For competition director, that is. I'm also helping to run a tournament this weekend [providing essential humorous sidekick services!] so I might not have much time to respond if you have many questions.

For the record, I think there is a lot to like about our current system of competition. I don't think the problem of our pros being underpaid is a problem caused by or curable by the competition system. It is a problem that can be cured only by the kind of growth into the mainstream that attracts mainstream sponsorship. I think our current system is good for growth.

I love ratings. I think ratings have done more to sell memberships than any other service that the PDGA provides to its members. Lower division players like ratings because ratings provide a fair way to separate into skill based divisions. I think almost all of us like ratings because we are tribal, that way: "Click, click, oh. Back, back." :D

I think it is a good thing that our current system is flexible enough to provide for a lot of different kinds of events. I don't think the PDGA needs to be quick to cure perceived problems by mandating one-size-fits-all approaches. Therefore, I think it is fine if the NT TDs decide to run great events Open Pros but less so for Masters, and it fine if Jon and I decide to run great events for amateurs, but less so for pros. The solution that worked for me was to shut up and step up. I'd like to see more of that from whomever that thinks the PDGA should do more for them.

O.k., I did not execute the shut up part very well, but I will really soon.

Vote for me if you think that works for you. Vote for the other guy, whomever he is, otherwise. Having a choice makes democracy :cool:

One Question is all I have: Will you stick out your entire 2 year term if elected?

You are a goof-ball, Bruce, but you are a goof-ball with amazing common sense for a lawyer. :) I think that I will actually vote for you if you can assure me that you will serve your entire term.

Well, if anyone is running against you then that would make a difference, too.

i'm likely to vote for bruce as well, since he is a consistent advocate of td empowerment. i too, however, would like to hear that he will stick out the full term.

As the possible Competition Director, Can you please address what you are willing to do for the minorities of Disc Golf, the OPEN division? The numbers in our field is going down around my area of the country, can you save us?

My vote is still undecided and I am concerned about having a lifer AM in such a position.

Kevin, he basically stated he could care less about the open division. I read it as "the status quo is excellent, but let's add some power to the TDs."

Edit
To be fair, he didn't really say that. I guess the question I have for Bruce is: Do you intend to address the number of people playing open, not how much money they make, or is this something that will be addressed by staying the course?

its funny you say that because that is what I see from most of his posts.

I'll vote for you if you change the name of your series to the Chicagoland Open Series. There's a whole state south of Joliet, you know.

The quitting thing is a legitimate issue, and it is something that is hard to address. I quit because I don't do felonies and no one elected me to attempt to undo that aspect of our game in those few states. The felony thing is real, but it is limited to a very small number of states. If I get elected we will just have to deal with it in a legit way. The other time, it came at me by surprise and kind of quickly. Quitting was the best thing I could do for the PDGA at the time. Now I think the best thing to do is to deal with the issue in a legitimate way, if I get elected. Otherwise, it is none of my business.

And thank you for noticing that I'm a goofball. I try hard.

To the pros who are waiting for the PDGA to do something for them: You gotta do for yourself in life. When the sport is big enough sponsorship will come. We won't get it like volleyball by having our women play half-naked or like skateboarding by playing our game upside down in the air. We're going to have to get it by growing our game into something so big that sponsors cannot ignore us, even though it is as boring to watch on TV as baseball or golf.

Until then, the thin ends of the bell curve are always going to be thin. The IOS $10 trophy-only pro option seems to work to add bodies to the division, but that's not anything I would mandate on anyone. I like it because those trophy-only players pay for the trophy and some of the $2 fees, and it is what they want to do with their money. Pros who don't get it are already complaining about that, too.

The felony thing is real, but it is limited to a very small number of states. If I get elected we will just have to deal with it in a legit way.


Great answer. I would like to see this issue formally addressed and the results disseminated so that the members have something legitimate to refer to. I don't have the contacts or the skills to figure that stuff out, so I'm really uncomfortable with the "rumor" that our organizationaly sanctioned events are felonious affairs in some states.

