I don’t think I’ve ever tipped over my King. I just extend my hand and say “I resign”.
FWIW,
At Millionaire Chess 3 both players had to report the result to an attended results desk, and turn in signed original scoresheets (they could keep a carbon copy).
There were zero contested results for the entire tournament.
-Matt Phelps
Wait, how did they manage that with their scorebooks/electronic scoresheets?
Alex Relyea
Players were required to use the provided scoresheets. No electronic devices (including electronic scoresheets) were allowed in the playing area. Players had to pass through metal detectors to enter the playing area.
Surely, you jest Mr. Relyea? 
Yes, MC3 provided scoresheets (and sets, and clocks!). The players were required to use them.
The same result could be achieved with organizer provided result slips or cards. I know they work well at Amateur Team East.
-Matt
Hats off for adopting the international standard best practice.
If I have this right…
450 players at ballpark $525 average entry fee is $236,250 versus a guaranteed prize fund of $306K, not to mention other expenses.
So, if I got that right, it sounds like providing sets, clocks and scoresheets didn’t provide a financial payoff.
Maybe it will work out in Millionaire 4.
That does make the assumption that there will be a Millionaire 4.
Yes, it is correct for the chief td to go back to the original source, first,
the players. But, it is also necessary to hear why the subordinate tds
made the decision they did, without the players present. To do other
is very poor executive management on the part of the chief td, very rude to his subordinates, and a fantastic way for the chief td to find himself alone with no one willing to assist him in future events.
You called it correctly - unprofessional. For professional courtesy to
his/her td staff should be expected. Loyalty cuts both ways. If a chief TD expects loyalty from his staff, loyalty going down should also
be expected. It is a two way street. I have witnessed several NTDs
who were simply insufficient in this regard.
Rob Jones
You little nesting-limit dodger you. 
I would remind everyone again that we have heard only one side of the story here. Rushing to judgment in such a situation is akin to having a jury decide guilt or innocence after the prosecution has presented its case, but before the defense has had the opportunity to cross examine witnesses or present its own evidence. And also again, this Forum is not the proper place to bring this up. If the OP is convinced he has a legitimate case he should bring this before the TDCC.
Yes, I fully agree with you here. We have only heard one side of the story. And, by no means, am I agreeing or disagreeing with actual ruling. The forums are not the place to hash out actual disputes,
for specific resolution or recommendations. So, I hope clearly my comments are interpreted for general purposes only.
Rob Jones
As I said upthread, something broke down in the appeal process among the staff, and it’s impossible – and not really useful – for us to try and figure that out here. But it’s a good reminder to us all of best practices.
There was never any motivation of any kind on my part when I posted this. It is an example only of what can, and does happen at events. We need to make sure we always have the players best interests at heart when we are making decisions on their games. Prizes, rating points, etc., are always at stake when we make mistakes. My motivations are the players themselves, no one else. Without players we have nothing.
Correct - and, it is a great idea for chief tournament directors to treat all with respect, including their subordinates. That is anyhow, if they wish their events to continue running smoothly, and they think it is important to have such subordinates work future events.
Rob Jones
Did you ever ask Black the question “What do you mean when you say that you had to accept the draw offer? A draw offer is just that - an offer. If it were a draw claim, then you would have had to accept it, if the claim were valid. And if you didn’t think it was valid, you could have called me over and shown me the board position and, if it were relevant, your scoresheet.”
Not necessarily. The problem is that Black’s original story, as he worded it, made no sense. Why would anyone have to accept a draw offer? It might be that, at this point, Black finally figured out how to describe what he was claiming in a way that made sense: White had made what he claims was a draw offer, Black had thought it was a resignation, shook White’s hand, and they began putting away the pieces, and then at some point Black realized that White was claiming the two of them had agreed to a draw. He protested that he thought White had been resigning, and White said that, no, it was a draw offer and when Black shook White’s hand, he was accepting it. Black then protested that White’s draw offer had been made incorrectly because he had not made it clear to Black that it was a draw offer and not a resignation, but White said that when Black had shaken his hand, he had accepted the draw offer, and it was too late to change it because they had put away all the pieces. At this point, Black summoned you and asked why he had to accept an incorrect draw offer.
Bob
If Black phrased the question as OP has reported it phrased, I wouldn’t ask what Black meant. By the plain language of his statement, he accepted a draw offer. 1/2-1/2. The end.
Now, if Black meant “I thought he was resigning, but he was offering a draw,” he needed to say “I thought he was resigning, but he was offering a draw.” But that’s not what OP heard him say.
A player’s statement against his own interest should be given heavy and often preclusive evidentiary weight. “I had to accept the draw offer” means “I accepted the draw offer.” Period.
A handshake is only a handshake, but a player’s statement that he accepted a draw offer is much more.
Black stated clearly to me and his opponent “I am “NOT” disputing the draw”. Not disputing means not disputing therefore it is a drawn game. He did claim he was a chess teacher for 25 years and hopefully he will impress this experience upon his students.
The trouble is that, as kidjezebel reported it, there was no plain language in Black’s statement: “Black states it was unfair of him to have had to accept an incorrect draw offer.”
First, what did Black mean by “incorrect draw offer”? To my knowledge, the USCF rulebook never defines or even mentions such a thing. Did he mean “incorrect draw claim”? Or “incorrectly made draw offer” (i.e., not made in accordance with Rule 14B1)?
Second, what did Black mean by “had to accept” a “draw offer”? No one ever has to accept an offer. Black’s description of the situation is self-contradictory, suggesting that Black is confused about what the proper terminology is.
We always need to keep in mind that players (including chess teachers) are not necessarily familiar with all of the terminology used in the rulebook, nor are they necessarily good at expressing themselves. We need to make sure we understand what the player intends to say before making a ruling.
Bob
At that point, I would have asked, “Then why did you call me over?” If both players are agreeing the game ended in a draw, then why did Black feel he needed to consult with a TD? Black seems to have been very confused.
Chess teachers are notorious for knowing just enough about the rules to be dangerous. They have all kinds of preconceived notions about how the rules should work, but many of them have never actually read the USCF rulebook.
Bob