Do you think the EB might want to inquire to see if the playing conditions conformed to USCF standards? Or, do we rate skittles games now?
It seems to me that if we start rating events just because someone has a crosstable and enough parents complain, we might just as well advertise that USCF rules need not be followed, and USCF-certified TDs are not required, and TDCC actions suspending TD certification can be ignored, and…
The best way to send the right message is to say: “what USCF event? If the organizer defrauded you - take it up with the local authorities. We did everything we could (suspending credentials and affiliations) and you didn’t seem to care about any of that. There’s nothing we can do about it now.”
Again - I think the USCF-membership-required tidbit is the most effective lever for someone who is interested in making trouble for the organizer. It’s much more likely that something provably wrong happened there. Focussing on rating the event and making it USCF’s problem that the event is not rated is not as likely to succeed unless all you want to do is whine.
Based on how this was presented and discussed, I begin to suspect that the parties involved are interested in a pissing contest. Notice that so far we haven’t heard from anyone who actually attended the event, much less anyone who is even complaining that he, personally, has been damaged somehow.
This started as an innocent looking question: what do you do if the TD for a USCF event turns out to be uncertified? Now, it turns out that this was NOT the situation at all.
We should instead be asking: what does USCF do when persons with no Affiliate sell USCF memberships to the general public?
I would agree that we cannot automatically rate every tournament just because someone insists we do so. I think the EB, or the ED, should make this decision on a case-by-case basis, after considering the specifics of the complaints and what was represented to the members who participated, and what other evidence might be available. I’d guess that this type of situation is not that common.
That certainly is one approach, and the USCF might not be required to do any more than that. But that would most likely lead to a lot of resentment and disaffection, and a lot of players who were told they were playing in a rated tournament would probably not want to risk being snookered again, especially if they already paid their dues expecting to have the tournament rated. They might understandably not want to have anything more to do with chess tournaments, USCF-rated or not, and they would be much less likely to re-join the USCF for a real tournament in the future. It’s a bit unrealistic to expect the players, especially the new players, to check the TD’s certification status (in this particular case isn’t the TD a life member anyway?) or to know the membership status of the USCF Affiliate responsible for sending in the rating report.
I think a better message might be “It sounds like that organizer misled you into believing that the event would be USCF-rated. Even though the USCF is not responsible for his actions, we think those players who paid to join the USCF in order to participate expected in turn to have the tournament rated, and we want to correct a disservice that the organizer did to them by not following through with this.”
I think that the latter approach would certainly be more effective in promoting membership in the USCF, and in getting those players to come back and try playing in more tournaments in the future.
The URL you posted is for David Huff’s Youth Chess Organization in Bakersfield (Kern County) California. It does contain a tournament announcement for the All American Cup and a link to the tournament flyer.
I doubt if RP would post the All Amercian results on YouthChess website.
RP results would be more likely to go to the CEA website based in Arizona. Except that the CEA website seems to be disabled or gone.
The flyer does advertise USCF memberships for sale but it never says anywhere “USCF Rated”.
I find this a little hard to swallow. What you’re saying is that a crooked organizer can run a tournament, pay the USCF nothing, and still have the tournament rated. The players get the benefit of membership (good), the USCF gets nothing (bad), and the crooked organizer gets to keep the money (very bad).
That being said, this whole thread seems like an overreaction. It’s been less than three weeks since the tournament. If it hasn’t been submitted (not rated, submitted) after a month, it might be time to start complaining. Richard Peterson has a bad reputation (I certainly wouldn’t have anything to do with him), but you can’t convict him on “previous bad character” alone.
It seems to me that none of the people complaining about this event have ‘standing’, ie, they did not play in it with the expectation of having it rated or pay USCF dues at it.
Now, if someone who does have standing wants to raise the issue, please contact the USCF office.