Scottish grandmaster Jacob Aagard has some harsh words for arbiters and, in particular, the zero tolerance rule. He says, "One of the worst rules in chess is the so-called Zero Tolerance Rule...", before going on to propose what seems to me a reasonable alternative (and some nice words for arbiters, too, actually).
All very understandable from the players' point of view, but he should perhaps spare a thought for arbiters.
Just have a look at some of the proposed regulations for how arbiters are supposed to carry on. Like this, a sample case of arbiter misconduct and its proposed punishment: "3.m. Every action of his sporting or social life which causes a reduction of his prestige as an arbiter or
constitutes defamation of the game of chess (disqualification from 2 years to deletion from the lists
Immediately you would ask, what exactly are such actions and who decides them? This is a rule that, if enacted, should really send shivers up the spines of arbiters and would-be arbiters everywhere. It is a rule that, like the zero tolerance one for players, could turn out to be unjust.
Hat tip: Chess Chat.