7. Motion 2012-H TDOCP Motion

[Lyle Craver]

Moved by: Simon Ong, Seconded by: Hal Bond

Moved adding the following regulation to current section 20 of the CFC Handbook

Regulations:
1. Introduction

20.1 The following regulations can be altered by the CFC executive with the recommendation from the TDOCP committee members.

20.2 The titles for award are the Regional-TD (RTD), Regional-Organizer (RO), National-TD (NTD), and National-Organizer (NO).

20.3 Individuals with National-TD (NTD) and National-Organizer (NO) will qualify to apply for the FIDE arbiter and organizer titles (NA, FA, IA, and IO).

20.4 The titles are valid for life from the date awarded. Licence fee will be charge every 6 years.

20.5 The judging unit is the TDOCP committee members.

20.6 All applicants for these titles must be current CFC members.

20.7 All applicants must have at least 2 recommendations from 2 different people preferably FIDE-certified arbiter/organizer, CFC Executive/Governor and Provincial/Club Executive member.

2. Regulation for the Regional-TD (RTD)

20.8 Knowledge of the Laws of Chess, CFC Regulations for chess competitions outlined in the CFC handbook.

20.9 Skills in operating electronic chess clocks , SwissSys/SwissManager program, and computer (Words, Excel, Email).

20.10 Experience as tournament director in at least 4 CFC-rated events, including one Swiss and one Round Robin. The Swiss tournament must have at least 10 participants and the Round-robin must have at least 4.

3. Regulation for the Regional-Organizer (RO)

20.11 Knowledge of the organizing chess tournament, CFC Regulations for chess competitions outlined in the CFC handbook, and submission of CFC/FIDE reports to CFC office.

20.12 Experience as tournament organizer in at least 4 CFC-rated events, including one Swiss and one Round Robin. The Swiss tournament must have at least 10 participants and the Round-robin must have at least 4.

4. Regulation for the National-TD (NTD)

20.13 The NTD title is awarded only to those who have already been awarded the title of RTD.

20.14 Experience as tournament director in at least 4 CFC-rated events, including one national and/or international event. In order to count as a norm, the Swiss tournament must have at least 20 participants and the Round-robin must have at least 6.

20.15 Attend either FIDE Arbiters’ Seminar or CFC TDOCP(TD) Seminar. You must pass the examination (80% +) given in either of the aforementioned seminar.

5. Regulation for the National-Organizer (NO)

20.16 The NO title is awarded only to those who have already been awarded the title of RO.

20.17 Experience as tournament organizer in at least 4 CFC-rated events, including one national and/or international event. In order to count as a norm, the Swiss tournament must have at least 20 participants and the Round-robin must have at least 6.

20.18 Attend either FIDE Organizer Seminar or CFC TDOCP (Organizer) Seminar. You must pass the examination (80% +) given in either of the aforementioned seminar.

6. Regulation for CFC TDOCP Seminar
The list of lecturers shall be nominated by the TDOCP committee. There should be at least one lecturer in each province. The lecturer can be FIDE arbiter/organizer and/or National certified TD/organizer.

20.19 The TDOCP (TD) seminar will be a full day discussing the following topic:
(a) Laws of Chess
(b) CFC Rating System & Regulations for chess competitions outlined in the CFC handbook.
(c) SwissSys/SwissManager Program
(d) Use of the electronic clocks
(e) Directing FIDE-rated Events
(f) Other topics suggested by the TDOCP committee.

20.20 The TDOCP (Organizer) seminar will be a full day discussing the following topic:
(a) Laws of Chess
(b) CFC Rating System & Regulations for chess competitions outlined in the CFC handbook.
(c) SwissSys/SwissManager Program & Submission of tournament report to CFC.
(d) Topics from Chess Organizer’s Handbook
(e) Organizing FIDE-rated Events
(f) Other topics suggested by the TDOCP committee.

20.21 The TDOCP Committee will prepare multiple choice/written examinations for each seminar. The participants must achieve 80% or above to pass the examination.

