I don’t know what kind of directing experience you have, but my experience suggests that the things you are suggesting to differentiate between scholastic and regular tournaments occur in both kinds of events.
Yeah, I wish that in my tournaments I didn’t have to deal with adults who didn’t know all the rules. Even grandmasters.
Alex Relyea
I did overlook the floor section/division chief (such as the expert section chief of the World Open or the U1600 section chief of the national HS) and that a computer person may only be proficient in either WinTD or SwissSys, but not both.
So:
Levels are: C (club); L; S; A; N
Players are: S; R; A (A might be eliminated if every job will have entries for both S and R)
Jobs are: W (WinTD backroom chief); X (WinTD backroom operator); S (SwissSys backroom chief); T (SwissSys backroom operator); F (Floor chief); D (Section/Division chief); A (Floor assistant); O (Overall chief)
and 10 years ago I would have been: NXSASDS/AWSDAAAFSOSXA/SWAFAOATS/LSSTA/CSA
That is a mere 37 letters and 4 slashes (or 11 letters and 11 slashes less than NXS/NAS/NDS/AWS/ADA/AAA/AFS/AOS/AXA/SWA/SFA/SOA/STS/LSS/LTA/CSA), which is in comparison to my then inefficient certification description that took a full 4 letters (ANTD).
That would make for an interesting display when showing a TD’s certification level. With 6 levels (including not even up to the club level) and 8 jobs, that makes for 48 different combinations, each of which can be parsed 36 different ways for the player groups (15 combinations of S higher than R, 15 combinations of R higher than S and 6 combinations of S equal to R). That makes for 1728 different TD certification possibilities. If you assume that every TD is at least at club level in every job then it reduces to 40 x 25 = 1000 different certification possibilites.
You can ask your delegate to make an ADM to expand the TD certification rankings from 5 to either 1000 or 1727 (the 1728th would be a non-TD in every area, which is an unnecessary option).
Edit: I overlooked handling pairings manually, but the percentage of TDs that can do so is declining. If you add them then the numbers above would be increased by 25% (pairing chief and manual pairer are two more jobs).
Also, when drafting an ADM, state that moving from 5 options to 1000 is in the interest of making things easier (at least when searching for specific abilities - an on-line filter would be needed).
I recognize the satire. But, you can expand the current proficiency labels system without getting carried away. Example: LDA for Local Director proficient with Regular, Scholastic, and Computers. Look at military MOS codes: 11B, 13R, 42A, 92Y, etc. Very efficient system using very few digits and answering very important questions.
So, what’s the value of implementing something that goes one step further than the present system? Two things:
(1) Money. Most TD’s do what they do for the love of the game (at least 90 percent of the time). But there are times when having additional credentials impacts compensation negotiations. Let’s say you are bidding against another TD to direct a military base championship with the winners being nominated for All Army or All Air Force competition. The other TD is a SDS (Senior Director Scholastic) while you are a SDR (Senior Director Regular). Anyone reading this forum knows both could get the job done. But, that type of competition is anything but Scholastic. The TD with SDR next to his name is going to have the edge. Further, there are probably going to be suggested pay scales for TDs. SDR would naturally command more compensation than a Club Director and might be paid higher than a SDC (Senior Director Computers).
(2) Marketing. This system would help the organizer know they’re getting what they paid for. I have played in some post championships where the TD had not been a USCF member for several years, but was hired year after year because they were the only TD the Recreation Center Manager knew. If you’re getting four whites in a row it’s probably not that bad a deal. But, someone else is suffering as a result.
Let’s say you are an organizer and you have a strong SDR to handle the floor. But, you still need someone who can work with the computer pairings and submit electronic rating reports. You’re going to be looking for a good SDC. And because USCF certifies the titles you have a pretty good idea you are getting what you paid for.
Perhaps, but any regular tournament I’ve directed meant ALL recorded the moves IAW the USCF Rulebook.
Which means that if either player is in time trouble or if the game is faster than G/30, you may or may not have scoresheets available when a situation arises where one would assist you in making a ruling.
Which means TDs had better be prepared to deal with making rulings in the absence of a scoresheet regardless of whether the event is ‘scholastic’ or ‘regular’.
Which means that it fails the test of being a reliable differentiator between the skills needed by a director for scholastic and regular events.
So, Mike. You’re saying the five and six year olds are ready to write down all the moves?
Not at all. I’m saying if you are a TD working what you call ‘regular’ events, you had better be prepared to handle situations where there is no scoresheet available to assist you.
So that means that both ‘scholastic’ and ‘regular’ TDs need to have that skill set, which means it is not a skill that differentiates ‘scholastic’ from ‘regular’ TDs. (And isn’t the point of this thread trying to identify differences in skills among TDs for certification purposes?)
I’ve directed both types of events, and I believe I’ve had many more situations involving games between adults where the lack of a scoresheet complicated the task of making a ruling than games between two five year olds.
I thought you was hypothesising there is no difference in difficulty for directing either type of event. Some on this forum disagree and posted Scholastics is tougher.
I can be persuaded either way. But in a regular tournament I have never had to console a crying man for losing to a girl.
I didn’t see ‘grief counseling’ among the tasks and skills being catalogued, but I have had to console adult players who lost tough games, though it is a bit more common for the adult loser to claim that his opponent cheated in some usually unspecified way.
