[Walddk]

This topic was brought forward in the vugraph forum:

QUOTE (Tola18 @ Oct 21 2009, 08:01 AM)
A follow up question about asking the operator to witness.

Can the spectators /kibz be asked to witness??


Law 76
B. Spectator Participation
A spectator may not call attention to any irregularity or mistake, nor speak on any question of fact or law except by request of the Director.

Yes, in case facts are disputed by the players, the director may want to ask a spectator. Whether he/she can refuse to answer questions by the TD I don't know. It is not explicitly mentioned in the laws. Maybe someone will address the issue in the "Laws and Rulings" forum.

Roland

.....

So this is what I do here. Can a spectator refuse to get involved for whatever reason?

[jeremy69]

I don't see how the director can compel the spectator to comment. Law 76C says only that the spectator may speak if requested to do so by the director not that he must.
Law 76A says that the spectator is subject to the control of the director so I guess he could be asked to leave but short of employing thumbscrews I am not sure how he could bne compelled to give an answer.

[RMB1]

Nice question, Roland.

I don't think there is any law or regulation that covers this.

If a spectator says "I didn't notice" then I would let it go. Even if I think the spectator did notice: after all I accept "I didn't notice" from a player at the table even when it is implausible that the player did not notice.

If a spectator says "I would rather not answer" or "I refuse to answer because ..." then I would normally treat this as "I did not notice" and move on. The spectator should not be discourteous toward the TD but a spectator can refuse to answer without being rude.

If I thought a refusal to answer was sufficiently ill intentioned or obstructive, I could raise it as a disciplinary matter.

I looked the EBU's disciplinary rules:

Quote

For the purpose of these Disciplinary Rules, the following shall amount to an “Offence”: ...
(v) any act that the Disciplinary Committee or Appeals Committee considers to be misconduct which shall include, without limitation, any conduct or behaviour which falls below the accepted standards required of Player Members and other persons to whom these Disciplinary Rules apply; or
(vi) a failure to provide full or true information or evidence to the Laws and Ethics Committee (in the course of its functions under these Disciplinary Rules or otherwise), the L&E Secretary, the Disciplinary Committee or the Appeals Committee or to comply with any decision made pursuant to these Disciplinary Rules.

(NOTE "Appeals Committee" here is for an appeal against the decision of a Disciplinary Committee, not the normal AC of Law 93.)

So if a spectator's action in refusing to answer "falls below the accepted standards" of behaviour, the spectator could be disciplined. This doesn't help, because we don't know what is acceptable.

But failure to provide full information to the disciplinary process is itself an offence. So you may be able to refuse to answer a question from an EBU National TD but if he asks you as a member/secretary of the L&E then you can't refuse

I note that in the original thread, the spectator was a vugraph operator. I am not sure to what extent a vugraph operator is an assistant of the tournament director (like a scorer or a time monitor) or is an agent of the tournament organisation; as such they may be subject to more limitations.

Robin

[bluejak]

Of course an authority could have Regulations for spectators' conduct. If there was a rule that spectators had to answer such questions it would be legal, because a spectator has tacitly accepted the published rules when he enters the area to spectate [subject to the normal arguments over lack of knowledge of the rules! ].

But in the absence of such rules I cannot see how you can compel an answer.

[blackshoe]

The laws give no power to the director to compel a kibitzer to answer questions. All he can do is bar that kibitzer from the player area for the rest of the session or event. And that's what I'd do.

[mrdct]

I was the vugraph operator in this case and was uncomfortable giving evidence about a potential hesitation as I had a perceived conflict of interest with one of the players and I'm of the opinion that vugraph operators have so many balls in the air at once that it's highly likely that my perception of how long a hesitation was would not be accurate. My planned approach if asked by a TD about a hesitation in future will be to say, "I'm sorry, but I was busy double-checking the scores from the other table during the auction and wasn't really paying attention to the tempo."

[jdonn]

blackshoe, on Oct 21 2009, 10:14 AM, said:

The laws give no power to the director to compel a kibitzer to answer questions. All he can do is bar that kibitzer from the player area for the rest of the session or event. And that's what I'd do.

