) Division into two separate manuals, depending on the type of tournament being overseen: server (to be called TDs' Manual - Server, abbreviated TDM-S) or postal (to be called TDs' Manual - Postal, abbreviated TDM-P). The section numbers listed below pertain to both the TDM-S and the TDM-P, as both manuals use exactly the same numeric system in labeling sections.
(6) New requirement for all TDs to have a "specialization", that being one of three possibilities: postal, server, or both; and only to direct tournaments within their chosen specialization. TDs choose their own specialization, but must pass the relevant "manual test" to be allowed to TD with that type of tournament. (See revision #11 below for more detail about the manual test.) (Section 1.3)
(7) Change in the mentor program: New requirement that any mentor must be of the same "specialization" as the TD being mentored. (Section 1.3)
(8) Expansion of the list of ICCF tournaments (now including Chess 960 events, Aspirer events, some previously omitted zonal events, etc.) accompanied by the specification of what level TD will be allowed to direct each type of tournament (Section 1.4) [This proposal is also to change Playing Rule - Server 1b & 11b accordingly.]
(9) New rule that TDs are not allowed to play in tournaments they direct, and backup TDs are not allowed to play in tournaments they might direct except for national events, friendly matches, and unrated events. (Section 1.5)
(10) New requirement for all "inexperienced" TDs (called Level 1 TDs) to have a mentor. The threshold for being considered Level 1 is having directed fewer than 200 games. (Sections 1.3, 2.3.1 & 2.3.5)
(11) New requirement that every TD pass a test to demonstrate familiarity with the new manual(s), this test to be administered on the server at the convenience of the TD. The test will be designed as "open book" meaning that people taking the test are expected to look up the answers, all of which will be in the revised manual(s). Once passed, no TD would be required to take the same test again, though TDs wishing to specialize in both postal-based and server-based events must take the relevant test for both manuals. (Section 2.1)
(12) Revision of list of requirements to become an ICCF TD: (a) the deletion of knowledge of Chessbase software, and (b) the addition of being required to have completed at least 100 ICCF rated games (Section 2.1)
(13) New procedure for selecting TDs, that being through an automatic server process (for both server-based and postal tournaments). TOs will still be allowed to self-select a TD, but only if the selected TD meets all requirements for the proposed type of tournament (server vs postal, level of TD, country, etc.). TDs will still be allowed to decline any appointment. (Mentioned in Section 2.2, but mainly in Section 3.1) [This proposal is also to change Tournament Rule 12.6 accordingly.]
(14) Deletion of the TTC and NTTC as people to whom applications to become TD should be sent (Section 2.2)
(15) Automatic assignment of mentors unless specifically requested otherwise of the WTD (Section 2.3.1)
(16) Allowing (and expecting) "experienced non-IA TDs" (Level 2 TDs) to mentor "inexperienced TDs" (Level 1 TDs) (Section 2.3.3)
(17) New sections describing how a TD who has been absent for some years can return to the TD role: by requiring having a mentor if the TD has been away more than 5 years, and possibly if away as short as 2 years; the amount of time for mentoring varying, but clearly delineated depending on the previous level of experience (Section 2.3.6)
(18) Change in the quantitative requirements for obtaining the IA Title if through directing server-based games. Although all postal-based requirements will stay the same (1000 games over a minimum 4 years), the server-based quantitative requirements will become 2000 games over a minimum of 2 years. The qualitative requirements will not change. (Section 2.4) [This proposal is also to change Tournament Rule 10.9 accordingly.]
(19) The list of ICCF qualifying tournaments for IA-related experience has been expanded, now including Chess 960 events and some previously omitted zonal events, including to be counted retroactively to determine qualification for the IA Title (Section 2.4)
(20) A section describing the role of backup TD and requirements to be a backup TD. These new requirements would preclude the current practice of making TOs the default backup TDs in events for which they would not qualify as the TD. (Section 2.5)
(21) A new section describing the rationale for, and procedure for the suspension of the role of TD (Section 2.6.1)
(22) An expansion of the section on suspending the IA Title, now including (a) the ACO Chair and the General Secretary, besides the WTD, as people who can recommend the suspension of the title to Congress, and (b) that the person can be allowed to serve as TD again later only with approval from Congress and only with a mentor for a specified number of directed games. (Section 2.6.2)
(23) All automatically handled claims are individually listed as such, including those involving exceeding of time limits, 6-piece tablebase outcomes, 3-position repetitions, and the 50-move rule. (Sections 4, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, & 4.6) [This proposal is also to change Playing Rule Guidelines - Server 3b & 6d accordingly.] Automatically handled claims will only pertain to server-based games, with claims of these types within postal games to be handled just as they currently are.