20.22 NTD and NO applicants who fail the examination must wait one month before taking the examination the second time.
20.23 The cost of attendance of TDOCP seminar (including the examination fees) will be decided by the TDOCP Committee members. The money collected from the TDOCP seminar will be submitted to the CFC office. The CFC office shall pay the lecturer on the basis of the number of participants.
20.24 The details to the TDOCP seminar (i.e. date, address, lecturer, etc) must be approved by the TDOCP committee one month before the starting day of the seminar.

Certificates & Pins
1. Qualified applicants may request a certificate and “CFC TD/organizer” pin at the cost of $15 (not including tax). The $15 includes shipping.

Comments:
(1) The objective of this program is to allow inexperienced TDs and organizers to learn from the experienced ones which will improve the quality of the tournament directing in Canada.
(2) This program provides the first stepping stone in obtaining FIDE arbiter and organizer titles (NA, FA, IA, and IO).
(3) This program does not restrict other CFC members from directing and organizing CFC-rated events in Canada.
(4) The regulation will be in effect as of Fall 2012.

[Aris Marghetis]

If I may suggest, there should be more information included with regards to this point :

20.4 The titles are valid for life from the date awarded. Licence fee will be charge every 6 years.

[Michael von Keitz]

If I may suggest, there should be more information included with regards to this point :

20.4 The titles are valid for life from the date awarded. Licence fee will be charge every 6 years.

Would you like to propose an amendment to remove the licence fee, Aris?

[Rob Clark]

I'm not sure I understand the purpose of this. I know you said in the past Mike that you wanted to help inexperienced organizers. However, lets say an organizer in Thunder Bay wants help running a tournament. He's supposed to come to (I'm assuming) Toronto to sit in on a seminar? Also he then enters into this system of norms and titles with the ultimate goal of what? Obtaining a FIDE title? It seems like all this will do is make it more difficult to become an FA, IA, IO etc. Is there really a problem with unqualified people applying at present? Also, how will this help organizers in the least? Why not make these materials and tests online so its more accessible to all and have a forum where questions can be answered by more experienced TDs? It seems like this is all a way to try to make money through licensing and seminars and at the end of it I'm not even sure what the person gets other than being able to say I'm a RO etc etc. I'm also not a fan of a committee deciding who gets these titles. I want to propose the aforementioned amendment but to be honest I can't even begin to support anything that makes it harder for Canadian organizers. Also, what happens in 50 years in Canadian chess when we have very few IAs (or IOs) because they didnt want to first become RTD, NTD, and FA (and vice versa)?

[Aris Marghetis]

Would you like to propose an amendment to remove the licence fee, Aris?
Actually, like I first posted, I would like to know more about it first. To be honest, I am thinking about this more like Rob is, in that I am not convinced of the whole approach. My greatest concern with this idea is that it may actually reduce TD/O development? :(

[Halldor P. Palsson]

The original program was suspended I believe back in 1992!!

The CFC asked all pronincial associations in 2004 to nominate TDs to titles given that 12 years had gone by and a lot of tournaments had been directed by people that had no official recognition available to them. The list is now on the CFC site.

In 2012 it may be prudent to push active TDs up a grade or three given the non certification has been the de facto policy of the CFC going back all the way to 1992. Please pick a number of events for NTD, for example 40-60 lifetime, and RTD at 30 or 40 and grandfather these folks.

[Hal Bond]

Close Halldor, but not quite - I was ED in 1992 and handled a few applications. The program may have stopped soon after I left. Otherwise your comments seem reasonable.

[Lyle Craver]

I would not favor making RTD and NTD be based on a fixed number of tournaments as there are tournaments and there are tournaments. I have directed 100+ events but about 70 of them were one round a week Swisses with 8-25 players. The rest include a Canadian championship (as assistant), several Paul Keres Memorials (FIDE rated, typically 75-125 players - I was TD-in-chief in the 1998 event which featured Spraggett and Lesiege which is something for a Vancouver event!) and about two dozen more weekend Swisses.

