Age identification of fencers

[edew]

Since the age of fencers issue thread is now closed, here's my pesky $0.02 for identifying fencers for different age groups:

On the USFA membership listing website, use different colors for the fonts to denote the age categories the fencer may compete in:

Green = Y10, Y12, Y14
Blue = Y12, Y14
Red = Y14, Cadet, Junior, Senior
Brown = Cadet, Junior, Senior
Gold = Junior, Senior
Black = Senior
Pink = Senior, Vet 40-49, Vet 40+
Purple = Senior, Vet 50-59, Vet 40+
Cyan = Senior, Vet 60+, Vet 40+

On the top, one can read what the colors mean. So, if some internet scammer is to troll for names, at least that person can't get the age without actually having to manual (visually) do it, which is pretty tough to automate.

Also, if the person (a youth in particular) has national points that allows him or her to fence in the next higher age group, the color should change to reflect that.

Programming this should all be rather doable so that it shouldn't require manual manipulation. Somewhere on the USFA DB of fencers, there should be a field indicating all possible age categories that a fencer is eligible to compete in. Tag the color to the entry in that field.

[keith]

Originally Posted by edew

Green = Y10, Y12, Y14
Blue = Y12, Y14
Red = Y14, Cadet, Junior, Senior
Brown = Cadet, Junior, Senior
Gold = Junior, Senior
Black = Senior
Pink = Senior, Vet 40-49, Vet 40+
Purple = Senior, Vet 50-59, Vet 40+
Cyan = Senior, Vet 60+, Vet 40+

What about colourblind and innumerate organisers?

This system is not needlessly complex enough.

[KD5MDK]

All other things aside, I don't think we're wanting to reprint cards every time a kids makes a points list.

[teacup]

Too bad the government doesn't issue wallet size birth certificates which can be used for national identification. These would be useful as proof of age and even citizenship for many things besides fencing events.

(Children under 16 don't have drivers licences and not everyone over 16 has one either.)

But that's not going to happen.

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by KD5MDK

All other things aside, I don't think we're wanting to reprint cards every time a kids makes a points list.

EDew's suggestion is that this be on the USFencing.org listing. As part of an automated process that generates the page based on the database, which will include the points standings information.

-B

[keith]

Originally Posted by oiuyt

EDew's suggestion is that this be on the USFencing.org listing. As part of an automated process that generates the page based on the database, which will include the points standings information.

-B

..... but by marking a fencer as Y12 eligible you are, in effect, displaying their age. Which I thought was the problem

[edew]

Apparently you didn't read it through. You only mark by coloring the font. Anyone trying to cull databases on websites might still get the color, if possible (I'm guessing the html text, when printed out, might include something like: "<font color=GREEN>(blah blah)</font>"). Well seeing "GREEN" isn't going to get any automated information. One still has to scroll up to the top (or maybe there's a floating page) to see what green might mean.

So if a person wants to specifically stalk a potential victim, yes, he or she can learn the age category of the potential victim. But using USFA would be rather time consuming and difficult. Would be better to find the name and google it.

If the person is using some automated software to analyze the names culled from the DB, there's no information at all about ages.

For admins, they can use the mnemonic of:
* primary colors for youths
* hues of brown (brown, gold, black) for cadet/junior/senior
* crazy colors for vets (or maybe we should have shades of grey to match the hair or something)

Then, it won't be too difficult to determine. Certainly a heck of a lot easier than asking for age confirmation only to get "uh, I didn't bring my USFA card...my school ID card is at home....I lost my library card" blah-blah.

I even have some kids who don't know what year they're born. Admittedly, they're 6 or 7 years old.

[needle]

Alternatively, don't change anything, but do remove sanctioning from the events that allow underage fencers. Don't just threaten, and take assurances that "we won't do it again". Make a couple of examples, publicize them. If this becomes the norm, the clubs will figure out how to check age without any changes on web sites, and on cards.

Another alternative - require all fencers to certify age with USFA prior to competing. Remove sanctioning from any tournament that has fencers with unverified age automatically.

These are draconian measures, but you'd be surprised how quickly they will get the job done

[edew]

So you have an event with 38 fencers and 6 of them don't have age verification. Do you tell those 6 to go home (bad marketing policy) or tell the whole 38 that the event is not USFA sanctioned (worse marketing policy).

I guess if I'm running the event and this crops up, I'll go with the former.

[needle]

Originally Posted by edew

So you have an event with 38 fencers and 6 of them don't have age verification. Do you tell those 6 to go home (bad marketing policy) or tell the whole 38 that the event is not USFA sanctioned (worse marketing policy).

I guess if I'm running the event and this crops up, I'll go with the former.

No, you tell the 6 to produce age verification, and send a copy to USFA. And you publicize that they will need to bring a copy of age verification with them to the tournament in advance.
We are allowing non-USFA members to join USFA on the spot in order to compete. We should allow in the same manner to validate age in order to compete. And to keep a tournament sanctioned you're turning back people who refuse to join USFA, right? Same thing with age verification.

[peet]

Originally Posted by keith

..... but by marking a fencer as Y12 eligible you are, in effect, displaying their age. Which I thought was the problem

1. Marking a fencer eligible for a certain age group only gives you their age within a couple years, which is a pretty good compromise between privacy and the need for accuracy in running tournaments.

2. An online system could make this information accessible only to authorized users, which provides a further deterrent to abuse of the information. FRED currently works this way: registered tournament organizers get access to more information than the general public.

No system would be foolproof, but if you provide tools that make it easier to do things correctly, you prevent the majority of errors/inaccuracies/malfeasance.

