Then encourage the good Club TDs to take the Local TD test, which they are going to have to do anyway when their local certification comes up three years after they enroll as Club TDs. Why the need to end-run a reasonable certification process?
At minimum, you have to spend some time with the rulebook (and play 26 games) to take and pass either the Local or the Senior test. That’s a good thing. Anyone who takes those tests will learn at least one thing they did not know in the process of taking the test.
“I’m volunteering” does not exempt someone from having to prepare for a task. Qualification is required for all manner of volunteer activities. I had to take a class to teach Unitarian Sunday School. Volunteer soccer coaches have to attend training. I’m going to two sessions of volunteer training for a non-profit I’ve signed up to help.
Set expectations for competency and certification, and be willing to back those up with mentoring and encouragement. It’s not that hard. Bring people along that way, and they learn it’s their responsibility to bring along the next batch of candidates. And then you have built something that just might sustain itself.
Morals are difficult to define. We certainly do live in a world that has gone pretty much to “each their own”. no real core standards. Ethics not so much, thus,
this is where enforcement should focus. On another note, there is no such thing as a “limitless” facility, unless, I guess, if you have outdoor chess, with players providing sets on the ground - (Kind of a 60’s approach?). Thus if someone is renting or using a facility that will hold 500, with the tables/chairs to seat 500, then it seems to me that the rules as to level of TD/size of player attendance should be enforced regardless if only 50 actually show up. Would it not be an ethical violation if in such a case a club td is listed as chief in the advertisement? However, that said, would a good defense be " well if our actual pre-registrations exceeded X then we were planning to do whatever to bring in a higher level TD qualified for those actually coming? "
Last, if indeed an organizer had the capability of actually hosting a far higher number of players than ever before in previous like events, I think USCF would hate to be in the position of trying to prove that the actually intended/expected attendance was anything less, at least as based on prize money is concerned.
However, perhaps, would/should TDCC view this differently if in fact the base on prize was for 500 attendance, and the facility advertised only held at capacity 200??
I am a bit confused here. Is it really that hard to find an experienced chess player to operate a computer program that does pairings for a typical club or weekend swiss? The average 13 year old can do this with a little bit of practice, especially if they’re smart enough to already be a strong player. Actually explaining or defending the pairings might be more tricky, but many adult club (even local) TDs struggle at that. The job of a floor TD who has to handle disputes and questions from players/parents is much more difficult.
Northern California has seen a good number of teenage directors who were good, even very good. Most started out as computer TDs, and have progressed from there.
And senior, ANTD, and NTD for that matter. The TD level at which nobody knows how to make pairings by hand anymore is rising steadily. It’s becoming a lost art, like being able to drive a stick-shift car.
At our state HS team championships last year the computer crashed, and it was necessary to do pairings by hand for a couple of rounds. Having started as a TD before there were pairing programs, this was no big deal to me. I got out the index cards that I always carry and went to work. Most everyone else treated me like I was some kind of wizard…