The point I was making was that TD’s shouldn’t have to call the office to renew at their current level. This should be automatic as long as they have met the minimum requirement.
The TD only learned of the expiration when his wife couldn’t process via the TD/Affiliate Area. She was trying to rate the last few tournaments he had directed.
We generate a list early each month of the TDs whose certification lapses that month (or recently lapsed), along with a summary of their TD experience by year. That report currently goes to Phil, who is handling TD certification issues now. The most recent list was generated yesterday.
The next logical phase would be to write a program to renew those TDs who obviously have sufficient activity and whose certification is renewable. (Club TDs cannot be automatically renewed, for example.)
I’m not sure if we’re going to resume sending out TD cards or send other notification of that extension, as well as notifying those who do not qualify for automatic renewal., Bill Hall, Phil Smith and I have kicked a few ideas around, but we probably need to consult with TDCC.
BTW, of 74 TDs who appear on the most recent list, 31 have already lapsed. Only 6 of those have sufficient recent activity to qualify for automatic renewal. (Others may have been due for renewal in those months and have already been renewed.)
Of the 43 whose certification lapses in April or May, 34 have enough activity to qualify for automatic renewal. (That also suggests that the majority of those who were up for renewal in the last few months have been renewed.)
63 of the 74 TDs listed have an email address on file with the USCF, so email notification should work for most of them.
After my call yesterday this TD was renewed. He directs on the average one tournament per week, usually as the chief TD. I wouldn’t have expected him to show up as not qualifying in March.
Since the list is already being generated, shouldn’t the next step be to renew those who qualify without waiting for their telephone calls?
That is the same time frame Phil (new) took over for Darrell (gone). Are you suggesting that a new employee with new multiple duties should have known about this procedure and done all of his work perfectly? If TDs have to call every month with the same concern, then we have a situation that needs to be addressed. I am sorry you feel you have to embarrass a new employee on a public forum in order to make your point.
Why should the new employee be the one to feel embarrassed?
Sigh?! I have more important things to do than deal with you two and your attitudes. Excuse me now, I have paint I need to watch dry.
You seem to be the one with the attitude.
In no way did I intend to embarrass any employee be it the new or old employee in this position. While I am aware of who I spoke with on the phone I actually assumed he was just helping with this area for the old employee. I wasn’t aware of the old employee’s departure so I thought he was still handling TD issues. I was only addressing the process that was explained to me when I called. I suppose I am a bit naive and assumed that this was correctly explained at the time or that there was another issue with the particular TD’s record.
If the process hasn’t been changed, as you seem to indicate, then I assume that there was a problem with the file for this TD. The new employee did mention that the TD hadn’t met the minimum requirement to have his certificate renewed. I assumed at the time that this was just a quick comment when looking at MSA, so I disregarded it. MSA for this TD does seem to indicate that he hasn’t been a chief TD at any events. I assume this is an issue with his MSA record as he is generally the chief TD at most tournaments he directs.
As I have said more than once, MSA only knows about chief and assistant chief TDs of sections, because it was designed in 2002, when that was the only TD information we were collecting.
As a result, it cannot be relied upon to determine if a TD has the necessary activity for renewal.
There is a more comprehensive TD history tool available in the TD/Affiliate Support Area and at the office.
There you go again with an assumption.
It is interesting that you called the office for this TD. According to an earlier post it appears his wife hands in his rating reports. Just what does this TD do for himself?
Why does that matter? Shouldn’t we be encouraging TD activity instead of belittling their actions or lack thereof?
I am sorry you feel you have to embarrass an active TD on a public forum in order to make your point.
Geez, enough gentlemen. Take it offline, please.
Regards,
Moderator 7
Gentlemen and Ladies,
My thought is this: this is a subject which tears at me. On one hand, as a tournament organizer,
particularly in the scholastic arena, I know that finding, recruiting, and training new tournament
directors is sometimes difficult. Keeping those after their Club TD certification has expired is
sometimes difficult, as their is a resistance to renew. My thought is not on them personally,
for if they do not renew via the club or local exam, then their loss is their responsibility.