There's got to be a fair way to judge this but making every tournament equal for qualification purposes isn't it. Similarly most of the suggested formulas I've seen under rate (for TD qualification purposes) provincial and national championship round-robins which are considerably more prestigious than your typical 25-50 player weekend Swiss!

In my case, I wouldn't have been considered to do the bigger events had I not done a fair number of the lesser events with a good track record and that is how it should be.

I don't usually sign with my titles but in this case it's pertinent:

Lyle Craver, CTD, RTD (wrote the exams and did the application for both under the 'old' system in the 80s), NTD (grandfathered) and IA.

[Rob Clark]

Before we get into any of the specifics of this motion, can someone first answer my question? That is, why is this a good idea in the first place?

[Lyle Craver]

I emphatically do not like the stuff about fees. No question about it.

I do think that making a serious effort on TD certification gives us both better directors and more credibility in the non-chess community where many sports have coaching / refereeing training systems in place.

There's nothing like making the right call involving a foreign IM and having an IA and a former CFC president (two different people) tell you instantly that you made the right call and thank you for having the jam to do so - particularly when it was in an area where FIDE and USCF rules differ.

I have mislaid my green TD's pin (which is exactly the same as the normal member's red CFC pin) ages ago but was very pleased to get it along with my FIDE pin. My FIDE certificate hangs proudly on my wall next to my academic diplomas in my den and is a reminder that work was required to get it. I still have my RTD diploma somewhere in amongst my books but it's the IA that hangs on the wall.

I think the fee portion of this motion is abysmal but that training and certifying our directors is something we definitely should be doing and my opinion on this has little to do with FIDE.

[Rob Clark]

I can appreciate that people want to ensure that our organizers and arbiters know the rules well, but this seems ineffective. After someone has directed that many tournaments including tournaments at the national/international level what purpose does applying for the title serve? At this point the candidate organizer in question is already semi-experienced and likely to have no need for the majority of the training; meanwhile the prospective organizer who has no clue what he’s doing is still lost.

Why not simply just have an online course similar to the smart serve program? I work in bars in both Northern and Southern Ontario and both have required me to take this course (although technecially optional in terms of the government) because it effectively conveys the rules and guidelines around alcohol. This would make the program far more accessible, modernized, would create revenue for the CFC and would ensure a standard of chess knowledge amongst organizers and arbiters. Say it’s a onetime 20$ course, x number of hours online and included in this is a pin and certificate for those who complete the course and pass. It would also then not be a massive hinderance to anyone either.

[Michael von Keitz]

I'm not sure I understand the purpose of this. I know you said in the past Mike that you wanted to help inexperienced organizers. However, lets say an organizer in Thunder Bay wants help running a tournament. He's supposed to come to (I'm assuming) Toronto to sit in on a seminar? Also he then enters into this system of norms and titles with the ultimate goal of what? Obtaining a FIDE title? It seems like all this will do is make it more difficult to become an FA, IA, IO etc. Is there really a problem with unqualified people applying at present? Also, how will this help organizers in the least? Why not make these materials and tests online so its more accessible to all and have a forum where questions can be answered by more experienced TDs? It seems like this is all a way to try to make money through licensing and seminars and at the end of it I'm not even sure what the person gets other than being able to say I'm a RO etc etc. I'm also not a fan of a committee deciding who gets these titles. I want to propose the aforementioned amendment but to be honest I can't even begin to support anything that makes it harder for Canadian organizers. Also, what happens in 50 years in Canadian chess when we have very few IAs (or IOs) because they didnt want to first become RTD, NTD, and FA (and vice versa)?

I should point out that I have no relationship with this motion, so I'm not clear on why these questions seem to be directed at me. I believe either Simon or Hal are best suited to respond to your concerns.

[Rob Clark]

My apologies Mike. Those questions were directed at you based on what you had said in support of a program like this at the long term planning committee kick off. I assumed you had a place on the committee. So thanks Mike, if Simon or Hal could answer my questions that would be much appreciated.