I’ve had to contact site security or the police in adult events, but never in a scholastic one, though I know other TDs who have had to do that in scholastic events.
I can’t think of any directing task that primarily arises in scholastic events (unless your adult events don’t award non-divisible prizes or other situations requiring tie breaks), but about the only directing task that doesn’t arise often in true ‘scholastic’ events is dividing prize monies.
Once you find that SDC you are then going to have to ask if that TD is good with the particular computer program in use.
When I’m asked to do the back room the first thing I check is which software the organizer expects me to use (using WinTD I’ve soloed the back room for 4-section 700+ player 7-round events and 27-section 300+ player five round events, and I’ve been on the back room crew at the national scholastics and at the Vegas National Open, but it’s been quite a while since I’ve actually used SwissSys).
If I was looking for a back room TD for a tournament I’m the chief of then I’m not particularly worried about the final USCF upload (I can do that), but rather the TD’s speed (taking into account the amount of time between rounds), accuracy, initiative (i.e. check on whether or not a section is done or unreported games exist) and reactability (i.e. handle floor changes to the pairings). Being able to handle memberships (or non-member IDs for JTP or tournament memberships) would be a bonus but not a deal-breaker.
So if you are going to use just a code to find a TD then you find a potential need for quite a few different codes. A back room chief should be able to do the memberships, USCF report and prize lists (plus cover for a back room pairer). A back room pairer should be able to do the results entry, pairings, wall charts and membership/entry-payment hit lists. A small event may be fine with a non-computer-using pairer.
For the floor there is a difference between a floor TD that can work a section at a national but would not be a good chief TD of any but small events (SAA/COA) versus a TD that can be the chief of a decent-sized events but would not be good in the pressure of a national (CAA/SOA - and it would be interesting to explain how somebody could be a SeniorTD as an overall chief while being only a ClubTD as a floor assistant).
Anybody who gets a TD to do a job will still need to check on the capabilities of that TD (similar to the reference checking many employers do). One thing that might help is making generally available the current TD/Affiliate option of checking on a TD’s tournament experience listing (which also shows chief and chief assistant even if the TD was not listed as a section chief or section assistant - and does so without having to open up the individual tournmants).
I would think the SDC has all those skills and more or else the guy at USCF needs to be tarred and feathered. Also, if I am hiring the SDC I should have enough sense to let him choose his preferred software and even bring his own equipment if he so desires.
That might be okay if the chief TD or organizer doesn’t need to generate other information from the tournament file. If they do then the computer person needs to have the same formats. I’ve worked with multiple organizers in the past that weren’t certain exactly how they’d be putting the results on a website, but were fine with having a .pto file so that they could use it to generate and tweak things when the time came.
If we ever meet I’ll show you how to export from one program into Excel. Then I’ll show you how to import from Excel into another program. It’s surprising to me, sometimes, that others don’t know how to do this seemingly magic trick. But, I earn my living with such skills. Most do not.
This should probably be part of the LDC, SDC, ANTDC, and NTDC certification exams.
By the way, you reminded of something I witnessed at a Texas Region II Championship the first year our club ran the event. We hired Luis Salinus of Dallas to make sure we did it right. The first question he asked was which pairing software we were using. The second was, “Is it Version 3, 4, 5, or 6 because each has different variations when doing . . . .”
Now that guy is a CAPITAL C and worth his weight in gold.
And the “C” discussion just confirms my opinion that the additional titles/labels are no replacement for actually getting to know the people you’re working with. Don’t waste additional resources on web dev, certification tests, and volunteer hours…just call up the guy/gal and ask detailed questions about their experience.
“Knowledge is Power.” F. Bacon.
“Amen!” Crume.
I agree with you, but if USCF can’t develop a suitable certification test I would conduct my own test to be sure. Some people will tell you anything over the phone if they sense it’s what you want to hear.
“Oh, yes! I can and do that all the time!”
My boss hired someone once after relying on such an interview. After more than enough frustration he asked me to develop and administer an Excel test to verify he had been had. “Conditional format? What’s that? Oh, so that’s how you filter! VLOOKUP? Uhhhhh.”
Forgive me for the bluntness, but your boss is less than thorough. I hired for an analyst position on my team and I pulled out my laptop and asked each candidate to run a pivot table on a data set. Vlookup I can forgive. Not knowing how to even click to a Pivot table…I can’t. I hired the right guy.
As for USCF, the certification tests for Local, Senior, ANTD, and NTD are sufficient for their purpose (knowing the rules and ability to explain the rules to players). Technically, a TD is not needed for running computer pairings (although HIGHLY recommended to check those pairings). But don’t take my word for it. I’m just a Local TD who got to train under Luis Salinas in Dallas.
Boss didn’t ask me before he made the hire. We are in agreement on that. Your hiring method for your business is pretty sound.
But, you are implying Luis has the same TD hiring practices as you? Don’t think so. Neither do I. Good luck.
Apologies - thought I’d replied to this already, but must not have hit post.
I don’t think I clarified in my original post that the time-in-grade requirement would be an addition to the existing requirements. (For example, must be one year as a Club TD in addition to the other requirements to advance to Local, must be Local for two years in addition to other requirements before advancing to Senior.) I’m not sure this would have beneficial purpose, other than to stagger out certifications a little more such that you don’t have someone go from Club to Senior in one year.
I apologize for running all the way back to here when the thread has already evolved. 