My thought is on the kids whose tournaments they run that instead of being rated, will
be not rated, or rated through another chess alternative, such as Chess Express. (look at
Oklahoma, this can happen). On the other hand, it is supremely comforting to work
and hire those of at least the local level for this means that generally they have made
at least some effort to know the USCF Rulebook, and will run tournaments accordingly.
My dilemma is this-which is better (or worse) rated though improperly paired or
prized tournaments, or not rated events run by those unfamiliar with USCF rules.
Further, is this a question that USCF has given consideration to? Or is this thought
simply USCF blasphemy? For I do know this, finding enough qualified directors to
run rated events is quite often a challenge for schools, especially those new to
tournament play.
Rob Jones
Denton, Texas
TDs are the missionaries of the USCF.
This thread highlights a failure of the USCF and should not be an embarrassment to any TD lapsed or current…
This is an area where we can improve. Does anyone have any constructive ideas?
Automatically renew the certification of all expiring TDs who meet the activity threshold, even Club TDs, assuming there are no adverse TDCC or Rules complaints.
Club TD certification cannot be renewed under current USCF regulations. TDCC could recommend a change in those regulations, which would, I believe, have to be approved by the EB if not by the Delegates.
I’m waiting for the first time when someone tries to appeal a TD decision to the USCF for an event rated by Chess Express but directed by a USCF certified TD.
That sounds scary what do you mean by that?
Will the USCF certified TD be crucified?
I think Mike was implying that, assuming the tournament was not advertised as a USCF rated tournament, there is no reason for the USCF to have any say over a tournament that was not USCF rated, so the decision being appealed would not be within the USCF’s jurisdiction. That said, explaining that to the person appealing would be “interesting”.
I know I’ve done the occasional non-rated tournaments. It is actually quite common for many TDs. Often the majority of the players in a non-rated section have not had any tournament experience of any kind, so I explain any differences between the tournament rules that the organizer is going with and the normal USCF rules for a rated event (one common one is that the only third of the touch move that is enforced is the part about releasing the piece completing the move, and a second is removing the notation requirement). The players in such a section generally know it is non-rated and thus would not appeal a decision to the USCF in the event that they are experienced enough to know of such an appeal.
An event rated by an organization other than the USCF may, however, have players experienced enough to know of the USCF appeals process, and may opt to try (futilely) to use that if the rating service itself does not have such a process.
What do you mean only enforcing only the third of the touch move rule in an unrated section? It’s okay for players to touch a piece and not move or capture it if they have not taken their hand off of it? In our unrated sections the complete touch move rule applies. Since we use these sections as stepping stones to rated tournaments we want the kids to get used to the real rules. We don’t require notation in those sections though some kids do notate.
That just goes to prove that USCF is more then just a rating service! Does Chess Express certify their TDs or provide a means to appeal a decision??
Some organizers have a regular series of non-rated sections in their tournaments and for those (which are stepping stones to rated play) I have the full touch move rule and strongly encourage that notation be taken. It’s simply easier to manage if all the sections of a tournament have virtually the same rules (even Nashville had some notation-non-required sections). By the way, I prefer the term non-rated as some tournaments have USCF-rated sections open to only unrated players (such as four of the twenty sections in Nashville) and thus the term unrated on occasion means something different than non-rated.
A 21-player non-rated multi-school single-section scholastic tournament two months ago from a first-time (quite possibly only-time) organizer was the only tournament experience for almost all of the players. In that particular case I relaxed the touch-move rule and gave a full explanation of what would be expected in a rated tournament. I did it again 4.5 hours later after finishing nine rounds (including a 1/2 hour lunch break). I also ended up explaining how tie-breaks were used to determine which trophies the three 8-1 co-champions ended up with. I had clocks available for long-running games, but the only time control mentioned was that I’d put a 10-minute per player clock on any game that had gone for more than twenty minutes (only happened once). With so few games I also had a decent chance of keeping an eye on them all and thus opted to have corrected any illegal moves that I saw. I won’t apologize for my decisions and, in this particular situation, I think they were reasonable.
It WAS more than a bit different from the 303-player 27-section USCF-rated scholastic the following week for which I was the chief TD (and sole back-room person).