(24) New detail about when to reset players clocks (when a player has been replaced or substituted following a withdrawal, when the ICCF server goes down in a time-critical situation) and by how much; other occasions only after consultation with other TD including mentor), and by how much (essentially to the best estimate of the time prior to the reason for withdrawal or the server went down). (Sections 5, 5.1, & 5.2)
(25) New detail about when to stop players' clocks (after accepted withdrawal while substitute player is being found, at TC's request for substitute player, when need for adjudication is determined, and when an appeal has been filed to an appeals' committee.) (Section 5.3)
(26) New detail about the granting of leave retroactively (essentially allowed only in one circumstance, when player deemed not able to handle his/her own leave despite acting responsibly, but "has recovered" enough afterward to file the request, and not ever if the game already ended). (Section 5.4) [This proposal is also to change Playing Rule Guidelines - Server 7a accordingly.]
(27) Changes the "Document of Withdrawal" either to be a document made available automatically to the TD in case of a withdrawal, or to another procedure (besides for a "Document") that is automated, either way with automated distribution to all appropriate recipients. (Various places within Section 6.)
(28) Specifies that TDs are not expected to verify information of a player's death beyond "having reason to believe the information is correct". (Section 6.1.2)
(29) Changes the time period for players relative to one aspect of adjudication procedures: from 30 days to 14 days for the time period to submit analysis (in support of a claim of a win or draw) following the date of notifying the TD of that player's intent to file a claim. Players will have the ability to get an extra 14 days if the request for the extension is submitted during the original 14 day period. (Sections 6.1.2 & 8)
(30) Adds clarification about "replacement" of a player by differentiating two types of replacement: that in an individual event (such as prior to the official start of the event) and that in a team event (related to special circumstances involving the substitution of a player on the team). As described elsewhere in the ICCF rules, in the individual event, a replacement player starts his/her own game with original clock and leave times. In the team event, a replacement player starts where the original player left off. No rule change is proposed here, just clarification of existing rules. (Section 6.4)
(31) Adds comprehensive lists of when games should be cancelled by TDs, one list relative to individual events, and one list relative to team events. The content of these lists is not new, but were compiled from ICCF rules in various documents. (Section 7)
(32) Adds detail to adjudication procedures for TDs. The rules were not changed except that communications between TDs and players are now to be direct even in team events (in server-based events only), as opposed to both the TDs and players needing to communicate directly with Team Captains who then forwards the communications in the appropriate direction. TCs will instead simply receive copies of the communications automatically through the server. Procedures within postal games remain the same as they currently are. (Section 8)
(33) No adjudicators' identity will be disclosed to players, as opposed to the current rule which allows the disclosure of the name of the initial adjudicator to the players but not the name of an appeal adjudicator. (Section 8)
(34) Adds a section entitled "What records a TD needs to keep" to instruct TDs to keep copies of all email communications they have with TCs and players, and to keep those records through at least 2 weeks after an event ends in case of any appeal being filed. (Section 9)
(35) Adds a new section with multiple subsections reflecting the enforcement of the ICCF Code of Conduct. The subsections pertain to (a) interactions with the TD, (b) as applies to Team Captains, and (c) as applies to players. (See revision #'s 36 a, b, & c below for more detail). (Sections 11, 11.1, 11.2, & 11.3)
(36) Adds 3 new subsections to the manual detailing how to define and enforce the ICCF Code of Conduct as applied to players: (Section 11.3)
(a) The first of these three is entitled "Addressing improper communications: Setting silent mode". The philosophy behind this Code of Conduct is described along with the typical response being to set the silent mode in relevant server games. Procedures in postal games remain the same, with the use warnings and penalties for infractions of this type. (Section 11.3.1)
(b) The second of these three is entitled "Addressing extremely slow play in a clearly lost position (the 'Dead Man's Defense')". Substantial description of what constitutes the occurrence of a DMD is offered including using illustrative examples both for what constitutes a DMD and what does not. Additionally, a series of interventions (including penalties) are listed for progressive infractions of this type, ranging from a simple verbal warning to penalties involving the loss of specific amounts of reflection time to sending a recommendation for suspension for a player who continues to play DMD multiple times despite earlier TD interventions. (Section 11.3.2)