That seems ridiculously harsh. The poor spectator might just want to not get involved. Why would you punish him for something that he has no obligation to do?

[peachy]

blackshoe, on Oct 21 2009, 10:14 AM, said:

The laws give no power to the director to compel a kibitzer to answer questions. All he can do is bar that kibitzer from the player area for the rest of the session or event. And that's what I'd do.

In practice this means that an honest answer "I'd rather not get involved" from someone who does not want to get involved in a potential ruling, will result in being barred from spectating while a lie of "I did not see/notice/pay attention" will be accepted at face value. This goes against my sensibilities.

[gnasher]

Indeed. And how much would we want to rely upon evidence which had been obtained by such coercion?

[blackshoe]

peachy, on Oct 23 2009, 01:23 AM, said:

blackshoe, on Oct 21 2009, 10:14 AM, said:

The laws give no power to the director to compel a kibitzer to answer questions. All he can do is bar that kibitzer from the player area for the rest of the session or event. And that's what I'd do.

In practice this means that an honest answer "I'd rather not get involved" from someone who does not want to get involved in a potential ruling, will result in being barred from spectating while a lie of "I did not see/notice/pay attention" will be accepted at face value. This goes against my sensibilities.

In practice it means that a kibitzer who refuses to cooperate in the TD's investigation gets invited to leave. I'm not Cal Lightman, but quite often I'll have a pretty good idea when someone lies to me. So it is not the case that your latter statement will necessarily be accepted at face value, at least not by me. OTOH, it's not necessarily the case that the second statement will be a lie — and assuming that it is goes against my sensibilities.

[blackshoe]

gnasher, on Oct 23 2009, 03:57 AM, said:

Indeed. And how much would we want to rely upon evidence which had been obtained by such coercion?

What coercion?

"What did you see?"
"I don't want to get involved"
"Leave the area, please."

"What did you see?"
"I, um, er, um, I didn't see anything."
"Leave the area, please."

Where's the coercion?

Now, If the TD said to the kib "Tell me what you saw, or I'll throw you out", that would be coercion. It would also be pretty stupid.

[peachy]

blackshoe, on Oct 23 2009, 01:16 PM, said:

peachy, on Oct 23 2009, 01:23 AM, said:

blackshoe, on Oct 21 2009, 10:14 AM, said:

The laws give no power to the director to compel a kibitzer to answer questions. All he can do is bar that kibitzer from the player area for the rest of the session or event. And that's what I'd do.

In practice this means that an honest answer "I'd rather not get involved" from someone who does not want to get involved in a potential ruling, will result in being barred from spectating while a lie of "I did not see/notice/pay attention" will be accepted at face value. This goes against my sensibilities.

In practice it means that a kibitzer who refuses to cooperate in the TD's investigation gets invited to leave. I'm not Cal Lightman, but quite often I'll have a pretty good idea when someone lies to me. So it is not the case that your latter statement will necessarily be accepted at face value, at least not by me. OTOH, it's not necessarily the case that the second statement will be a lie — and assuming that it is goes against my sensibilities.

Following this logic, spectators would then be _required_ to give full attention to what happens at the table. There is no law or regulation AFAIK to support this. The TD IMO should not be accusing a spectator of refusing to answer the TD's question when there is no way of knowing whether he did that: he could have honestly not paid attention or he could have paid attention but dishonestly said he did not pay attention. I was not assuming that "not paid attention" was a lie, it could have been either the truth or a lie and the TD has no way of knowing which it was, without access to the spectator's head...

Anyway, I stand by my conviction that it should be allowed for a spectator to not get involved and to be honest about it, with no consequences to that spectator. If you find a law or regulation or CoC to support your opinion, I would be interested in seeing it.

[blackshoe]

peachy, on Oct 23 2009, 03:16 PM, said:

Following this logic, spectators would then be _required_ to give full attention to what happens at the table. There is no law or regulation AFAIK to support this. The TD IMO should not be accusing a spectator of refusing to answer the TD's question when there is no way of knowing whether he did that: he could have honestly not paid attention or he could have paid attention but dishonestly said he did not pay attention. I was not assuming that "not paid attention" was a lie, it could have been either the truth or a lie and the TD has no way of knowing which it was, without access to the spectator's head...

