Despicable Behavior and Rule 6.4.4: "barred from competition"

[SGT_Schultz]

30 minutes ago, CHA-LEE said:

Why make the registration process painful for everyone due to the actions of one bad apple. Practiscore match registration Administration allows the MD to “Approve” each shooter and the timing of their payment. This bad apple could be denied approval until payment via cash was received. Then allow all other competitors to register and pay in a normal manner. 
 

Since this bad apple received an unjustified refund, I would also add that prior owed match fee to any new registrations. They would either not attend again or pay what they owe. Hopefully that would be a sufficient lesson for them to not pull that crap again.

 

This needs a like

[warpspeed]

Quote

6.4.3

No person may be barred from participating in a USPSA match based on

gender, race, religion or occupation.

 

Since you are barring them for a reason other than their gender, race, religion or occupation I think you are OK.

 

Since the barring isn't a result of them being unsafe or from behavior  which would or may disrupt the match, or which would bring disrepute to the sport I don't see a need to file any report with HQ.

 

Just tell them they are a DB and that you are telling other MDs in the area that they are a DB and not only not welcome at your matches but probably not welcome anywhere else. 

 

My guess is after showing up to shoot and being told "you aren't welcome" they may come back and make things right.

[Schutzenmeister]

For those who think barring this (or any person) from a match using this rule (6.4.4), please remember you are required to report this to USPSA HQ within 7 days per 6.4.5.  Be prepared to explain why you did it and be ready to answer some questions.

[jcc7x7]

Cause he's a dirtbag,

[Sarge]

So, if this were allowed to stand by HQ what's next? “I think the match sucked, so I’m getting my money back?” “ I got DQ’ed so I want my money back?”

  Shooter ethics is all that prevents this stuff from happening, so the shooter in question is unethical and deserves everything negative that comes his way.

[Sarge]

4 minutes ago, jcc7x7 said:

Cause he's a dirtbag,

Absolutely! And he needs unmasked so other MD’s have fair warning. That won’t happen here but there are other ways. 

Edited May 14, 2020 by Sarge

[RJH]

Can you track people on practiscore?  If so track him and every time he signs up for a major notify the MD.  Maybe MDs working together is a way to solve the issue.  IDK if it would be worth the effort though, you will probably end up being happier if you mostly forget it, but if decides to sign up for your match in the future, try to get the back payment and only take cash from him.  Then DQ him on the first stage LOL

[GOF]

22 hours ago, JohnStewart said:

I agree. We don't know WHY this shooter missed the match. It could have been anything from a cold, busted vehicle, hurt hand, etc. The fact that he filed for a refund is not evidence of "despicable behavior"... and certainly not a clear intent to defraud the club.

 

 

 

 

 

After the match, the competitor submits a charge-back on their credit card to get a refund they don't deserve per the clear match refund policy, and this has a significant negative financial impact on the match. Does rule 6.4.4.a give the MD the ability to declare this competitor persona non grata at his matches going forwards?
 
 

I would agree that this is a bit of a subjective call - however I would say No, that doesn’t meet the criteria to ban someone from future matches per the rules cited.

At the end of the day, you have a simple issue of managing a refund dispute. If you had a clearly stated refund policy which was well documented (as you state you do) then I expect you should prevail in your reasoning for not issuing a refund with the CC company.

The attendee in question never showed, so he didn’t violate any gun safety rules nor showed any sort of inability to safely complete a COF.

I get how frustrating it is for someone to back out of a paid event at the last minute, especially if you aren’t overcharging for a profit and you are counting on every dollar from every attendee. I’ve managed such events myself and it’s a tough line to walk - making the fee low enough that it is affordable but not putting yourself or your club at risk of losing money in the process. However, I personally interpret this rule to be intended to bar someone who has proven to be unsafe or mentally unfit to be trusted to be safe in a USPSA match. This refund dispute doesn’t meet that standard, IMHO.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Sarge]

20 hours ago, Maximis228 said:

IMO SCs/ADs, more often than not, ignore or don't care about issues brought to them. Maybe its my personal experience, but I have little to no faith in USPSA as an organization doing the right thing.

 

Sunlight is the best disinfectant. 

I agree this is pretty common but it's not universal. I barred a guy from our state match because it was verified he had DQ'ed at several of his local matches and they feared he was unsafe. After verifying, I sent him an email and told him I was not allowing him to shoot and refunded his money. Told DNROI of my decision and boom done. But I was told by a few RM's that they had never actually seen that done and it was virtually unprecedented. 

  I think there needs to be less handling with kid gloves and calling a spade a spade. And it can be done without being a dick.