[Simon Ong]

I'm not sure I understand the purpose of this. I know you said in the past Mike that you wanted to help inexperienced organizers. However, lets say an organizer in Thunder Bay wants help running a tournament. He's supposed to come to (I'm assuming) Toronto to sit in on a seminar? Also he then enters into this system of norms and titles with the ultimate goal of what? Obtaining a FIDE title? It seems like all this will do is make it more difficult to become an FA, IA, IO etc. Is there really a problem with unqualified people applying at present? Also, how will this help organizers in the least? Why not make these materials and tests online so its more accessible to all and have a forum where questions can be answered by more experienced TDs? It seems like this is all a way to try to make money through licensing and seminars and at the end of it I'm not even sure what the person gets other than being able to say I'm a RO etc etc. I'm also not a fan of a committee deciding who gets these titles. I want to propose the aforementioned amendment but to be honest I can't even begin to support anything that makes it harder for Canadian organizers. Also, what happens in 50 years in Canadian chess when we have very few IAs (or IOs) because they didnt want to first become RTD, NTD, and FA (and vice versa)?

Hello Rob,
You brought up excellent questions. The main purpose of this system is not to make it difficult to people who want to become FA, IA, IO, etc. The purpose is to get our local/regional and national arbiters to learn from experienced t.d's who have achieved FIDE-titles. By learning from them, you will gain enough knowledge/skills to achieve the FIDE-titles. In other words, it shows to the committee that one is competent to direct and/or organize a chess tournament in Canada.

Thanks,
Simon

[Rob Clark]

Why does the person need to show the committee they are competent arbiters/organizers? They already are organizers and arbiters (and must have some level of competency given the scale of the tournaments you are requesting) before they can even apply for the titles (since it is required they be involved with CFC level organization/arbitration). The only thing I can see this doing is further ensuring that people are competent when applying for FIDE titles by creating more obstacles for them. However, you already said that making it more difficult to apply for FIDE titles is not the main purpose. I have to ask again what is the purpose then? By making it mandatory rather than optional it is no longer an aid to someone seeking a FIDE title but rather a tiresome & burdensome tribulation. I also highly doubt that this program will receive enough interest to merit its existence; ie how many people would need to show up at a seminar to make it worthwhile? What must an attendee pay? Who will give the seminars? Also in the years to follow will there be enough attendance to make this profitable (ie once the initial rush receives the seminar, will there be enough new blood to merit another seminar)? This combined with the licensing issue must be resolved before a motion be put in place in my opinion.

[Lyle Craver]

Being a good director is a matter both of technical skills and demonstrated judgement both in terms of 'people skills' and dealing with situations where 'anything you do is wrong'. Anyone who has done late round Swiss pairings knows exactly what I mean. And good people skills are indispensable in things like that.

We all know players who know the rules extremely well but would be a disaster behind the director's table as they're completely obtuse in handling people.

I'd be happy to have such folks as certified directors but would expect their issues to be dealt with before they were considered for the higher levels.

I've filled out numerous FIDE norm forms and used to think the short essay portion of the form was a pain in the *** - but now realize FIDE is trying to get some sort of testimonial from the recommending individual and that is very sound.

Again - anybody can do Swiss pairings but that is merely technical skill which is only part of the toolkit required to be a good director particularly at the higher levels.

[Halldor P. Palsson]

We need to get the program going again. Perfection is not necessary.

My concern is that for the last 20 years or so the CFC has not been issuing any titles for TDs. The Provincial bodies grandfathered TDs in 2004-05 based on tournament history from say 1992 to 2003.

Fast forward, in 2012 I think we owe some people better than your large numeber of CFC rated tournaments are all CRAP. Under the new program, get in line, pay a TD fee, take a TD course and keep sending in those rating fees.

Some decency is in order. Pick a large number of CFC rated events and grandfather these folks into the grid. They do not need to have performances on par with our most senior IAs to become CFC NTDs, RTDs or TDs. You do not have to like them and they do not have to be god's gift to TD-ing for these coveted titles to be bestowed on them by the CFC.

