8. 2012-H TDOCP Motion (Simon Ong)

[Christopher Mallon]

Where did the list at Pierre's link even come from?

[Fred McKim]

Where did the list at Pierre's link even come from?

If you are talking about the list on the CFC web site - I can tell you that it came from David Cohen's site. These were the provincial submissions to the CFC in 2004.

I have received no challenges to it's accuracy.

[Aris Marghetis]

Two levels are clearly insufficient. Other sports have 4 levels: local, regional, provincial and national.

I agree that the CFC should certify only the highest two levels. The other levels of certification should be left to the affiliated provincial organisation where they exists and to a group of arbiters of the province where they don't.

I disagree with the absence of restrictions for directing tournaments. National Events and all their qualifiers should be restricted to CFC Certified Arbiters. This should have little impact on the normal activities of the CFC and it will grant some values to the titles.

The Grandfathering problem is what has caused the last attempt to fail. Now that we have a list of Certified Arbiters here http://chess.ca/cfc-arbiters I tough that this debate was over. Are we reopening it?

Licensing fees for Arbiters is not a good idea. We should fight it at the FIDE level and not implement it at our level.

SwissSys should not be mentioned by name. Parings software endorsed by FIDE or the CFC should be uses instead. Did we forget that we are trying to move to SwissManager?

I am volunteering for the TDOCP and for writing the French examinations.

There are FAs & IAs (another CFC webpage : http://chess.ca/arbiters-and-organizers ) that must have largely achieved those levels while our "TDOCP" was relatively dormant? Shouldn't all FAs & IAs, even IOs, active or inactive, also be designated as CFC NTDs?

[Christopher Mallon]

If you are talking about the list on the CFC web site - I can tell you that it came from David Cohen's site. These were the provincial submissions to the CFC in 2004.

I have received no challenges to it's accuracy.

Consider this a challenge then.

Why should someone at a provincial association be able to make up a list any which way they want and we call those people certified?

[Lyle Craver]

Pierre makes very good sense to the extent that my personal #1 option would be to table this motion with a view to re-introducing it in April in a re-drafted form.

There is both the question of unaffiliated federations (mostly the FQE but not entirely so), at what level we require TD certification, the question of fees and non-specific language concerning software.

Speaking personally I would prefer tabling to taking a final vote on this motion now in its present form.

I support the idea - but the devil is in the details.

[Fred McKim]

Consider this a challenge then.

Why should someone at a provincial association be able to make up a list any which way they want and we call those people certified?

It seems there is an existing committee, now, so I suppose you could issue the request to revoke all of these titles to them.

This was the decision of the CFC in 2004 as a means of generating an initial list. There were criteria given to the Associations as to how to assign these titles.

[Ken Craft]

Some of us received our titles under a previous CFC system and passed a written test in order to do so. Will you be revoking the titles of people who achieved them in this manner?

Parenthetically, Lyle, I have possessed a NB Teachers' License for 17 years without having been required to pay any fees.

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

Will you be revoking the titles of people who achieved them in this manner?

There should be some kind of courses and tests that TDs' knowledge are updated with current chess laws, pairings, etc.
These titles are not a honor type like GM/IM/FM which have a rating showing the current status of players.

[Christopher Mallon]

Some of us received our titles under a previous CFC system and passed a written test in order to do so. Will you be revoking the titles of people who achieved them in this manner?.

I wasn't meaning to imply I thought we should revoke ALL previous titles, just the ones that were arbitrarily handed out in 2004 without any real criteria.

If we ARE keeping the ones from 2004 then the Ontario list should be added, I'm not sure why it's not included on the list published on the website. I might be way off but I do seem to recall about 120 names on it.

[Fred McKim]

I wasn't meaning to imply I thought we should revoke ALL previous titles, just the ones that were arbitrarily handed out in 2004 without any real criteria.

If we ARE keeping the ones from 2004 then the Ontario list should be added, I'm not sure why it's not included on the list published on the website. I might be way off but I do seem to recall about 120 names on it.

I think it's there, as I recognize a lot of Ontario names on that list.

I'm not sure is we still have easily verifiable records of TD titles awarded before that time.