[StealthyBlagga]

OK, having stimulated this discussion, I feel I should disclose that the incidents behind this thread actually occurred in relation to a major OUTLAW 3-Gun match we run (SMM3G),  not a USPSA match. As such, we are free to declare these people PNG without having to deal with the USPSA bureaucracy - in practice, I simply blocked the offenders in Stripe (the payment processor for PractiScore) and added them to our blacklist. I started this thread in the USPSA rules forum because its an interesting discussion, is something that must happen to USPSA MDs too from time to time, and because the USPSA rule could bind the MDs hands a bit more.

 

Here is some more of the background to our cases:

 

We've experienced two recent chargeback events in a 12 month period (03/2019 and then 03/2020). Each instance cost us about $350 (lost revenue + additional bank fees).

 

In the first case, the competitor (from MN) claimed his wife was cheating on him and was filing for divorce. His personal life is not our responsibility, and this came up well after the clearly-stated refund deadline, so we did not feel this warranted a refund. The competitor felt otherwise.

 

The second case occurred at the beginning of the current COVID-19 panic (the first 2 weeks of March). After serious internal discussion, including consulting healthcare professionals, we decided we could go ahead with the match safely (with appropriate protocols), and indeed everything went without a hitch. We had a number of folks decide to withdraw from the match - some due to force majeure, and some by personal choice. As we were past the refund deadline and almost all the funds were spent, there was no way the match budget would support 100% refunds for everyone. Nevertheless, in consideration of the unusual circumstances, we told everyone that we would address the question of refunds after the match (the only exception being the hardship cases - deployed military and first responders, foreigners impacted by the travel ban etc.- who received immediate full refunds). When the dust had settled, we were able to move some money from other club accounts and raid the "new target" fund to scrape together enough $$$ to give everyone at least a partial refund (30%). However, the competitor (from CA) who submitted the chargeback felt that he deserved a full refund as he "did not feel comfortable coming to the match" - as such, he jumped ahead of other folks and drained the refund pot, leaving less for everyone else. In my mind, this meets the threshold for disreputable behavior.

 

Concerning the USPSA rule, in the absence of a "clarification" from Troy (who seems to have become the Hawaiian Judge of USPSA), I'd read the rule to mean the MD can ban whomever he wishes at his sole discretion for any of the general reasons given (and I'd argue that "disrupt" and "disrepute" can be interpreted broadly), so long as a report is sent to USPSA within the stipulated timeframe. I don't see any mechanism for review, appeal or reversal. Of course, this is before we even consider the "soft" tactics that MDs can employ that make it very clear an individual is no longer welcome.

 

 

Edited May 15, 2020 by StealthyBlagga

[anbrumm]

2 hours ago, GOF said:

 

 

Regardless of why they didn't attend, if it's laid out that no refunds will be issued after X day and the person finds that they can't attend they should contact the MD at the least. If they held a spot all the way until the day of the match and then didn't show that keeps another competitor from attending. While I understand that something could have happened morning of the match, they could still contact the MD and discuss before requesting a charge back on their card. In my mind, without at least talking to the MD first I think it is intentionally trying to defraud the club.

[StealthyBlagga]

1 minute ago, anbrumm said:

 

Regardless of why they didn't attend, if it's laid out that no refunds will be issued after X day and the person finds that they can't attend they should contact the MD at the least. If they held a spot all the way until the day of the match and then didn't show that keeps another competitor from attending. While I understand that something could have happened morning of the match, they could still contact the MD and discuss before requesting a charge back on their card. In my mind, without at least talking to the MD first I think it is intentionally trying to defraud the club.

 

In our case, the individuals did contact us to request a refund, but each was declined for the reasons given (the second case was told to wait until we determined how much of a refund was possible). When it comes to a major match, even one like SMM3G that sells out with a wait list every year, it becomes very difficult to fill vacated slots at the last minute.

[JWBaldree]

Seems like you are getting too wrapped up in the actions of one dirtbag. Like it or not, his actions fall under ‘cost of doing business’. If you were turning a healthy profit, or earning a huge salary running matches, I’m guessing you would not be taking it so personal. The fact that the guy is pissing all over your volunteer efforts and passion makes it personal.

Don’t give him the power to pee in your Cheerios. Having said that, there is no reason you can’t fire him as a customer. That would eliminate future stress. Also, if he ever registers for a USPSA event of yours and you decide to let him shoot, just follow Chalee’s advice.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SGT_Schultz]

3 hours ago, StealthyBlagga said:

OK, having stimulated this discussion, I feel I should disclose that the incidents behind this thread actually occurred in relation to a major OUTLAW 3-Gun match we run (SMM3G),  not a USPSA match. As such, we are free to declare these people PNG without having to deal with the USPSA bureaucracy

 

It doesn't matter if it's a USPSA match or not.  You don't have to let anyone who steals from you onto property you control.  He's not barred from competition, just barred (trespassed) from stepping foot onto the private property that happens to host USPSA matches.