[Rob Clark]

The crap will still be run. The organizers who are running the crap events which need guidance will do so regardless of this motion. This will not affect the bad organizers who don't care at all as this is not mandatory to run tournaments it will simply impede those who wish to gain FIDE titles in the future as it is only mandatory for them.

I don't disagree that something being in place would necessarily be a bad idea. I just don't think this is a solution. Most people seem to think that this motion needs work and want to work on it as they go. I also still don't think it is sustainable. In two years will there be enough people to make holding a seminar worth it? Are there going to be that many organizers and arbiters flocking to these seminars? Are the senior titled arbiters even willing to do this? I also think it clearly favours organizers in large communities where as there are other alternatives which don't and are accessible to everyone. I come from an area outside of a densely populated area and am not alone. We will certainly get overlooked and if there is anyone who needs guidance its those who don't have a large support network around them and are exposed to fewer tournaments. Besides, what exactly does this hope to accomplish? I've been told of organizers who will do well on any seminar etc but still end up performing poorly, its not the same. Is the committee going to slap them in the face and say that they aren't granted the title and can't pursue FIDE titles?

This doesn't seem well thought out, modern, or sustainable. There is still the issues of cost of seminars and licensing. The reason I addressed Mike before is that he was on the committee and was a driving force for it. He mentioned what the committee hoped to accomplish and I don't see this motion doing that.

[Rob Clark]

By the way if this motion seems familiar to anyone, it is. This exact same motion (verbatim) was removed from the last quarterly for modifications. It faced a lot of questions and opposition. None of which have been answered and yet this is the exact same motion word for word. In fact I believe Simon said in the last post he no longer supported licensing, yet here it is.

[Hal Bond]

As Halldor mentions, we do need to put a certification program back in place. We owe our membership some semblance of quality assurance with respect to tournaments run in our name. Currently we have none - anyone can run a tournament, start a club and collect fees without any credentials or formal registration whatsoever. Given the laxity of our entire chess network it is surprising that we have not faced more serious problems.

Rob - your idea of online seminars is just fine - these are less expensive and more accessible to remote regions and smaller towns. I don't understand the objection to a renewal fee every 6 years. Rules change, rates change, cycles change. Recertification/renewal/continuing education are all common features in most fields of endeavour. It comes back to the idea of quality assurance of our tournament officials for the playing, paying membership. If an official must pay for certification they tend to take the process and their credentials and their responsibilities more seriously.

[Pierre Dénommée]

The seminars are way too short. In France, reaching the top level requires three seminars. Even at the seminar in Montreal, the FIDE lecturer admitted that the seminar was too short. A proven system for seminars goes like this

2 days for RULES, round robin pairings, the philosophy of arbitration, team play, the role of the team captain and basic administrative skills. Also, tiebreaks and prize sharing are part of this step.

2 days for Swiss pairings, which includes the pairing of a full simulated tournament devised to show the future arbiters the hard situations that Lyle has mentioned. Unfortunately, we do not have such a tournament ready in Canada. Because the teaching material is for FIDE Dutch, there is no TD discretion, which does not means that finding the right pairing is easy. Also included is hands=on experience with a pairing software.

2 days of FIDE stuff: rating, titles, Tournament Rules.

After the first seminars, there must be two positive evaluations as a Deputy Arbiter. This is to evaluate what cannot be measured by a test. As Lye pointed out, there are other skills required to be an arbiter. Those skills are not the same at club level then at national level. At national level, ability to reach a correct decision despite the pressure is very important. Your next decision may decide who will represent Canada at the Continental or at the World. The players and in case of Youth events, there parent are looking at you. The decision should not be influenced by what is at stake, the parents or the coaches.

The seminar should go where there is a demand. It cost less to move the lecturer then to move 6 participants.

Why are we afraid to forbid those without a title for being an arbiter? Is there any sport in Canada that is so generous? I do not know any.

Have we considered becoming a member of Sports Officials Canada http://www.sportsofficials.ca/ ? They likely have brilliant ideas on how to run a good officiating program.

As I see it, this motion is too little. This program can in no way insure the competence of futures arbiters. Furthermore, as long as it is optional, I do not believe that there will be many participants.

