Paying to check the rating input data

[John Upham]

I sent an email to RH offering to check the input data for the ECF that was stored for me for the 2009 - 2010 rating season.

I was told that I am required to pay five pounds to do this work for the ECF.

Seems a bit strange to me...

Can anyone explain why I should pay for this service I am offering to provide?

[Matthew Turner]

I think the ECF are having to make some money. Apparently they have spent rather a lot on various projects and not got anything back. Have you any ideas, John?

[John Upham]

Have you any ideas, John?

As usual, none whatsoever : what this space!

I'm hoping to have at least one idea before the end of the year.

[Richard Haddrell]

I sent an email to RH offering to check the input data for the ECF that was stored for me for the 2009 - 2010 rating season. I was told that I am required to pay five pounds to do this work for the ECF.

To tell this in a less slanted way: John emailed me asking how to get a printout of his games - he did not at that point say what he wanted it for - and I told him the price.

The price has been there since the year dot. It is entirely possible to question the ECF’s policy of selling printouts for money, and preferentially to ECF Members, and I presume that was John’s purpose in posting.

[Alex Holowczak]

I sent an email to RH offering to check the input data for the ECF that was stored for me for the 2009 - 2010 rating season. I was told that I am required to pay five pounds to do this work for the ECF.

To tell this in a less slanted way: John emailed me asking how to get a printout of his games - he did not at that point say what he wanted it for - and I told him the price.

The price has been there since the year dot. It is entirely possible to question the ECF’s policy of selling printouts for money, and preferentially to ECF Members, and I presume that was John’s purpose in posting.

Is there scope for a refund if it turns out the ECF graders got the data wrong? It might encourage more people who complain to purchase the printed output, to see their data.

If there's a mistake, then fine, the grades are more accurate.

If there isn't a mistake, then the credibility of the system increases, and the ECF has £5 for its coffers.

[Ian Thompson]

Is there scope for a refund if it turns out the ECF graders got the data wrong? It might encourage more people who complain to purchase the printed output, to see their data.

This raises the question of who is responsible for what. What happens in practise:

1. An event organiser sends his results to a grader
2. The grader produces a results file and sends it to the ECF
3. The ECF add the results to the grading database.

If data errors occur, its much more likely to occur in steps 1. or 2. than 3. I would have thought. Errors in 3. are more likely to be bugs in the grading software than data input errors.

Should the ECF refund the fee if the organiser has made a mistake? Should the organiser compensate the ECF if this has happened? Who is responsible for the actions of the grader, if he makes mistakes? Its never been clear to me. Graders are appointed by organisers (and possibly paid by them), but they are under the direction of the ECF when it comes to what they have to do.