(c) The third of these three is entitled "Repetitive draw offers to the point of harassment". The philosophy behind this Code of Conduct is described. The intervention (in server-based games) is to be an automated process of limiting the consecutive number of times a draw can be offered by the same player in the same game. If a player offers a draw in a game, and that draw offer is declined by the opponent, the server will incapacitate the initial player’s ability to make a second consecutive draw offer in that game. That situation will remain the same until if and when the player’s opponent makes a draw offer that the initial player also declines. In that situation, the initial player will then again be allowed by the server to offer a draw in that same game. This back and forth process, where neither player can make two consecutive draw offers to the other player, will exist for the complete game. To be clear, claims for a draw either automatically handled by the server and/or made by a player to a Tournament Director (for any reason, for example in following adjudication procedures) are not at all relevant to, and are exempt from the above described procedure. The only type of draw offer included in this “no two consecutive draw offers” procedure is that where one player offers a draw directly to the other. There is no other "penalty" involved with this Code of Conduct violation, meaning that the current penalty (of 2 days reflection time for each infraction) will be deleted. The procedure for handling repetitive harassing draw offers in postal games remains as it current is, with a warning and 2-day reflection time penalties. (Section 11.3.3)
(37) Addition of two philosophy statements about the progression from warnings to penalties. These essentially say: (a) warnings are to get someone to attend to improper behavior and to get them to stop of their own volition; penalties tend to follow warnings if the person continues mildly improper behavior, or are used without prior warnings for behavior considered sufficiently serious; and (b) it is better to incapacitate a player from continuing inappropriate behavior than to have to penalize a player in some other way. The example is given of setting silent mode to address harassing messages. (Section 12.1 & 12.2)
(38) The addition of clear directions for handling appeals, both for international and national events. No change to the rules is proposed here. (Section 13)
(39) The addition of sections describing the procedure of TDs taking leave, informing the backup TD, etc. No new rules are proposed here. (Sections 15, 15.1, 15.2, 15.3, 15.4, & 15.5)
(40) A clearer delineation of the role of the Arbiter Committee as compared to the roles of the WTD and the QC; including the stated discontinuation of the ACO role of processing applications to become a TD. (Section 16.3)
Rationales: (the numbering system here coincides with the numbering system used above, meaning that the rationale for revision "#" above can be found using the same # below.
(1) To bring the Arbiters Manual up to date: to rid of archaic instructions, to rid of inconsistencies compared to ICCF rules in other documents, and to reflect modern automation options
(2) To make the manual more understandable and useful both by ridding of ambiguous instructions and by making it more complete in its instructions
(3) To make the manual more of a true manual for TDs by bringing "everything" into one manual as opposed to having information important for TDs being only found across various documents. This inclusiveness will likely result in TDs' better understanding of how to do their jobs.
(4) Concerning the proposed name change from "Arbiters (sic) Manual" to "Tournament Directors' Manual": to reflect modern word usage in that we refer to the people who oversee the running of tournaments as Tournament Directors, not Arbiters.
(5) Concerning the separation into two manuals (server-based, postal): to reflect the growing number of differences in procedures in directing the different types of events, as well as to make it easier for a TD to find specific information without having to wade through irrelevant instructions for tournaments involving the other type of transmission.
(6) Concerning the requirement for TDs to claim specialization: The rules and procedures for directing server-based games versus postal games have become quite different. A TD who oversees server-based tournaments may be highly knowledgeable and skilled, but still not know proper procedures for overseeing postal tournaments; and vice versa. We should no longer presume that all TDs know how to do everything. We need to acknowledge both TD's areas of expertise and their areas of relative lack of expertise. This requirement in no way limits any TD in that any TD can claim both types of specializations (postal and server), and then simply be responsible for obtaining the proper mentoring and experience (if not already accomplished) and knowing the contents of both TD manuals.
(7) Concerning the requirement for mentors to have the same specialization: to ensure that inexperienced TDs not only have a mentor, but a mentor who knows the relevant rules and procedures to help best train the new/inexperienced TD.
