Mike,
I’m curious if the Board gave you any new “top priority” assignments that bumped your previous ones? Also, what you foresee for your schedule for the next 6 months or so, especially the rating system projects to install the new “comprehensive” rating and the new “title system”.
Thanks ,Bob Rieves
My understanding is that the comprehensive rating (ie, all games as ‘quick’) proposal has been shelved, largely because of the comments about it here in the Forums.
The Title system (ie, the one approved in 2003) is still on the boards, but at the moment I’m not sure when it will be done, hopefully before the end of the year, at least for events rated since 2004. Whether we work backwards from that and how far is still somewhat up in the air, I think that may create significant data quality/accuracy issues, Bill Goichberg does not.
I don’t think any significant projects were added by the Board this past weekend, but I have some family matters to attend to and may not be doing much USCF systems work for a few days or online much at all either.
Something to keep in mind the next time the forums are targeted for termination.
Only the USCF Issues forum. The others worked fairly well before that one was created.
Wasn’t it in the USCF issues forum that “all games as ‘quick’” was primarily debated?
Yes, but it didn’t really belong there. The discussion should have been under “Tournament Organization.”
I have to disagree. It seems to me that it was a USCF issue and not a discussion about organizing a tournament.
Do you really want to make technical details of the rating system a political matter, decided by the rule of the loudest? I don’t.
Neither do I. But I am not going to distort subject categories for such a goal. If we moved issues away from the Issues Forum to some other forum, then the problems would also move to that other forum.
Getting back to my original point: If the “USCF Issues” forum had not existed, the Quick rating business would still have been addressed. I can’t see this issue as a convincing argument in favor of the “Issues” forum. There are certainly other issues which would not have been addressed without it, but then we get into debates over whether having those discussions was, on the whole, good or bad for the USCF.
It seems to me that this is a guess that can not be confirmed. I would guess that such matters would not have been addressed without the sort of problems that we have seen in the Issues forum.
It seems to me that it is a point in its favor. I agree that there are other points to consider.
For example - this thread, which appears to have nothing to do with the original topic.