I'd like to know that they are or they aren't in no uncertain terms, and then deal with it however it turns out.

do we know which states it is legal and not legal????

Is OKIEland one of them?

I'd like to know that they are or they aren't in no uncertain terms


Wouldn't it have to be litigated to get some amount of certainty. Until then, I suspect that there are countering opinions as to whether it is illegal, and also, whether it has a chance in hell of being prosecuted.

(to Bruce)
Anyways, if you win, I hope you stop seeing this issue as "What can the PDGA do so that Pros can hit it big." I think it is a disingenuous characterization of a very important issue. I think the question is not "why aren't pros rich?"; instead, it is pretty simple: why even have a competitive system that doesn't attempt to reward performance? If your answer is that you want to host the biggest party possible, with little pretense of disc golf being a competitive sport, then fine, it is at least honest.

Ok if gambling is illegal then why can kids play little league? I mean you have to pay $$$ when you join up in hopes of winning and getting some prizes. :confused:

Ok if gambling is illegal then why can kids play little league? I mean you have to pay $$$ when you join up in hopes of winning and getting some prizes. :confused:



I don't know what Little League you played, but when I played LL, my sign-up fees went to pay for umpires, insurance, permits for use of the field, uniforms, equipment, etc. All I ever won was a trophy when my team won the city championship. Sort of along the lines of paying an entry fee to cover park permit fees, sanctioning fees, insurance, administrative costs...then playing for and winning a trophy. Very "amateur" and by no means gambling.

I did get to keep my Little League hat, though (still have it somewhere). I guess that was my player pack.

--Josh

The fact is that you paid fees in the hopes of winning something. The way Bruce talks he seems to say that even playing AM for trophies would be illegal. Are there not Bowling leagues and other organized events in those states?
:confused:

I'd like to know that they are or they aren't in no uncertain terms


Wouldn't it have to be litigated to get some amount of certainty?


Ding!
Bruce and I have discussed this. I told him there ought to be some way to test the waters. Like pay a fee and the legal system will give a straight guilty or not guilty reply. Then if you are prosecuted for doing it you could get the charges dropped by showing the results of your test (assuming you were found not guilty).

In the few states where there is a problem it is mostly a problem with the cash payouts based on entry fees. When I was little league age the little leaguers won a trophy. There is no state where winning a trophy is illegal. Today Little League has a bunch of corporate sponsors so if they're giving the winning team a trip to the World Series it is because of sponsorship not from entry fees.

The fact is that you paid fees in the hopes of winning something. The way Bruce talks he seems to say that even playing AM for trophies would be illegal. Are there not Bowling leagues and other organized events in those states? :confused:


You're new here, aren't you?

Disc golf tourneys are "pooled entry fee purse" things, and that is what is what is possibly making them illegal in some states. This has been covered in a bunch of different threads over the past couple of years. Some states have bowling specifically written into the law as an exemption.

"Not pooled" would be if you put up $5000 and guarrenteed that payout, and then hoped that you got enough $100 entry fees to cover it. "Pooled" is when you charge $100 and hope the pot gets up to $5000, but you payout whatever you collect.

Since I don't know for sure whether or not it's illegal in some states, to me it's a rumor. A persistent rumor, though. I'd like to see the PDGA BOD address this potentially tournament killing issue and figure it our once and for all. Currently it has not been an issue that anyone has wanted to tackle.

I think Bruce will make it a priority and tackle it.

The fact is that you paid fees in the hopes of winning something. The way Bruce talks he seems to say that even playing AM for trophies would be illegal. Are there not Bowling leagues and other organized events in those states? :confused:



There are no states where playing for trophies is illegal. There are some states that have specific bowling exemptions. There are no states that have disc golf exemptions.

