As an organizer, the need to "exempt" or "disallow" certain group of players from playing in an event is not something strange nor new. This clause is widely used by organizers and host of any events, clubs, business houses, companies, etc. If you look at the movie stub for GSC or TGV, you can find the same clause printed on the ticket. And of course, if you have the time to look around at any clubhouse or read through an association constitution, you will probably find the same clause being displayed or printed for all to see. So, what is so strange about chess organizers including the same conditions for its event? In fact, for events organized at DATCC including the FIDE Seminar and National Closed event, the same clause was included but of course, there was no need to enforce the clause but given the right (or wrong situation), if it needs to be enforced, it will then be enforced.
It is very clear that the "barring" clause is primarily used to protect the organizer's interest, direction and most importantly, the organizer's or arbiter's "sanity". Whilst I would not go to the extent of branding these group of people as "trouble makers" - although some of them really are, I would probably refer them more as "those with different point of view which is usually unfavorable towards the organizer". So, does this clause actually "victimize" certain players or people from participating in an event? If the idea is seen as victimizing the player (or players), what about the organizers? Who is protecting their interest from being "victimized" by unwanted players, or players who have been known to cause trouble. I have seen organizers being the victim of complaints from the littlest of things and of the stupidest of nature. Some players are just looking to cause trouble and usually when the player is losing, the troubled caused become doubled and tripled. So, whilst it is easy to point players as seen to be victimized, what about the organizer that is being "victimized' by absurd and unnecessary complaints and issues? It is nice to see things from one perspective but what about the perspective of the other party?
Of course, the issue can be extended further - if the grudge is against the parents, why bar the children? If the the disagreement is against the tutor, why disallow the students? Maybe the phrase "birds of a feather flock together" comes into affect - if they are together, maybe they have the same idea. So, if we go by the simple rule of "prevention is better than cure", then most people would understand the need to ensure that a potential risk does not become an actual risk. Worse still is when the situation involves a chess player because a chess player train of thoughts is developed as such that the need to address a certain known risk is crucial before it worsen. We all know the classic Shakespearean tale of Romeo and Juliet where their parents (the Montague and the Capulet) are bitter sworn enemies. As the story goes, we all know that neither Romeo nor Juliet did anything wrong but because of the warring families, the children is branded the same as the family. And although Juliet father may have nothing against Romeo as a person, to him the family and Romeo are the same. So, if a parent saying that my child should not be banned because the issue is with me, then remember Romeo and Juliet....
Whilst it is indeed a shame having to disallow someone from playing in an event due to no mistake of his (or her), the rights of the organizers should not be questioned at all. No one should be forced to take in someone who is not wanted - for whatever reason the person may have. The way I see it, organizers are like host or house owners, and as the house owner, I have the right to invite or allow the persons that I like to my house, and disallow those whom I do not like. So, if your next door neighbor organize a "party of the decade" and welcome everyone from the same street except you to his party, do you want to cry foul and "insist" that you are allowed to join in the party? Unfair you may say? But as the host, I decide what is fair or unfair based on my condition and my prerogative. And if you do not like it, go find your own party. It sounds harsh and blunt but this is reality.
It is also like going traveling to a certain country and whilst you may not have the face of a terrorist, or even if you look like Brad Pitt, but the immigration person who handles your application for entry is "suspicious" of you, your application to enter the country can get rejected for the stupidest of reason - the immigration person "does not like your face". And there you are with you application to enter the country being rejected. And to make things worse, almost nothing in the world you can do that will make the immigration officer change his/her mind and allow you to enter the country. Of course you can appeal to the higher authority but if the higher authority concurs with the immigration person, there is zilch that you can do.
As an organizer, I would like to run "trouble free" events. Sometimes when you have an array and a variety of players coming from all corners of the world, it is difficult to know the trouble makers from the trouble free players. But if you do know them, the right to exercise the clause can be used as to minimize unwanted issues to surface during the course of the tournament. I have seen organizers rejecting international participants (but very minimal) because they are known to be "trouble makers". But of course, the gracious host that we are, we can tolerate these "international" trouble makers because they are not permanently here in the country - they come, stay here for about 10 days and then they left. So, even if they have issues, it usually lingers for about 10 days and after that, it usually ends amicably. Even if it stretches for more than 10 days, the "heat" is not so hot because the players are far far away in another country. But imagine having to deal with a local player who is just a few hours drive away from you (at most) and someone that have the potential to haunt you for the next 365 days a year - in person, using the phone, via email, via SMS, via blog, and popping into your office and stalking you in your next event, and the next, and the next, etc.
In one event that I had arbitrated some time ago, the organizer asked me as to who should be invited for the event and I started to throw some names. Whilst there were no violent rejection towards most of the names, some names caused raised eyebrow. "I do not want controversies to shroud my event" was the automatic response that I got. Whilst no one was eventually "axed", I was advised to keep some of the identifiable "trouble makers" at bay and strap them on a very tight leash. Lucky me, the event went smoothly
On the other hand, sometimes a person just need to "understand" when and where he/she is not needed. The Malay saying "hidung tak mancung, pipi tersorong-sorong" - literally translated as "nose not pointy, cheek push push" comes into play which means, if you know you are not needed, then understand the situation by not pushing your luck
But all is not lost - one man's poison can be another man's cure and with that, a person maybe banned from one organizer but not necessarily from all organizers. But if more and more organizers are banning the same person, then it is very clear that there is something wrong with the player - or the group or people that the player is associated with. Of course, there is nothing wrong with the the organizers right? Like someone mentioned to me, if many people start to throw mud at someone, some mud is bound to stick e.g. when so many persons talk about the bad things that someone does, then some of it is bound to be true.... I have seen some players being banned by some associations but in most cases, different associations or organizations have their own set of names contained in their own "secret black book". Unless the black books become one giant black book, then something must be wrong somewhere - for the players of course!