So your “the reason for requiring staff approval is to prevent mischief” rationale doesn’t make sense. If it’s not so important to prevent tournament rating reports with mischievous names being submitted, it shouldn’t be so important to prevent them being updated; it can have the same after the fact screening.
If staff had to review every tournament being submitted before it could be processed, that would delay rating events by hours, possibly even days over weekends and holidays.
At present, all corrections to an event have to be made by staff, including changes that do not affect ratings.
I am now leaning towards recommending that if and when we give TDs the ability to correct their own events they will all have to go through the clone/correct/submit/review process, so that we have a full record of what was changed, even if it was just the event name or list of TDs.
Right. And that isn’t done as a result, making it clear that the horrible things a TD could do in a report aren’t considered that critical. And if they aren’t that critical in a report, they shouldn’t be that critical in a correction.
…yes, a history of all changes would be a very good idea, but that’s separate from the idea that the same concerns that aren’t a big deal up front…still aren’t that big a deal a bit later.
In the days before TD/A, every event had to be looked at by staff because the staff did all the work getting them rated. Giving up some of that control was a tradeoff to get events rated faster.
I wouldn’t say that problems with event reporting are not a big deal, I’d say that TDs are placed in a position of trust, and if they betray that trust (which has happened) the TD and the sponsoring affiliate can both be sanctioned for it. And that DOES happen.
Questions from players or third parties about events are fairly commonplace, and some of those questions have led to sanctions.
Feel free to read “not a big deal” as “an insufficient concern to require staff pre authorization”.
Why would you want to allow an affiliate ID correction to be done without office intervention? Surely events must be submitted using the correct affiliate, which checks the affiliate is current and that the TD has the right to submit things on behalf of that affiliate, etc.
How many times are folks accidentally submitting events using the wrong affiliate? Maybe a little more care and attention is needed as I’d say this is a major error if they do so.
There have been cases where an event was submitted under another affiliate ID because there were issues with submitting it under the correct ID, and the affiliate ID was corrected after it was rated.
But this does lend additional support for the idea that TD-entered corrections should always require some kind of staff approval, regardless of what’s being changed.
It happened to me on Saturday, because I thought that clicking through the desired affiliate from the dashboard before clicking to submit a rating report was sufficient to set the context. As to how often? About 1 in 300 times.
It is, of course, possible for multiple current affiliates to be a viable option for multiple TDs. Where there a TD both runs a club and directs state events, that’s probably the normal case.
Requiring staff approval to change things like a tournament name, while still allowing the initial submission to go through without requiring staff approval EVERY SINGLE TIME means that events can get rated during the awards ceremony (people now expect to see their new rating when they get home) while now the staff only has to do a periodic check on the recently submitted tournament names. Allowing TDs to change the tournament name at any time would result in having to periodically review all 34 years (and growing) of tournament names that might have been changed after being initially reviewed (or the entire changeable period - if tournaments less than a year old can have name changes then if staff reviews names weekly that would require each weekly review to cover 52 times as many tournaments). Meeting the expectation of quick rating can withstand the occasional bad actor temporarily slipping in a bad name, but there is no reason to allow the occasional bad actor to slip in bad names that require either constant 100% review or that remain a lasting blight on the website that is undetected by staff.
With an audit log (as discussed by Mike Nolan above), it would not; it would only require reviewing names that were changed in the period since the last review.
https://ratings.uschess.org/event/202603240303
Is this event’s name disreputable or just disputable?
Um, none of the above?
they name their dual-rated (G/30;d0) swiss as
“Spring Online Scholastic tournament” and name the only one section as “Online Blitz”.
Sure it is neither disreputable nor disputable, but is dis …
Hanlon’s Razor may apply here, they might have missed clicking on the ‘online’ box for the event.
1 Like
Speaking of corrections, has anyone had any luck with corrections lately? I have membership corrections first sent in on March 18 that haven’t been fixed, and a tournament correction reported on April 6 that remains unfixed.
Yes and no. I find that corrections either happen same-day or not at all, but I also send a reminder after ten days.
Multiple reminders… 
I sent in a correction this morning and it’s been fixed already! Kudos to Brian. The March 18 ones remain unfixed.
what should be the procedure here for https://ratings.uschess.org/event/202603240303?
Obviously if and only if staff see it, staff will offer them to either change the confusing tournament name, or change from OTB to online? If staff does not see it, is there anything could/should be done?
Staff aren’t likely to be looking for issues to fix, they’ve got their hands full just dealing with the corrections and other stuff that lands on their plates.
TDs should ALWAYS check that their events are correct once they are rated.
I also wouldn’t rule out there being a correction that just hasn’t gotten done yet. I know Korey has been working on getting caught up with the FIDE adjustments, I think he’s still working on November and possibly December but I think he’s done the 2026 ones.