Logos, Banner by KaitlinB and Tom45.
Team 45 45 League
Serious Chess and Team Spirit on the ICC
T56-57 STEERING COMMITTEE AGENDA
Steering Committee members:
Standing Subcommittee (Rules):
Standing Subcommittee (Technology):
The role and purpose of the Steering Committee is to manage the affairs of the league, to set its direction and expansion, see to its advertisement and management, writing the Constitution, Statutes and Handbooks, and reviewing the rulings of the previous Oversight Committee. This is the ultimate governing body of Team 45 45 League with all rights and responsibilities. (Article III of the League Constitution)
League Members may stay informed of potential rules changes by watching this page. Prior to voting results being displayed here, members may make their comments known by notifying any Steering Committee member, who may choose to forward your comments to the Steering Committee. The Committee members will not disclose any details of the Committee discussions.
Item 1. T57 Tournament Parameters - Approved
Item 2. Proposed change of red card to one year suspension - All approved
Item 3. Five editorial changes.
Item 4. T57 playoff team seedings
Item 5. Clarified player agreed draws (GM draw)
Item 6. The Docket. The table of sanctions authorized in Item 2.
T57 May 21 to August 6, 2013
Time Control: 45 45
April 23 Ratings “fixed” and Profiles Open
Count of team RR reductions (if any) precedes board removal tiebreak.
Approved - 20 April 2013
Problem. Rules Subcommittee proposes that the period of suspension for a red card be changed from the current one-tourney suspension to a four-tourney suspension. We have four levels of discipline for misbehavior: warning letters for minor infractions; yellow cards that remain outstanding for six months; red cards for more severe misbehavior, including CUDS red cards; and double red card bans for gross misbehavior and cheating.
The penalty for red cards is of shorter duration than yellow cards, albeit with suspensions involved, and is of even shorter duration than for excessive forfeits! The first -2 RR for excessive forfeits calls for a two-tourney suspension; a second -2 RR within one year results in a four-tourney suspension. And red cards have a mere one-tourney suspension?
Solution. CUDS suggested to Rules that a one-tourney suspension for computer assistance is too short. A one year suspension might be taken more seriously and may reduce the incidence of computer assistance. There is also the practical matter of the rating to be assigned if a player returns from a CUDS recommended red card. Three months is too short a time for the player to establish, or the entry clerk to determine, a new rating for the offender. One year is better.
It should be noted, however, that no one is guaranteed return to the league at the end of a CUDS red card suspension, regardless of the length of the suspension. They first have to assure the Entry Clerk that it won’t happen again. Those who continue to protest their innocence are not re-admitted. Forty-nine CUDS red cards have been issued since T39. Six players had been re-admitted; three repeated the offenses and have since been banned.
Members of Rules and CUDS, working jointly, came forth with three proposals for the Steering Committee to consider.
The specific recommendation of Rules is that the Red Card penalty be changed to a four-tourney suspension, and that two red cards, whenever earned, result in a permanent ban. Options B and C can be discussed by full SC if they wish.
Two notes. First, In regards to publicizing names or numbers, we suggest that the Chief TD seek the opinion of Speedtrap on the appropriateness of the league showing names, or at least a count of actions taken. The committee notes that ICC does identify computer use handles by C or finger note. The finger note is quite specific. Second, it may be advisable, if we are to show tables of disciplinary actions, that we start with T57, but place a note in the player login regarding the change of policy regarding CUDS red cards.
Submitted by rgadoury, chair, Rules Subcommittee, Team 45 45 League.
Option A - One year for all red cards - Approved 9-0.
Option B - Permanent ban for CUDS red card - Not approved 9-0
Option C.1. Publish names of yellow and red cards - Not approved 7-1-1 abstain
Option C.2. Publish statistics only (totals of warning letters, yellow cards, red and double red cards) - Approved 6-2-1 abstain.
Option D proposal. Section 17.D now reads:
17.D. If a player receives a second Red Card within one year of the issuance of the first Red Card, that player is suspended from league play for one year (4 complete tourneys) following the issuance of the second card. A player who receives a third Red Card is banned forever. A player who receives a Double Red Card for cheating or gross misbehavior is immediately banned forever. SC 27-28
I propose that we eliminate third red card options and make a second red card the equivalent of a Double Red and permanent ban. It is an inconsistent provision. If the first and second red cards are both for CUDS cheating, ban is automatic. It seems to me that anyone getting two red cards, for cheating, or behavior, or each, is not someone we want or need in this league. I propose we amend D to:
Option D - Approved 8-1
Setup of "The Docket" to summarize disciplinary actions touney by tourney.