The fact is that you paid fees in the hopes of winning something. The way Bruce talks he seems to say that even playing AM for trophies would be illegal. Are there not Bowling leagues and other organized events in those states? :confused:



I didn't pay fees in the hopes of winning "something". I paid money to play. The trophy is nominal and an after-thought. I wasn't motivated to pay and play little league to win the trophy. I was out there to play organized competitive baseball.

What is done at 95% of disc golf tournaments is people paying money to win something of substance (cash, discs, merchandise) based on performance and that is essentially gambling, whether legal or illegal. It's no different than buying into a poker game and trying to win the pot (consisting of other players' buy-ins), which is also illegal in many states.

I'm fairly certain that if there was even a shred of question to the legality of Little League baseball, we wouldn't see the LLWS on TV every year. It wouldn't exist.

--Josh

Please forgive my ignorance about how other states treat gambling. Here in NC gambling is considered paying money to participate in a game of chance.

Paying an entry fee to compete in a game of skill is completely different.

Bruce, aren't you from Michigan? It may be illegal as MI defines gambling but there are multiple sports doing it in every state. I have competed in racquetball tournaments in 28 states (including MI) that take entry fees, from all divisions, pool them together and use them to payout the Open Pro division.

This problem is certainly bigger than just disc golf.

Kirk

by having our women play half-naked



Hmmm...

This compliance issue is not an issue I really want to deal with at all. I resigned because I did not think I was elected to deal with it and the Board didn't want to besides. I was just explaining why I resigned the first time and that I'm not resigning over this issue a second time. I cannot serve on the Board of Directors of an organization that has this serious of a compliance problem. So if you elect me, the PDGA will clean up its act in the very small number of states where the PDGA has a problem.

I want to serve because I want to preserve and restore a reasonably good system that works for most of our players and TDs. Recent decisions of the PDGA suggest that the PDGA could benefit from the point of view of its typical TD. Recent actions by the PDGA also suggest that the PDGA could benefit from a more libertarian or laissez-faire approach towards designing the best tournament format ever.

Our system used to allow TDs to design the best tournament format ever, and then pit that against everyone else's vision of the best format ever. A lot of them did, too. Bit by bit the PDGA is drifting away from that towards central planning and equal mediocrity. Player packs, entry fees, payout curves, what divisions are offered and what divisions are disproportionately rewarded are mainly local concerns impacted by a lot of local issues that should mostly be left to the local TDs and clubs.

These are things I care about, plus the other things in my first post. The compliance thing is just an obstacle that is going to be removed, but something I had to take seriously when it came up.

go bruce!

The IOS $10 trophy-only pro option seems to work to add bodies to the division, but that's not anything I would mandate on anyone. I like it because those trophy-only players pay for the trophy and some of the $2 fees, and it is what they want to do with their money. Pros who don't get it are already complaining about that, too.



Bruce, please clarify (this is just a question - not a jab).
Do you mean that some Pros would rather do away with the trophy-only option so that more $ of more entry fees can be used toward Pro payout?

Bruce,

If you are elected, please try to figure out why the standardized "central mediocrity", as you call it, tournament format has been evolving.

Hint: under the random "best format ever" practice a player unfamiliar with the particular TD or particular event really had no idea what the tourney would be like.

Think "easier x-tier status" coupled with "standardized standard tier" for my idea of a better world. :)

The IOS $10 trophy-only pro option seems to work to add bodies to the division, but that's not anything I would mandate on anyone. I like it because those trophy-only players pay for the trophy and some of the $2 fees, and it is what they want to do with their money. Pros who don't get it are already complaining about that, too.


Bruce, please clarify (this is just a question - not a jab).
Do you mean that some Pros would rather do away with the trophy-only option so that more $ of more entry fees can be used toward Pro payout?