This is an example of an officiating program that works in Canada http://www.baseball.ca/files/Operations+Manual+v+2011.pdf .

[Pierre Dénommée]

I believe that we owe them a real quality assurance. Maybe this is just a resurgence of my past life as a Part Time Faculty teaching Software Engineering, but for me, Quality Assurance is not optional and it must be done in a correct manner.


We owe our membership some semblance of quality assurance with respect to tournaments run in our name.

[Hal Bond]

Baby steps Pierre! I am on your page but considering our starting point we will have to make improvements year by year.

[Lyle Craver]

Is there anybody here who has directed 10 or more tournaments that has NOT encountered some extremely sketchy tournament pairing situations?

Some of my worst are in late rounds when there are siblings (or others who for valid reasons would prefer not to be paired) where they ARE indeed the proper pairing - my stock answer when they approach me on the subject is that I will try to avoid pairing them in the early rounds, if they are in fact the proper pairing in a later round I will pair them and I will expect a tough match!

Almost always that's been exactly the result! You get the occasional 10 move draw but usually it's as much for intramural bragging rights as the tournament result!

[Kevin Pacey]

The original program was suspended I believe back in 1992!!

The CFC asked all pronincial associations in 2004 to nominate TDs to titles given that 12 years had gone by and a lot of tournaments had been directed by people that had no official recognition available to them. The list is now on the CFC site.

In 2012 it may be prudent to push active TDs up a grade or three given the non certification has been the de facto policy of the CFC going back all the way to 1992. Please pick a number of events for NTD, for example 40-60 lifetime, and RTD at 30 or 40 and grandfather these folks.

I propose the following amendment to motion 2012-H, but first I need a seconder, and (if that occurs before the end of the meeting) then a ruling by the chair on whether to allow the amendment to come to a vote before the end of this meeting (as it is past day 3, 6pm, of the meeting, which ordinarily would be the deadline for amendments to be made):

Just before 'Certificates and Pins', etc., near the end of the text of Motion 2012-H, insert the following Regulation as an amendment:

7. Regulation for retroactively awarded TD titles
Notwithstanding regulations 1, 2 and 4 above, the title of RTD shall be awarded for life retroactively to current CFC members who prior to 1 January 2012 have directed at least 40 CFC-rated events, and who apply to receive such a retroactively awarded title. Similarly, the title of NTD shall be awarded for life retroactively to current CFC members who prior to 1 January 2012 have directed at least 60 CFC-rated events, and who apply to receive such a retroactively awarded title. For such retroactively awarded TD titles, Licence fee will still be charged every 6 years.


The feelings I have about such grandfathering of TDs are similar to Halldor's. I feel that if people have directed 40+ tournaments already, and haven't been driven out of the business because of complaints, then they probably aren't doing too bad a job of directing.

[Halldor P. Palsson]

I will second Mr. Pacey's motion.

I think the CFC should recognize folks that have been carrying the can while we get the TD certification system perfect after about 20 years of contemplation.

I urge the chair to allow the amendment to be voted on.

[Ken Craft]

Can I give an example? I was an RTD under the old test system, I have directed over 40 CFC tournaments but I have not directed a tournament in over a decade. Under the amended motion would I be eligible for grandpparenting?

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

I think, raised questions about the fee were not answered. I add several more:
How much is a fee? Can it be related to the regular membership fee like 1/5 of it ? What would happen if the fee is not paid?

If it is not too late: Motion - remove the sentence "Licence fee will be charge every 6 years. "

[Michael von Keitz]

I think, raised questions about the fee were not answered. I add several more:
How much is a fee? Can it be related to the regular membership fee like 1/5 of it ? What would happen if the fee is not paid?

If it is not too late: Motion - remove the sentence "Licence fee will be charge every 6 years. "

Voting commences this evening and you don't have a seconder at the moment. Unfortunately, this amendment comes too late.

[Halldor P. Palsson]

http://www.chess.ca/cfc-arbiters lists you as a RTD and these are lifetime titles.