(8) Concerning the expansion in the list of ICCF Tournaments: both to update what needed updating, to include tournaments such as Chess 960 events, Aspirer Tournaments, and some zonal events; as well as to specify what degree of experience a TD needs to have to direct each of the listed events.
(9) Concerning new rule TDs cannot play in event they direct: This is simply to ensure objectivity in addressing issues that arise. There are enough potential TDs available internationally that this rule seems simple to implement. Concerning backup TDs, they also cannot play in international events in which they may direct (again because of the easy availability of suitable TDs for this role), though it is understood that there could be a shortage of players for some national events such that it can be worth the risk of allowing backup TDs to play in national events, friendly matches, and unrated events for which the TDs are serving solely as backup.
(10) Concerning the requirement for mentors for inexperienced TDs: It does not seem proper to allow inexperienced (and even completely new) TDs to run tournaments without some type of training and oversight. The ACO is addressing this issue, in part, by requiring TDs with fewer than 200 games to have a mentor. The figure of 200 was chosen based on data, not randomly - this is the approximate number that would allow there to be enough more experienced TDs to serve as mentors for the large number of new/inexperienced TDs. Requiring a larger number of games before no longer needing a mentor would result in too few experienced TDs to serve as mentors.
(11) Concerning the requirement for passing the "manual test" for all TDs: Given the volume of changes in the manual, it seems only responsible to ensure that every active TD becomes aware of those changes before being allowed to continue to run tournaments. Likewise, for new TDs, we need to ensure they are aware of the manual and where to find answers to questions of procedure and rules. By requiring every TD to pass this "test", we are addressing both issues. The test will be designed as "open book" meaning that people taking the test are expected to look up the answers, all of which can be found in the revised manual. Therefore the test will be designed for people to pass the first time they take it (as long as they look up the answers), and not to make anyone fail except those who guess at the answers instead of looking them up in the manual. The test would be designed as a random selection of questions from a larger pool of questions loaded into the server, thereby making it more difficult to "get the answers ahead of time" from someone else. Once passed, no TD would be required to take the same test again, except for someone specializing in both server and postal. Such a person would need to pass both tests, each once.
(12) Concerning changes in requirements to become an ICCF TD: The deletion of the knowledge of Chessbase software reflects current needs for server-based TDs - this knowledge is not needed. The added requirement of having completed at least 100 ICCF rated games is to ensure all TDs have sufficient experience of the player's side to tournaments, and witnessed how tournaments typically progress. As the rules currently are, someone new to the ICCF can immediately qualify to become a TD without ever having played a rated game.
(13) Concerning how TDs are selected: The proper selection of TDs means taking into consideration factors such as the proper specialization, the passing of the TD Manual test, potentially needing a mentor, being from a country different from the players (in international tournaments), and other considerations such as it being good policy to allow reasonable access to TD experience for TDs from small as well as large countries. Instead of just having the untrained set of TOs solely determine who they wish to ask (as is currently the case), automating the selection process will build in all of the proper safeguards related to requirements and desired policies. This automated process will not slow anything down the organizing of events in that TOs would enter their request for a TD to the server which would in turn automatically and immediately send a request for service email to a proper TD. That person, like usual, will have the option of accepting or declining the appointment. This process could even be more efficient for TOs in that they will not need to scan the TD list to find an appropriate selection.
Backup TDs will be selected in the same way, eliminating the default setting that TOs serve as backup TDs unless the TO is fully qualified to do so. To illustrate the issue, a TO may not be an IA, but the requirement for a Category 7+ tournament is for an IA. The current default setting means the inappropriate TO can serve as backup TD without the proper qualifications. Also, concerning the potential issue of bias, TOs are typically quite familiar with the players from his/her own country. If we no longer use a default setting for TOs to serve as backup TDs in national events, this potential concern will be minimized, as both TDs and the backup TD can regularly be selected from a different country even in national events, if desired.
(14) Concerning the deletion of the TTC and NTTC as people accepting applications to become a TD: This simply is an update to the rules, reflecting current practice. There is no reason the WTD cannot handle everything he is already handling well.
(15) Concerning the automatic assignment of mentors: There are currently about 273 non-IA TD's on the ICCF TD list along with another 59 active IAs. Arranging for mentors for the 100-130 "inexperienced" (Level 1) TDs from among the rest would be very time-consuming. The new rules would allow a TD to find his/her own mentor and simply get the approval for this assignment from the WTD. For most cases, however, the proposed automation will be far more efficient and effective in matching language, specialization, skill levels, etc.