At least two pros who sometimes play our tournaments think that the players playing trophy-only in the pro division are making the pro payout smaller by either (a) taking the place of a player who would have paid full or (b) not paying full when they play trophy-only. As to (a), you never know who took whose place. It is not like I reserved 30 places for pros and a full paying pro was almost in line when the trophy-only guy stepped in front of him and got the last spot. It's first-come first-in. The people who want to play the most take places away from people who have to wait on the weather or the possibility of overtime or whether gas is over or under 2.95. As to (b), almost to a man every one of those guys otherwise would not have played. So they are really just small amounts of added cash. The first trophy-only guy pays for his $2 fee and for the trophy he isn't going to win. The next trophy-only guy pays for $2 fees for five players.

I think we shoud have standards and require that deviations be disclosed. Before they abolished the rule requiring TDs to offer every division with three competitors, TDs could routinely exempt themselves by disclosing in advance that certain divisions would not be offered. That worked fine. Currently, all over the country you can see TD's flyers advertising payout to the top 1/3rd in every division, if you go looking. Basically they are disclosing that they are not following their sanctioning agreement, but I don't have a problem with that either.

Before they reversed course on the new mandatory maximum entry fees, all over the country you could see flyers disclosing that the TDs didn't even know there were mandatory maximum entry fees. But they were disclosing, and that should be enough. If you don't want to play a C-tier for $50, don't play it.

I've been to B-tiers where the TD paid the ams out to a B-tier 110%, but did not think to disclose that they were going to pay the Advanced division 150% and the lower ams 60%. :eek: That kind of stuff really should be disclosed.

I'm all for standards. But I don't think any seven member Board or competition committee is going to draft a better sheet of mandatory tournament details than the local TDs running the thing. Most of the more recent mandos, some of which officially stuck and some of which were quickly reversed, would be better off stated as standards that TDs can deviate from with advanced disclosure.

I'll agree that no 7 TDs, no matter how experienced, in isolation can set out appropriate event standards for all events world wide; however it deeply concerns me that you believe that 1 TD, in isolation, can somehow do a better job Bruce.

With PDGA rules of play and minimum event standards under constant assault and abuse (mixing divisions, not calling violations, secretive entry and payout schemes) I am not as confident as you in individuals to meet our needs and provide standards that we can count on as members and participants in PDGA Events.

I don't want it to be an unconnected, isolated, group making the decisions; but neither do I want local "Czars" doing whatever they please. We need to set the standards as a collective group. I've been calling for a PDGA Congress for years now; and one of the duties they would have is to set event standards. These standards should be simple, easy to follow, MINIMUM standards just to make sure that anyone from anywhere in the world attending a PDGA event can have a pretty clear idea of at least the minimum things to expect.

One of the standards should be a straightfoward event reporting system detailing all of the finances involved. As it stands now TDs can make their events look like they pay out more than 100% when they really do nothing of the sort. This and other "closed-book" "back smokey room" stuff should not be a part of the PDGA.

Anarchy is not going to work on a global level for disc golf, we need organization and cooperation.

Nick, I would not expect you to agree with me on the wisdom of free markets versus central planning, and I don't think I could convince you otherwise.

There are plenty of places like Sweden, Maine and IOS-country, where the TDs are successfully doing something different from TDs elsewhere. They can do successful different things because our format is flexible enough to allow for what they are doing.

We should be learning from our TDs who have found other successful ways to run tournaments rather than handicapping them with an overly rigid format.

Nick, I would not expect you to agree with me on the wisdom of free markets versus central planning, and I don't think I could convince you otherwise.



That isn't the question now is it Bruce.

The question is between working together versus everyone just doing their own thing. From the sounds of it you guys run your own little kingdom out in your neck of the woods, needing neither cooperation or communication of standards, simply making ad hoc decisions for yourself and everyone basically having to go along with it. That doesn't sound very "free market" to me. More like take it or leave it.

At some level communication and cooperation are necessary, the question is what minimal level are you talking about Bruce. Knowing you, you have something in mind, you are the one that postponed the rules changes a year afterall.