If no SC member objects, each change becomes effective in seven days (July6, 2013). Additions or changes are underlined. Deletions are crossed out. Reasons given are in italics.
SC members reference A, B, C, D, or E for discussion.
(A). 6.A.iii In a 7-team division there will be a playoff game match between the first and second place teams to determine the Section champion. It is a winner take all match, using Championship tiebreak rules." ¶ SC 56-57. -- Reasons: Changing “game” to “match” removes any ambiguity; Striking the last sentence allows application of the same procedures as all other “Finals” playoff matches and actually conforms to the way all prior7-team playoff matches have been conducted.
(B). 10.A. Overview. Each round begins as soon as pairings are posted. Players should make prompt contact offers to schedule their games, and all games should be completed and reported one week later (by 17:00 ICC server time). If this is not possible, then the game may be either called, or adjourned as per Section 14. ¶ SC 56-57 -- Reason: Conforms to current usage in other statutes.
(C). 15.A.i.b The offended player sends contact messages makes offers to the offending player conforming to the requirements of Section 10 and receives no reply after 72 hours of the Pairing Posting Deadline by the Offer-or-Forfeit deadline. ¶ SC56-57 -- Reason: The gap between pairing posting deadline and offer or forfeit deadline is now 77 hours. This phrasing accommodates any future changes of either deadline.
(D). 10.C.vii.a If an offer that was made more than 24 hours from game time is accepted less than 24 hours from game time, the time must be confirmed by the one who made the offer. (This means, if I make an offer and you accept it less than 24 hours before the game, I must confirm your acceptance, or I cannot be held to my initial offer). This rule applies only to the player who made the offer, as the player who accepted it within the 24 hour period has already confirmed the time by accepting it. The time is considered confirmed either by making a post or by showing up for the game within the grace period. ¶ SC 56-57 -- Reason: It has always been the position of the league that once a time has been agreed to the players have no further obligations to continue communications until game time. They may not even see a TD post about confirming the time. Showing up for the game indicates tacit approval of the 24-hour condition.
(E). 10.D.i.d (new). If neither player has made offers prior to the minimum offer deadline they are allowed to make offers prior to the offer-or-forfeit deadline. If they do, negotiations continue to 1700 Tuesday. If only one makes offers, a forfeit shall be charged to the one who did not make an offer. ¶ SC 56-57 –Reason: The league has always ruled this way when the situation arises. Add the rule for clarity.
There were no objections. Changes posted 7 July 2013
Problem. There were inconsistencies in the three handbooks regarding players agreeing to draw (GM draw). Instructions allowed for captains to veto an agreement, and were given 24 hours to concur or disagree with the draw. This was inconsistent with Section 10.C.ix, which simply states, "Players may agree to a set game draw at any time before full blame is incurred for no offers, no show, concessions, or before the deadlines for adjudicated games".
Solution. Rules subcommittee made changes to the Player, Captain, and TD handbooks.
Player handbook 4.D. Last bullet, last sub bullet regarding "Can we agree to a draw in the game forum?"
* The players might not fully understand their game's impact on the team standings. It is recommended that players consult with their captains before offering or accepting a draw offer. Once a draw has been accepted, the TD's will post the result.
Captain Handbook Part 3.i Agreeing to a draw
* Agreeing to a draw - Captains should advise their players whether or not offering a draw or accepting a draw offer is to the benefit of the team. Keep in mind that players have the right to offer or accept draws, and once they agree the TD's will post the result.
TD Handbook Part 6 - Rulings
Pre-Agreed Set Game Draw - The statutes permit players to agree to a set game draw at any time before full blame is incurred for no offers, no show, concessions, or before the deadlines for adjudicated games. Once a draw offer has been accepted the TDs shall set the result (=:=). There is no need to wait for captain approval, as captain and player responsibilities are laid out in their respective handbooks.
Team 45 45 League members sign up to play a serious game of chess once a week. They expect to find a friendly and safe environment. To support that environment the league has developed a system of penalties for everything from forfeits to misbehavior to cheating. Sections 3, 4, 15-18 of the Statutes provide specifics for each infraction and penalty.
Yellow and Red Cards began in T1. Reliability Ratings began in T32. CUDS Red Cards began in T39. Warning Letters began in T42. The table below provides statistics on the various penalties. Forfeit Rate is shown to indicate forfeit trends under the RR policy.