(16) Concerning the process of allowing "experienced non-IA TDs" to mentor less experienced TDs: This is proposed simply based on numbers of mentors that will be needed compared to the degree to which IAs have volunteered to mentor to date. The ACO believes there is strong reason to ensure new and little-experienced TDs have a consultant to guide them - a mentor. However, there are (depending on the threshold to define "inexperienced") 100-130 such TDs in need of a mentor. There are currently only 59 active IAs who must also mentor anyone seeking to become an IA. Importantly, of those 59 IAs, a very recent survey (Fall, 2014, by the ACO Chair) found that only 15 (of those 59) active IAs were currently mentoring, and they were doing so only with a total of 23 non-IA TDs. Clearly, to address the new requirement of a mentor for every "inexperienced" TD, we need to allow "more-experienced" non-IA TDs to mentor less experienced ones. This is simply a matter of practicality.
(17) Concerning procedures for how a TD returning after significant time away can again direct: There is nothing in any ICCF rule addressing this issue. We recently had someone (an IA!) express a desire to return after being away since the early 1990s. Obviously many things had changed since then, but there is no provision in the rules to ensure anyone returning after significant time learns what has changed in the mean while. The new rules would address that issue while still inviting anyone who was once qualified to return, by concentrating just on two things: the manual test (like all potential TDs) and the mentor program. The latter would be modified substantially in required length for needing a mentor depending on how long the person had been away.
(18) Concerning the proposed change in IA qualifications: to reflect major differences found in the degree and type of experience of TDs get directing server-based tournaments versus over postal events. The minimum figures for server-based experience of 2000 games (versus 1000 for postal) and 2 years (versus 4 years for postal) were selected for specific reasons. Data demonstrated that TDs who are striving for the IA title have, on average, directed about 1100 (server-based) games per year, meaning that the 1000 game figure (not to be changed for qualifying for the IA title through directing postal games) would be reached within what seemed too short a period of time (about 1 year) to ensure varied experience. The 2-year minimum was chosen to help ensure that TDs striving for the IA title would not meet the 2000 game minimum simply by directing just a few very large tournaments of one type, but instead that their experience would be more varied.
(19) Concerning the expansion of the list of ICCF qualifying tournaments for the IA Title: The expansion of the list of events that count towards the IA Title requirements was done for two reasons. The first was simply to reflect the growth in types of ICCF events offered since the Manual was last updated (such as Chess 960 events). The second was to reflect the ACO's perspective that TD experience involving international rated events is all of relevance to the concept behind the IA Title - the acknowledgement of a particularly qualified TD. Given that zonal events are international rated events, these were included where they had not been before (that is, as long as the event was open to people from multiple countries). Within that same spirit, any application for the IA Title filed after the acceptance of this revision would be allowed to count all relevant experience even if the experience occurred prior to this revision.
(20) Concerning the description of the backup TD role: The new rule here is that people would not be allowed to become backup TDs if they were not qualified to be the TD in that event. This change will alter the current default practice of the TO being the backup TD in that the TO would first need to have the required qualifications for the event. The reason for this change is to ensure that a tournament requiring a high level TD, such as an IA for a Category 7+ norm event, is not ultimately directed by someone without that qualification, even on a temporary basis. To help ensure this new rule is implemented without significant effort, the selection of TDs and backup TDs will largely occur automatically. (See #13 above.)
(21) Concerning the suspension of the TD role: This simply brings into the manual what is found currently only outside the manual despite the fact it directly pertains to TDs.
(22) Concerning the suspension of the IA Title: The ACO Chair and General Secretary were added to the WTD as people who can recommend the suspension of an IA Title because each of those people is responsible for aspects of how TDs function, and can easily be the main person addressing a serious situation involving an IA. Also added to this section is a procedure that can allow someone who had an IA Title suspended again serve as a TD, through the temporary use of a mentor for a specified number of games directed. This second provision is to allow for the Congress to allow someone to come back "into the fold" after a suspension rather than necessarily make the suspension a "life sentence".
(23) Concerning automatically handled claims: This section now simply reflects updates in describing how standard claims are handled - automatically by the server instead of by player claims that need to be approved by the TD.
