Moderator note:
In the topic Best Way to Run a Quad Tournament, Micah Smith wrote:
I am creating this topic for discussion of the point Micah made in his final sentence.
The following reply was written by Allen Priest:
Neither delay nor increment are “required.” One can hold an event without either - and such events are held across the country every day.
I never said delay or increment is required. I said specifying the delay or increment, even if it is zero, is required.
(Just shakes head)
Or you could just admit you misunderstood my easy to understand post.
Stating the delay or increment in the time control, even if it is zero, has become a big deal and the USCF will not accept any TLA’s that doesn’t state the delay or increment. Therefore, it’s not good if a document made for new TD’s doesn’t state the delay or increment in the time control.
There are at least two grammatically correct ways to interpret the following quote.
Determining the moral of this story is left as an exercise for the reader.
The point of my post was obvious. Let’s not nitpick the sentence to death. The end. Let’s get back to discussing unrated players in a Quad tournament.
No one’s nitpicking. If you claim something is easy to understand, even when multiple readings are obviously possible, then your claim is invalid - and your grasp of the language is therefore open to question. Perhaps you should simply admit that your writing was unclear. Or, at least, review some of your high school English/composition notes before claiming that your writing is “easy to understand”.
Read Bill Smythe’s contribution. End of discussion?
Is it your contention, Micah, that the requirement that the full time control including delay or increment be included in all advanced publicity (which is what the rule says) should also apply to the casual mention of common time controls? The sentence being “nitpicked” has two possible meanings: one false, the other absurd.
Multiple meanings were possible from my post but I think it was clear to everyone (except Allen) what the point of my post was.
Depends on the circumstances. In a document made for new TD’s, absolutely.
Others might have some other thoughts to contribute.
How about you contribute a thought about whether you
(a) read
(b) understood
what Bill said? You asked a question. He tried to answer it. Maybe you could be polite enough to respond?
I think Micah’s got a point here, candidly. When the Delegates, in their infinite wisdom, required specification of a delay or lack thereof, they did so against the grain of almost two decades when the standard delays were unstated and universally presumed. This document is an example of that grain.
I am not convinced that the new paradigm is better. But then I’m not a delagate, and thems who attend the meeting make the rules.
But again, that applies to publicity, not to casual conversation. The rule doesn’t apply (or even come close to applying) in the situation cited.
I think the relevant difference between now and then is that currently the determination of the system under which the event is rated (quick, dual, or regular) depends on both the base time and the delay or increment time. It is therefore incumbent upon the organizer to clearly state both explicitly in all advance publicity rather than to rely on an unstated assumption.
I got an answer, Micah. The rule doesn’t apply to anything other than a publication/advertisement for a particular tournament.
I wonder if you castigate people who erroneously speak these things to you in person.
Agreed, but I’m not satisfied that’s an improvement either. Particularly since my perception is that the change to base + delay/increment determining the rating system served chiefly to permit a lone organizer to run mixed G/25 d/5 and G/30 d/0 events and have them regular rated.
But that ship has sailed, and I’ll deal.
Yeah, OK, but if I’m a new organizer, or an organizer returning after a period of inactivity, and I see a USCF document telling me to use a time control without delay specified, and I use that time control without specifying a delay, and then someone gets on my case when I either use the standard delay or no delay, it’s not going to leave a good taste in my mouth.
If a particular expression of a time control is frowned upon in publicity but cited as exemplary in a USCF-produced how-to document, a problem exists. And it’s a problem of our own making; before the change, we’d just say to ourselves “d/5, duh!” and save the electrons we’re spending on this.
Also, I thought the rule applied only to publicity that includes a time control. If no time control is mentioned (i.e. come to the IL Open Labor Day weekend 2014) then there is no need to mention delay or increment.
OK, question. I read 5B2 as time control is required to be furnished. In the title: The organizer is to indicate the time control, the words “is to” indicates, to me, an obligation.
Right or wrong?
My concern with the work cited is not that they list some common time controls without including delay or increment, but that there is not a word breathed about why you (the first time organizer/TD) would choose a specific time control. Most of what it says about time controls is years out-of-date:
For first time TD’s, why bother even bringing that up (except maybe in passing), and particularly why bother talking about a TC like that without a SD finish?