 

If he shows up again, just tell him he's trespassing and must leave.  If he won't, call LE and have him arrested for trespass.  If he has a firearm, it might even become aggravated trespass.....bonus.

Edited May 14, 2020 by SGT_Schultz

[pjb45]

Capricious and arbitrary are often used in the legal environment.  Barring an individual from competition should have a foundation in the legal and moral environments.  

 

Barring an individual from competition can (read can) be a slippery slope as it approaches the definition of arbitrary.  Personally, I find the charge back behavior to be reprehensible.  

 

Even though COVID gripped our country in a unique situation, SMM3G endeavored to do right by all who withdrew/no show the match.  This one individual was ( i hope) an anomaly.

 

I would recommend the future MD take this individual's behavior into account on future match applications.  My word of warning would be if this individual is weasel enough for the charge back, would they claim retaliation and harassment in a future lawsuit.  I would NOT formalize nor publish the barring this individual as to avoid any potential legal action.  

 

Personally, I would officially welcome them at future SMM3Gs, I would just tell them they are on the wait list.  

Edited May 14, 2020 by pjb45

[SGT_Schultz]

1 minute ago, pjb45 said:

 My word of warning would be if this individual is weasel enough for the charge back, would they claim retaliation and harassment in a future lawsuit.  I would NOT formalize nor publish the barring this individual as to avoid any potential legal action. 

 

 

This guy has no legal right to be on private property where he's not welcome.  Telling someone they're not allowed back on private property is not even close to harrassment.  And it doesn't fit the legal definition of retaliation either.

 

Retaliation for what?  Stealing?  LOL good luck with that argument in court.

[StealthyBlagga]

I'm not really that upset. As mentioned above, to some extent it is the cost of doing business - it's just disappointing for this to be so in the action shooting sports as I had always thought I could expect better behavior. I hope this does not become a trend, because nobody wants to go back to paper checks.

[rustychev]

On 5/13/2020 at 2:13 PM, ClangClang said:

I wouldn't institute a formal ban. This competitor simply owes you the amount of the chargeback. Until he settles his tab, he is unable to enter any of your matches. It's up to this joker whether he wants to stand on principle and give up USPSA or he wants to shoot.

This is what I would do.  if the match fee was 25.  I would make him pay 25 he owes plus 25 for his next match or he dose not get to shoot.

[arkadi]

@StealthyBlagga have the individual had a chance to correct the situation, perhaps after an additional personal explanation of what his actions resulted for you, for the staff, and other competitors?

[StealthyBlagga]

1 hour ago, arkadi said:

@StealthyBlagga have the individual had a chance to correct the situation, perhaps after an additional personal explanation of what his actions resulted for you, for the staff, and other competitors?

 

Yes, I was very clear with him as to how his choice was negatively impacting everyone else who played by the rules, and I offered him the same 30% refund as everyone else. I gave him every opportunity to do the right thing - he declined.

Edited May 15, 2020 by StealthyBlagga

[pjb45]

4 hours ago, SGT_Schultz said:

 

This guy has no legal right to be on private property where he's not welcome.  Telling someone they're not allowed back on private property is not even close to harrassment.  And it doesn't fit the legal definition of retaliation either.

 

Retaliation for what?  Stealing?  LOL good luck with that argument in court.

Rio Salado is on County land managed by RSSC.  Legal proceeding/Due process do not need a court.  Not all shooting ranges are own by a Club.

Your reply is a non-sequitur.  

 

Edited May 15, 2020 by pjb45

[konkapot]

Blagga you trying your best to give a partial refund was very very cool and reasonable. Had I been a competitor I would have been satisfied with that. The clown who got all the money should be forced to work at a wet market for a period of time.

[promtcy]

What was the plan had you been told you couldn't safely hold the match?

[Racinready300ex]

5 minutes ago, promtcy said:

What was the plan had you been told you couldn't safely hold the match?

 

I was registered for a Major once that ended up getting canceled last minute due to weather. The end result was everyone got a partial refund with what funds where left. Once the money is spent it's gone and there is no getting it back. 

[Balakay]

16 minutes ago, Racinready300ex said:

 

I was registered for a Major once that ended up getting canceled last minute due to weather. The end result was everyone got a partial refund with what funds where left. Once the money is spent it's gone and there is no getting it back. 

NC Sectional??