| Angelo De Pa1ma 2005-03-29, 3:56 am |
| In fact his email came through as I was posting my last message to this
group.
As usual you duck the thrust of my post and choose to respond instead to my
temporal hallucination. I may have posted 2 days ago, but you can't get
around the fact that Harold Darst submitted the report nearly 3 months ago
and has not been able to reach anyone at USCF.
My points:
1. Charge enough to cover the costs, and maybe a bit more
2. Provide the service you implicitly promise when you rate chess
tournaments and accept TD reports on paper. If that means charging more then
charge more.
Additional points:
a. Encourage online submission by making it easy, preferably through a form
or spreadsheet that TDs can see in front of them, use, and either upload or
email.
b. Allow non-TDs to submit rating reports so 78 year old organizers don't
have to
c. If the amount of hand-wringing wasted over rating fees, reports, forms,
etc. is any indication of how USCF does business I would like to revise my
doomsday prediction to an earlier date.
adp
"Mike Nolan" <nolan@gw.tssi.com> wrote in message
news:d1pue1$10k$1@gw.tssi.com...
quote:
> "Angelo De Pa1ma" <adpspammersgotohell@tellurian.net> writes:
>
>
>
> To be precise, you posted your question on Sunday, March 22nd and were
> given Walter's e-mail addresses that same day.
>
> Maybe you measure time differently than the rest of us, but that is
> NOT 4-5 days ago. (In fact, it is still less than 48 HOURS ago.)
>
> Your first mail to Walter arrived at the USCF mail server on Sunday
> evening.
> That means he's had less than 2 working days to read it, research the
> question, and respond. (The answer to your question, as I indicated on
> Sunday, probably lies in New York, not in Tennessee.)
>
> Walter responded to your message at 10AM this morning, March 22nd.
> I don't know if he was able to resolve your event yet or not, but you DID
> get a response.
>
> I don't consider that an unreasonable response time.
> --
> Mike Nolan
|