Is TD-ing in your future or is this entirely hypothetical?

[Ken Craft]

Tding could be in my future when my children get a bit older, Halldor.

[Kevin Pacey]

Can I give an example? I was an RTD under the old test system, I have directed over 40 CFC tournaments but I have not directed a tournament in over a decade. Under the amended motion would I be eligible for grandpparenting?

If you weren't already an RTD, then taking my amendment at face value you would be grandfathered as an RTD (which was my intent). However if there aren't at least 40 tournaments which you directed that are also on record with the CFC, your application to be grandfathered would presumably be rejected. CFC records only go back so far, I think.

[Pierre Dénommée]

As the system progress, arbiters with similar titles would have followed a widely different certification path.

That would not be so bad if we had mandatory refresher seminar every 4 years (without exams, very low cost, very social event with a diner together). It is now too late to move an amendment.


Baby steps Pierre! I am on your page but considering our starting point we will have to make improvements year by year.

[Pierre Dénommée]

I have voted against this amendment. A 200+ players tournament is nothing compared to a club RR. Having directed 100 such tournaments is less challenging then doing 4 big events. For an NTD, we definitely need a proof of the ability to handle those 200+ players Swiss.


7. Regulation for retroactively awarded TD titles
Notwithstanding regulations 1, 2 and 4 above, the title of RTD shall be awarded for life retroactively to current CFC members who prior to 1 January 2012 have directed at least 40 CFC-rated events, and who apply to receive such a retroactively awarded title. Similarly, the title of NTD shall be awarded for life retroactively to current CFC members who prior to 1 January 2012 have directed at least 60 CFC-rated events, and who apply to receive such a retroactively awarded title. For such retroactively awarded TD titles, Licence fee will still be charged every 6 years.

[Kevin Pacey]

I have voted against this amendment. A 200+ players tournament is nothing compared to a club RR. Having directed 100 such tournaments is less challenging then doing 4 big events. For an NTD, we definitely need a proof of the ability to handle those 200+ players Swiss.

If I have read correctly, Motion 2012-H, to which I am proposing my amendment, says nothing about having 200+ players as a requirement for its stringent requirements for the NTD title (i.e. when not including awarding it retroactively, as in the amendment).

If you wish to vote against my amendment on that basis, for the consistency of your argument then I would think you should also vote against Motion-H if it is unamended.

[Christopher Mallon]

I'll be voting against this motion. Several times the same questions have been asked without a satisfactory answer - or in some cases, any answer at all!

[Kevin Pacey]

I'll be voting against this motion. Several times the same questions have been asked without a satisfactory answer - or in some cases, any answer at all!

If you're refering to the 'License fee' to be charged every 6 years, that wasn't too big a concern for me (though maybe it should have been). I had assumed that since there was no amount specified for the fee, it was to be specified later on, and voted on when necessary. In fact, I had suspected the fee was meant to be the same as originally given in the Handbook in the Section 20 as it presently exists (a fee without 'Licence' as its name) in order to receive such certificates, though it would be now charged every 6 years.

I initially found such a fee, like Lyle, to be repugnant, but the CFC is cash starved at the moment...

[Christopher Mallon]

If you're refering to the 'License fee' to be charged every 6 years, that wasn't too big a concern for me (though maybe it should have been). I had assumed that since there was no amount specified for the fee, it was to be specified later on, and voted on when necessary. In fact, I had suspected the fee was meant to be the same as originally given in the Handbook in the Section 20 as it presently exists (a fee without 'Licence' as its name) in order to receive such certificates, though it would be now charged every 6 years.

I initially found such a fee, like Lyle, to be repugnant, but the CFC is cash starved at the moment...

Well, there's also the fact that it says titles are awarded for life but fees are still charged, which seems to be a direct contradiction - what if someone doesn't pay the fees? Besides, that's a tax, not a fee - it doesn't cost the CFC anything at all to "maintain" someone's certification.

