The rating clinics had significant problems, not limited to what @OnTheLine
mentions, but the one thing that it did well was connect people (or at least possibly connect people) with a starting point and pros that could help that person get started back into the game. If you played high school tennis 20 years ago, how good are you now? Where should you start? While there are answers it did seem to have some value to get people started and a place to ask questions.
Also, the rating clinics were helpful to get young people in the league at the appropriate level or at least close. Now we get guys like I have on my 5.0 team that "played" college tennis. He was on the team but only played one match in his 4 years. He is likely a 4.0 and has to play 5.0 and so far his two matches he has gotten 2 games and one of those was doubles with a solid partner against two good 4.5's. This guy would have to have an impressive desire to play league tennis to keep getting mauled, and his team would have to let him play so he can get beaten enough to get rated down. While people get annoyed when people are underrated I think that is better in general for those peoples longevity than if they are overrated. It is irritating that you get some clear over level players I think it would be better in general for the league if we erred on the lower side than pushing them too high.
Perhaps having a 2-phase process would be kinda interesting .... continue with the basic questionnaire .... it works for almost all players 2.5/3.0/3.5 ... then have mandatory ratings clinics afterwards for certain types of respondents .... so for instance:
There are likely 3 league start dates per region per year ... I will simply use our schedule as an example
40+ league starts first week of January, rosters have to be valid by 12/18
So an new player S rate does the self-rating on say the 10th of December
2.5 ... no rating clinic necessary
3.0 ... who indicates no prior varsity level sport (non tennis) and answers playing fewer than 2 days a week ... no rating clinic required
3.0 ... who does indicate prior varsity level sport (non tennis) and answers playing more than 2 days a week ... required rating clinic
3.5 ... Indicates no HS or college tennis ... no rating clinic
3.5 ... indicates any HS or college tennis ... required rating clinic
4.0 ... have all S rates for 4.0 required rating clinic
4.5 ... I don't think this is as much of an issue, there are going to be very few who self rate at 4.5 or higher that aren't probably at that level
For the league that starts first week of January, have the rating clinic for the district scheduled for 2 weeks prior. Make it various times and days in 90 minute slots
Gives enough time to verify the rating, or deny it and have the player change teams if necessary
Most people would enjoy it. Could do the clinics 3X a year, 2 weeks prior to the start of each season.
Lastly make the penalties for being out of level with lying or skirting the truth much more painful:
Played HS tennis and lied about it? ... 6 month ban for player and captain
Played college tennis and lied about it? .... 1 year ban for player and captain
Had a rating under a different name and attempted to re-rate under a different name with a lower level? 5 year ban for player, captain and perhaps entire club
A pro who is found to have an unusual number of dynamic DQs of S rates they rated in a clinic .... Fine/Ban