-p

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by keith

..... but by marking a fencer as Y12 eligible you are, in effect, displaying their age. Which I thought was the problem

Note that USFencing.org also displays which fencers compete in Y10/Y12/Y14 age categories at NACs/Nationals. Information is available for those willing to gather it. The current compromises use making it non-trivial as a sufficient deterant.

Whether that's sufficient/necessary is a policy issue. And hardly unique to USFencing. As with so many other things, we should be looking at how other groups have handled the same/similar issues for ideas and solutions.

-B

[keith]

Originally Posted by edew

So if a person wants to specifically stalk a potential victim, yes, he or she can learn the age category of the potential victim. But using USFA would be rather time consuming and difficult. Would be better to find the name and google it.

I thought with regard to age it was simply an issue (right or wrong) of being able to identify, in any way, a child.

Originally Posted by edew

If the person is using some automated software to analyze the names culled from the DB, there's no information at all about ages.

... but it is much easier the other way around. If the USFA easily identifies Y10/Y12 then you allow people to trawl the membership lists rather than the web.

So no. If the DoB issue is child safety related marking the online lists does not solve the problem.

Originally Posted by edew

Then, it won't be too difficult to determine. Certainly a heck of a lot easier than asking for age confirmation only to get "uh, I didn't bring my USFA card...my school ID card is at home....I lost my library card" blah-blah.

I even have some kids who don't know what year they're born. Admittedly, they're 6 or 7 years old.

Might I suggest Tattoos; Each member could have a unique barcode.

.... and how hard is it to carry around a membership card? Two body cords, two or more working weapons, one uniform, one plastron & one membership card.

There are two separate issues here,

1) Organisers trying to do the right thing and follow the rules.

2) Organisers knowingly ignoring and failing to enforce rules.

The solutions to those two issues are different. An improved integration between Fred and the USFA could help the first but no amount helpful mnemonics is going to get the second group in line.

[keith]

Originally Posted by oiuyt

Whether that's sufficient/necessary is a policy issue. And hardly unique to USFencing. As with so many other things, we should be looking at how other groups have handled the same/similar issues for ideas and solutions.

-B

Just went the US swimming website - as a sport with a substantial youth presence. No online membership, but results posted with ages/clubs. So on an n=1 the USFA already provides more online information than other sports.

Anyway, the current rules are simple. Penalize their breach and the problem will go away. You cannot make things foolproof, due both to the fools and those who pose as fools.

[lewis]

If a fencer does not have a usfa card then require proof of age. If there is no such proof have the PARENT sign a waiver along with the usfa application with a credit card number. Parent certifies child was born on or before the right date. Parent agrees to pay $100 if child is not the age he says. Divisions review tournaments (Division chairs could have a password for the usfa age data) and fine noncompliant tournaments $250 per violation first tournament, $500 second tournament and $1000 third tournament. No ratings forwarded to usfa.

this requires no usfa oversight - only organizer and division.

[peet]

Originally Posted by keith

There are two separate issues here,

1) Organisers trying to do the right thing and follow the rules.

2) Organisers knowingly ignoring and failing to enforce rules.

The solutions to those two issues are different. An improved integration between Fred and the USFA could help the first but no amount helpful mnemonics is going to get the second group in line.

True, helpful mnemonics will not stop unscrupulous organizers, but the same systems that make it easy to determine eligibility before the event can also be used by the organization (division officers, the national office) to control for violations after the fact.

oiuyt has mentioned that the N.O. is already doing some age based controls on earned rating submissions, but there's only so much they can do when it is a mostly manual process. It's not like they have all kinds of free time on their hands to be doing things that a computer could do much faster and more accurately.

-p

[keith]

Originally Posted by peet

oiuyt has mentioned that the N.O. is already doing some age based controls on earned rating submissions, but there's only so much they can do when it is a mostly manual process. It's not like they have all kinds of free time on their hands to be doing things that a computer could do much faster and more accurately.

.... and yet they are the only people who can check. Merging Fred with the USFA database does not necessarily solve the problem of national staff being busy (one would hope that post merging the USFA would continue to limit the number of people who have full access to all data).

In an ideal world such a merged database would automagically spit back ratings earned by ineligible fencers.

Of course in an unideal world you could just hang offenders up their thumbs and get the same result for less cost (or take lewis's suggestion and turn it into a revenue generator).

[oiuyt]

Just for reference, a previous conversation on possible sanctions for rules violations of this policy.

The thread continues for ~100 posts beyond the point I linked (~100 posts into the thread which started similarly to this one, last September.).

Clearly this is still an open issue. SOMETHING needs to be changed. The change in the NO process a couple of months ago was a step, but not sufficient to solve the problem.

So, let's broaden the discussion (sorry Eric) into two sub-topics:

1) What suggestions does the community have for making compliance easier, in the absence of abusive intent (or suggestions for making intentional non-compliance more difficult or more obvious)?

2) What suggestions does the community have for dealings with non-compliance?

The latter topic has at least the following sub-topics:
a) How to deal with the athlete (or more likely the athlete's parents)
b) How to deal with the athlete's coach
c) How to deal with the tournament organizer(s)
d) How to deal with the division/section/NGB that sanctioned the tournament (sorry for the overloaded use of the word "sanction")
e) Publicity/education about both the policies and penalties (both potential and those actually imposed)

Note that some of the sub-topics might have as an answer "It's not his/her/their responsibility, nothing should be done." Many of them likely have a tiered response for first-time and subsequent non-compliance and/or for accidental vs. intentional non-compliance.

What types of sanctions are appropriate? What are possible? Who should be sanctioned? Who should do the sanctioning?

-B

[cbcarey]

IMHO, penalties for fraud, if found, should exist. No idea if they do or do not.

This problem seems so minor. I have to believe its not solved simply because there are bigger problems to deal with.