[Kevin Pacey]

Well, there's also the fact that it says titles are awarded for life but fees are still charged, which seems to be a direct contradiction - what if someone doesn't pay the fees? Besides, that's a tax, not a fee - it doesn't cost the CFC anything at all to "maintain" someone's certification.

I thought by 'License' it meant that if you wished to keep your TD title (i.e. even one awarded for life), you need to pay the License fee (or tax, if you wish).

[Kevin Pacey]

...
what if someone doesn't pay the [Licence] fees?

Presumably the CFC would have on its website a record of those people who have such titles (AND have paid their Licence fee on time). If someone didn't pay their Licence fee, presumably their name would be removed from the list of people with titles.

In the case of RTDs and NTDs, sponsors, organizers, players, parents, the media or anyone else can verify whether their title is still valid by looking on the website. In the case of organizers with titles, sponsors, TDs, fellow organizers, players, parents, the media or anyone else can verify whether their titles are still valid. Otherwise, the CFC won't always be able to do much to prevent someone with a TD/organizer certificate that is no longer valid from showing it around, it seems to me.

[Kevin Pacey]

Otherwise, the CFC won't always be able to do much to prevent someone with a TD/organizer certificate that is no longer valid from showing it around, it seems to me.

Stamping a TD/organizer certificate with a date by which a new License fee must be paid would solve this, it occurs to me now. :o Then when the fee is paid, a new certificate with a new Licence fee renewal date can be sent to the given title holder.

[Christopher Mallon]

Presumably the CFC would have on its website a record of those people who have such titles (AND have paid their Licence fee on time). If someone didn't pay their Licence fee, presumably their name would be removed from the list of people with titles.

In the case of RTDs and NTDs, sponsors, organizers, players, parents, the media or anyone else can verify whether their title is still valid by looking on the website. In the case of organizers with titles, sponsors, TDs, fellow organizers, players, parents, the media or anyone else can verify whether their titles are still valid. Otherwise, the CFC won't always be able to do much to prevent someone with a TD/organizer certificate that is no longer valid from showing it around, it seems to me.

TDs and TOs already create income for the CFC by selling memberships and generating rated games. I have a really, REALLY big problem with the CFC running a cash grab against them.

If the CFC was providing some kind of service in return, that would be different, but your name being on some list on the website that virtually nobody will look at anyway doesn't quite cut it in my book.

[Aris Marghetis]

TDs and TOs already create income for the CFC by selling memberships and generating rated games. I have a really, REALLY big problem with the CFC running a cash grab against them.

If the CFC was providing some kind of service in return, that would be different, but your name being on some list on the website that virtually nobody will look at anyway doesn't quite cut it in my book.
I have to agree with Chris. Whereas I would really like to see a structured Organizer/TD setup, I am very uncomfortable with given how relatively sparse this motion is, at the same time also including the fee. It makes it look like a cash grab, which seems not right.

If I may suggest, let's start structuring first, and if ever any fees seem appropriate, we consider them then. Back to just the structuring part, I am just uneasy with this motion.

[Valer Eugen Demian]

Stamping a TD/organizer certificate with a date by which a new License fee must be paid would solve this, it occurs to me now. :o Then when the fee is paid, a new certificate with a new Licence fee renewal date can be sent to the given title holder.

I am in agreement with Christopher and Aris: right now this looks like a cash grab from those who do the work anyway, receiving no support from the organization charging the fee.

You need to provide service/ support for anything you require a fee. It does not even matter if the TDs organize a 4 player RR, or a 200+ tournament. ANY such local tournament receives no help on the organizational part from CFC anyway, so why charge a TD licence fee?

[Pierre Dénommée]

There should be a service. The Quebec billiard Federation offer a mandatory TD service ta all organizers. The organizer calls the Federation which sends a TD. So organizers no longer need to be a certified TD. This is a service and it separates the organization from the direction which could encourage more organizers to jump in.


You need to provide service/ support for anything you require a fee. It does not even matter if the TDs organize a 4 player RR, or a 200+ tournament. ANY such local tournament receives no help on the organizational part from CFC anyway, so why charge a TD licence fee?