Doing your own thing and thriving or failing based on your decisions is very much a free market system. Running PDGA sanctioned events based completely on a pre-packaged system is franchising. There are significant positives and negatives to both approaches.

Doing your own thing and thriving or failing based on your decisions is very much a free market system. Running PDGA sanctioned events based completely on a pre-packaged system is franchising. There are significant positives and negatives to both approaches.



Not to mention choices available. If we just go to a "Whatever" events standards model as Bruce proposes, essentially we will have fewer not more options; as we won't have the option of knowing minimum standards prior to payouts at an event.

There is middle ground.

is bruce saying no standards? i see it as having strong standards - but only where standards belong.

do we want to follow laws of the land at our events?
yes. thats a standard.

do we want to follow the rules of disc golf?
yes. thats another standard.

do we publicly announce the divisions, payout, results and payout both prior to and after the event?
yes. thats a great standard

how we structure our divisions or payout?
nope. its not needed if the standard above is in place. that gaurantees that players know what they are getting into before it happens. thats as far as the pdga should go - it is an enforceable standard, and not a step further. the pdga might have some common formats available and might lend advise on how to best structure things, but there's no need for the pdga to dictate every detail if the participants know ahead of time what the deal is.

To clarify, I don't think just letting TDs do whatever they want in isolation is an improvement over building standards based on TD input from around the world based on some common worldwide organized disc golf goals.

I've been around a long time in this sport and the kind of feudalism Bruce seems to be suggesting is as backward as thinking we can return to throwing only lids. We have worked long and hard at building cooperation and agreement on event standards, to throw them all out and return to the days of herding cats is not advisable.

There is plenty of room for innovation and experimentation within the PDGA event standards; if there is not then perhaps you should consider the, also readily, available option of not running a PDGA.

If I am misinterpretting Bruces position then I hope he will take a moment to clarify. If I have got it, then I will not be voting for him; viewing his position as a de-evolution of what we have been working at for all these years.

I'm also interested in hearing more about Bruce's experience in working with a group of other TDs to set series (or any) event standards. What was the process for setting such standards? And what was his role in that process?

Who, if anyone, is running in opposition to Bruce and Pat? Or are they more or less a done deal?

Nick, you are completely misunderstanding Bruce. And of course you are doing so in an unproductive and overtly confrontational manner.

I like the middle ground bewtween Bruces "any format any time" approach and your heavy handed central government approach "you will do every single tiny detail exactly as I say you will".

I think we should have a standard divisional and payout structure, just like we do now, but allow reasonable variations from it as long as those variations are fully explained on the entry forms so that players know what they are getting into without having to know exactly what Bruce does differntly from the standard before they decide to play. They could read the differences when they are signing up and know what they are getting.

Here's an idea: let's empower the state coordinators to approve those variations, with the understanding that if it is "too different", however that is defined, they should get the competition director's approval.

Who, if anyone, is running in opposition to Bruce and Pat? Or are they more or less a done deal?



I believe that the TD of the Beaver State Fling, Cris Bellinger, is planning on running for Competition Director.

kirk yoo is running against bruce i believe. too bad, i'd like to be able to vote for them both.

Yeah KIRK YOO

I'm not the PDGA's candidate so there should be someone running against me. The Constitution requires the Board to find a candidate for every open Board position, and they've usually been able to.

I'm not the PDGA's candidate so there should be someone running against me. The Constitution requires the Board to find a candidate for every open Board position, and they've usually been able to.



The PDGA only has to make sure there's a candidate for each office. I know I didn't vote to place anyone on the ballot, and I fairly certain no one else on the Board did, either. I'm sure if there were no candidates for an office, the PDGA would try and recruit some. We haven't had to in this case. There is no PDGA candidate, or more properly, everyone that appears on the ballot tomorrow is the PDGA's candidate. I don't know who's going on the ballot for certain, but it seems like I remember that both Bruce and Kirk have annoounced for the position. I haven't heard about Cris, but that doesn't mean it isn't true.