(24) Concerning the resetting of clocks: This section brings into the manual what exists currently in different documents, and also gives clearer instruction about when it is appropriate to reset players clocks and by how much. The current rules are quite ambiguous in that regard, and needed clarification both as to when resetting clocks is appropriate and by how much.
(25) Concerning the stopping of clocks: The same rationale as for #24 above.
(26) Concerning the granting of leave retroactively: Again, this section brings into the manual that which was outside, and now gives far clearer instruction as to the rare occasion when this is appropriate and when it is not. In this way, the current ambiguity in this rule will no longer exist.
(27) Concerning the "Document of Withdrawal": Would automate a process that is not currently automated, and in so doing, help ensure that the people who need to know of player withdrawals regularly get all the information they need.
(28) Concerning the lack of requirement to verify a player death: Current ICCF documents are silent concerning the degree to which a TD should work to verify a player's death before implementing "accepted withdrawal" procedures. This new rule makes it clear that the standard for a TD's determining that a player died is simply "having reason to believe the information is correct" and nothing more. The reason more is not being required is both because false claims of player deaths have not been a problem and because further verification could be quite difficult in international events involving various languages and cultural practices surrounding public announcements of someone's death.
(29) Concerning changing the time period for submitting analysis for adjudication: Current rules mandate that a player needs to make a claim to the TD (through a TC in a team event) for a win or draw within 7 days of having been sent notification by the TD of a game going to adjudication. In events with an end date, that notification was preceded by an earlier notice (about 30 days earlier) warning the player that adjudication will be needed if the game does not end within 30 days. Either way, there is some lead time before the player must start working on his/her analysis to submit with an adjudication claim for a win or draw. The proposed rule change does not change any of this. Once the player submits his/her reply to the TD of a plan to claim a win or draw, however, the current rule is that the player has 30 days to submit the required supportive analysis. This time period was seen as unnecessarily long, as players already have at least general plans if not specific analysis concerning future moves in their games. Two weeks (from the time of informing the TD of intent to claim a win or draw) to submit that information seems quite sufficient. However, players will still have the option of getting a 2-week extension simply by requesting it, as long as that request is received by the TD during the initial 2 week period. In this way, players will still have up to 28 days if they really need it, but the shortening of the regular time period will keep things moving along.
(30) Concerning clarification about "replacement" players: The term replacement player is used in two very different ways in the ICCF rules: (a) for individual events where a new player starts games from the beginning with a complete set of reflection and leave times, and (b) in team events where a substitution has been made where the player continues the games as they were left by his/her predecessor, and then a separate decision is made to allow the player to play the games for his/her own benefit (in ratings and potential title norm). This section describes both types of replacement in terms that keep the two procedures completely distinct from one another. No change in rules has been proposed here, as this is all just for clarification purposes and ease in finding desired information.
(31) Concerning when TDs should cancel games: The rules for when a TD should cancel a game instead of other options (substitution, replacement, adjudication) are currently found in multiple ICCF documents, and not always clearly stated (because the rules themselves are often complicated, for instance involving the concept of averaging the number of moves across games already played by a withdrawn player). This section brings all appropriate reasons for cancellation of games to one location for ease in TDs' understanding. No rule changes have been proposed in this area.
(32) Concerning adjudication procedures: The one proposed rule change is specific for server-based games, and will not be proposed for postal-based games. That change is that TDs and players communicate directly (versus through the intermediary of the TC) specifically when it concerns any stage of the process of adjudication. As background for the rationale for this proposed change, the reasons for the current procedure, of not allowing players to communicate directly with TDs in team events, are multiple: (a) to allow TCs to handle minor issues directly without involving the TD, (b) to ensure TDs do not get overwhelmed with inquiries and minor issues from players, and (c) so that TCs can be sure players are following through in a timely way in what is required of them by the rules and the TDs. Specifically when the TD calls for adjudication, however, the TD is initiating the communication, not any player. Adjudication is also not a minor issue that TCs can handle themselves. Concerning ensuring players' timeliness in responding to TDs' notifications, in making adjudication claims and in filing analyses, TCs in server-based events can automatically be kept informed by the server of all communications between the TD and the relevant player. In that way, TCs can still monitor the timeliness of players without being the intermediary to those communications. Therefore, specifically in the situation of adjudications in server-based events, none of the reasons to keep TCs as intermediaries to communications still applies. However, for postal events, there is no automatic process to keep TCs informed, so this change in rule is not proposed for postal-based events. Postal rules in this regard will remain the same as currently exists.