No. See my previous post in this thread. Nobody need accuse a spectator of anything, and there's no requirement for absolute certainty on the TD's part.

Quote

Anyway, I stand by my conviction that it should be allowed for a spectator to not get involved and to be honest about it, with no consequences to that spectator.  If you find a law or regulation or CoC to support your opinion, I would be interested in seeing it.

There is no law saying that a spectator must cooperate in a TD's investigation. Whether there's a regulation would depend, perhaps, on the venue. But that's a red herring, anyway. If in your judgement, the spectator should be allowed to stay, fine. If in another TD's judgment he should not, that's fine, too. Of course, if there is a pertinent regulation, the TD must follow it.

[bid_em_up]

..

[mrdct]

blackshoe, on Oct 23 2009, 01:21 PM, said:

"What did you see?"
"I don't want to get involved"
"Leave the area, please."

"What did you see?"
"I, um, er, um, I didn't see anything."
"Leave the area, please."

You are going to kick a vugraph operator out of the room because they won't tell the director whether or not there was a discernable hesitation? This has to be one of the most ridiculous posts I've ever seen - and from a moderator of this forum no less!

Remind me not to do vugraph operating for any event that you are directing.

You should probably be reported to the Vugraph Operators Union so a formal ban on vugraph can be place on your events.

[blackshoe]

Don't be ridiculous.

For the record, I've never directed a "vugraph event", and don't expect I ever will. Again for the record, I wasn't at all thinking about vugraph operators in previous posts, and thinking about them now, I'd say they have a somewhat different status to a normal spectator.

Yet again for the record, I don't believe your implicit claim that a Vugraph Operator's Union exists.

[gnasher]

blackshoe, on Oct 23 2009, 07:21 PM, said:

What coercion?

Suppose that I am kibbitzing at an event where you are directing. You ask me whether a player hesitated, and I don't want to answer. I know (because you've said so in this thread) that if I refuse to answer you will throw me out.

Isn't that coercion?

[blackshoe]

Nope.

[peachy]

gnasher, on Oct 23 2009, 06:33 PM, said:

blackshoe, on Oct 23 2009, 07:21 PM, said:

What coercion?

Suppose that I am kibbitzing at an event where you are directing. You ask me whether a player hesitated, and I don't want to answer. I know (because you've said so in this thread) that if I refuse to answer you will throw me out.

Isn't that coercion?

This scenario was posted by blackshoe - where his chosen action is to throw out the kibitzer.

QUOTE
"What did you see?"
"I, um, er, um, I didn't see anything."
"Leave the area, please."
END QUOTE

Following is the same scenario and same response, except in blackshoe's example the person is either a) trying to rack his memory whether he could have seen something or not, or b ) is lying.

In the following two scenarios the person knows he did not see anything and he could be either a) telling the truth or b ) lying.

"What did you see?"
"I didn't see anything."

or
"What did you see?"
"I wasn't paying attention so I didn't see anything."

In all of the above scenarios, the kibitzer did not refuse to answer the TD's question EVEN IF THERE EXISTED A REGULATION OR LAW THAT FORCES THE KIBITZER TO ANSWER - but of course there is no such regulation. So what is the reason to remove the kibitzer? That the kibitzer did not pay enough attention to the happenings at the table to know everything that happened?

I am surprised to disagree so completely with a person whose law expertise I have grown to respect.

[blackshoe]

Apparently I haven't made myself clear. I said that I would bar a kibitzer for willful refusal to assist in my investigation into the facts, or for (in my opinion) lying to me. If he can give me a good reason for his refusal, that might well lead me to let him be. But there was no implication in the posts to which I originally replied that such might be the case.

If there is a regulation requiring kibitzers to say what they've seen, and instructing the TD to eject them if they don't, I will announce that regulation at the start of a session, and if a kibitzer violates it, I will eject him. I've never heard of such a regulation, though.