Since everyone is discussing it anyway, and trying to avoid name calling but in a way that everyone still gets it (which is very confusing), I think there needs to be some as impartial version as possible, that we could discuss and BW (hopefully) won't feel obliged to remove. Importantly, I was not there in person, did not hear any of it from first hand account, so all of the presented story or any aspects of it may be considered hypothetical. In your discussions please avoid name calling, and naming - I am interested in your point of view on what should be the decision of a committee when presented with such a case - irrespective of the specific people involved.
Before DC, and during I heard several versions of this story. The consistent line of undisputed events is:
1. In a regional Swiss two teams sat in the same direction against each other and played a full match. Both teams included high level pros.
2. Without reporting to the directors that there was a seating problem, the teams turned in a 0-0 IMP score, and (at least initially) received 10 VP each.
3. Ten people, i.e. all members of the 2 teams that played that match are to appear before EOC in Orlando.
Other circumstances that appeared only in some versions:
A. Member of one of the teams (not pro) called the director, but the pros on both teams told the director to go away and that they do not need one. The director then asked the person who called him why he was called, and that person then also told the director that there is no issue. The director then left.
B. The teams had made score sheets to back up 0-0 score.
C. A pro, who is not a member of either team, reported what actually happened to the directors at the end of the tournament.
There are many question this situation raises imho, but I am interested in what people think about:
I. If the line of events is correct, this is not a skill level question, this is a procedural violation. It is unclear to me why it at all needs to involve national level EOC or have much room for wiggling. It is also unclear why it should take so much time to assemble a committee to deal with something that seems rather trivial in nature (not to lessen of the gravity of the accusation).
II. If indeed the director was called, and then told there is no issue, and then a 0-0 IMP score comes in - does that not raise flags in anyone mind? How many time did you really see a completely flat match? Should the director in such case indeed go away as if they never were called or should the director have called someone aside and asked more questions?
III. It is unclear if the sitting out pair was present during the discussions, whether they were part of the decision and whether and when they were told what happened. If no, do they bare the same responsibility as the other 4?
If you find this account to be offensive or partial - please let me know, I will be happy to edit it in a way that would be acceptable to all or at least most.
Plus... it's free!