(33) Concerning not disclosing names of adjudicators: Current rules forbid the disclosure of the identity of any appeal adjudicator to any player (without the adjudicator's prior approval), but allow for the disclosure to players of the initial adjudicator's identity without such approval. The ACO found no good rationale for this difference. Additionally, such disclosures could have adverse affects both on the adjudication process (by giving subconscious reason for bias in assessing positions) and on the adjudicator himself (for example, by a disgruntled player who later is a TO who deliberately does not offer a position in a tournament to the person who was the adjudicator, or gives him "bad" pairings, etc.). There does not appear to be good reason for disclosure of an adjudicator's identity under any circumstance. [NOTE to the EB: This is as far as the revised manual goes to update on this issue. However, it should be known that the ACO is also promoting a proposal, soon to be submitted for your review and promotion, that potentially will set up a pool of qualified adjudicators from which TOs will be required to select for any adjudication. In that way, the quality of adjudication should almost never be seriously questioned; and, hence, a player's need to know the identity of the adjudicator becomes lessened all the more.]
(34) Concerning the instruction for TDs to keep copies of emails: The server does not currently store any email communications TDs have with Team Captains or players, but these can be vital relative to appeals in terms of their contents and their timeliness relative to time requirements. Hence, we need for TDs to keep copies of all such communications through at least 2 weeks after a tournament ends, that being when the last appeal could be filed.
(35) Concerning the Code of Conduct: This section again just brings something of high relevance to TD work that is solely found outside the current manual, and does so in an organized fashion. No rule changes are proposed in this section.
(36) (a) Concerning the Code of Conduct pertaining to improper communications: This section does not involve a rule change per se, but an expansion of the description of philosophy and how best to address players' improper communications to other players. The overall philosophy is to incapacitate a player's ability to send improper communications (by setting silent mode) instead of penalizing the player in some way such as the forfeit of reflection time.
(36) (b) Concerning the Code of Conduct related to the "Dead Man's Defense"(DMD): The current Code of Conduct in this area is essentially silent concerning how a TD is to determine when a DMD exists, and what to do about it if found (besides send a "warning"). This silence means that TDs are left to their own potentially widely divergent views in interpreting and enforcing this Code of Conduct. A goal of the revision of the manual was to minimize such divergent judgments and general ambiguity about how TDs are to act. This section therefore offers a great deal of detail to define what constitutes a DMD along with examples for comparison of what does not constitute a DMD. (See section 11.3.2 in the revised manual for these details, as they are too voluminous to repeat here.) Additionally, a progressive series of interventions is listed to make TDs' enforcement process more uniform, these interventions ranging from the already ascribed verbal warning to penalties involving the loss of specific amounts of reflection time to sending a recommendation for suspension for a player who continues to play DMDs multiple times despite earlier TD interventions. The purpose of all of this expansion on this topic is to ensure the rule is clearly defined to everyone, and the enforcement procedures are sufficiently delineated so all TDs do essentially the same process in handling this type of Code of Conduct violation.
(36)(c) Concerning the Code of Conduct related to harassing through repetitive draw offers: Although some people do not find repetitive draw offers by the same opponent in the same game to be harassing, many players do. This type of harassment is also already in ICCF rules (with a penalty of 2 reflection days per occurrence). This type of penalty is not seen as effective, as draw offers, especially draw offers made nearly every move, typically occur later in the game when the harassing player has saved up a great deal of reflection time. Additionally, using a penalty to dissuade players from misbehavior does not reflect the manual's philosophy of using incapacitating interventions instead of penalties when possible. The incapacitation process is possible in server-based events, where all draw offers go through the server. (This rule change will not apply to postal events for this reason.)
To incapacitate players from this type of harassing behavior, the server will simply not allow two consecutive draw offers to be made by the same player within the same game. To ensure players are aware of this limit when making an initial draw offer, the server will warn players of this limitation before any draw offer is submitted. Harassment through repetitive draw offers in server-based games will therefore be completely eliminated. (While it is understood that some players may try to continue to make draw offers through messaging, TDs already have the ability to turn the game to silent mode to incapacitate any harassing behavior of this type. In fact, the revised rules require this intervention by TDs after a warning is given to, but ignored by the offending player.) No penalties will ever need to be given in server-based games to address harassment through repetitive draw offers. To reiterate and be clear, none of this will apply to postal games. For postal games, all current procedures related to draw offers will remain in place.
(37) Concerning the description of warnings and penalties: No rule changes were made here. Instead this section goes into detail both related to what exists in other ICCF documents as well as describing the overall philosophy that (a) warnings should precede penalties for minor infractions, and (b) the process of incapacitating a player from continuing misbehavior is the better option compared to implementing penalties, if possible.
(38) Concerning the handling of appeals: This section contains no rule changes. It simply was added to give clear directions for the handling of appeals relative to time frames and the difference in procedures related to appeals in international events versus in national events.
(39) Concerning the process of TDs taking leave: This section again contains no rule changes, but simply goes into more detail about how TDs, including backup TDs, are to take leave when needed.
(40) Concerning the role of the ACO: The ACO no longer processes applications to become a TD (the WTD does), but the current rules say it does. This has been corrected in this revision.
Other Comments/Considerations
Note from Dennis Doren: If you have need for further information about the rationale for any portion of this proposal, feel free to contact me by email prior to the Congress. Then again, humorously, I add that if you read this complete proposal and you read the complete revised Manuals, can you really want more information from me?
One last item: I wish to express my heartfelt thanks for the great work of the 10 other people on the Arbiter Committee who made the above revision possible: SIM Thomas Biedermann; International Arbiter IM Valer-Eugen Demian; International Arbiter IM Frank Geider, World Tournament Director; International Arbiter Markus Hömske, Non-Title Tournament Commissioner; Peter Maylott; International Arbiter GM Zdeněk Nývlt; International Arbiter SIM Ian Pheby, Direct Entry Commissioner; International Arbiter IM George Pyrich, Finance Director; International Arbiter IM Ragnar Wikman, Chair of Appeals Committee (Playing Rules); & International Arbiter Mariusz Wojnar, Qualifications Commissioner).
Relevent Documentation
(a) Playing Rule - Server 1b & 11b will need to be changed to be congruent with revision #8 above.
(b) Tournament Rule 12.6 will need to be changed to be congruent with revision #13 above.
(c) Tournament Rule 10.9 will need to be changed to be congruent with revision #18 above.
(d) Playing Rule Guidelines - Server 3b & 6d will need to be changed to be congruent with revision #23 above.
(e) Playing Rule Guidelines - Server 7a and Postal 8a will need to be changed to be congruent with revision #26 above.
Voting Summary
- A vote of Yes will mean the revised Arbiter Manual (now in two segments, this vote being inclusive of both the server and postal manuals) should be accepted in its(their) entirety, and the revisions to the listed other ICCF rules should be made so they are congruent with the revised Manual.
- A vote of No will mean the revised Arbiter Manual should not be accepted, either fully or partially.
- A vote of ABSTAIN is not a vote but means the vote holder has no opinion and does not wish to represent the correspondence chess players of his or her federation in this matter.
Comments by Relevant Committees, Commissions, or ICCF Officers
Eric Ruch (EB)
No comments yet
Eric Ruch (Rules)
No comments yet
Frank Geider
No comments yet
Dennis Doren
The existing Arbiter Manual was last updated 1/1/2011. Numerous things have changed since then, not the least of which is the degree to which automation of Tournament Director (TD) tasks is possible. Such automation not only makes the TD task easier, but it makes the ICCF far more player-friendly by eliminating the need to file claims for an opponent's exceeding a time limit, for 3-position repetitions, for 6-piece tablebase outcomes, and the 50-move rule; and the need to wait for the TD to respond. The revised manual reflects all of these improvements. Additionally, over the years the rules and procedures in each ICCF document have tended to drift piece by piece to the point of becoming contradictory with those found in other ICCF documents. By including "everything" related to TD work in one place now, this issue has been remedied. TDs will no longer be required to find instructions in multiple documents. Also, the single Arbiter Manual has been split into two manuals, one for server-based directing and one for postal-based directing, to reflect the growing number of differences in procedures between these two types of events. Additionally, rules and procedures that were ambiguous have been significantly clarified. Finally, there is a new emphasis on ensuring that TDs are familiar with the updated rules and procedures, and that "inexperienced" TDs receive ongoing mentoring; to ensure that players and TDs alike have the best correspondence chess experience possible by being part of the ICCF. Obviously, since I led the Committee that formulated the revised manual(s), I am highly in favor of this proposal.