Chap

I realize that not much of the Conbstitution actually means what it says, but there is no debating what it says:


Art. IV, sec. 8: Nominations of Directors shall be made by the election committee. In the event of a vacant election committee, nominations of directors shall be coordinated by the Board. Nominations may also be made by Active members as prescribed in the Constitution.

Art. VII, Sec. 2. The Board of Directors or an appointed committee shall be responsible for:
(A) selection of one or more nominees for each elected position;

if Art. IV, sec. 8 has been exercised and people are on the ballot for each position, then Art. VII, Sec. 2 is automatically fulfilled. nothing says the board must nominate someone different.

Except, that's exactly what Art. VII, sec. 2 says. I don't care. We quit following the Constitution except by happenstance and coincidence a few years ago.

I realize that not much of the Conbstitution actually means what it says, but there is no debating what it says:


Art. IV, sec. 8: Nominations of Directors shall be made by the election committee. In the event of a vacant election committee, nominations of directors shall be coordinated by the Board. Nominations may also be made by Active members as prescribed in the Constitution.

Art. VII, Sec. 2. The Board of Directors or an appointed committee shall be responsible for:
(A) selection of one or more nominees for each elected position;





So if you are running then you ARE a PDGA Board of Directors nominee. You are the Official PDGA Nominee as much as anyone else...

Nice attempt at being an outsider... /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

<font color="red"> [Personal attack deleted.] </font> Bruce, please consider this a warning. That was uncalled for and not allowed.

Except, that's exactly what Art. VII, sec. 2 says. I don't care. We quit following the Constitution except by happenstance and coincidence a few years ago.



Bruce, you can have it either way.

Either you and everyone else on the ballot are the PDGA's candidates, or no one is.

I'd say it's the former, but I also say toe-MAY-toe, not toe-MAH-toe.

Chap

I can never tell if you are dishonest or stupid.



If I said that I'd get a 24 hour ban.

At any rate, I suffer no such confusion about you Bruce. At least not for your online persona. All I can hope is that folks either don't vote for you or that if you manage to back into office you serve well and don't just belly ache, gum up the works and then quit less than half way through. Again.

I can never tell if you are dishonest or stupid.



If I said that I'd get a 24 hour ban.



You'd get a 24 hour ban because you are a person with a pattern ingrained over the past several years that has caused long running altercations and long running ill-tempered dialogs with many message board users.

Bruce doesn't / hasn't. <font color="red">But it was worth a warning.</font>

It must be strange for you Jeff; thinking that I read your posts...

Oh no not the dreaded Jeff Nick attack. Arrrrrgghhhhhh.

Hm. Hey Jeff, Steve and I had lunch and we're thinking of your job at the MSDGC. We'd like you to be the MSDGC Internet publicist, the event historian. Basically, I'm asking for you to make us famous.

Please let me know if this is ridiculous or demeaning in any way. Personally, I think it's the perfect job for you, and a job with a definition. You can also hang out and have a good time fun with no limits kinda thang. Manny being Manny.

How bad is this thread-hijacking?

How bad is this thread-hijacking?



You used a message to another poster as a tie-in to get started instead of a real content or answer to existing question to start the hijack, so only one point there.

Topic-wise, it is a pretty far jump from the existing discussion line.

You get a full 3 points for topic jump.

Hijack-wise, it does not contain any qusetions for the general populace nor any really controversial statements. It should be short lived. No points there.

More like a thread speed bump than a hijack. :cool:

Hm. Hey Jeff, Steve and I had lunch and we're thinking of your job at the MSDGC. We'd like you to be the MSDGC Internet publicist, the event historian. Basically, I'm asking for you to make us famous.

Please let me know if this is ridiculous or demeaning in any way. Personally, I think it's the perfect job for you, and a job with a definition. You can also hang out and have a good time fun with no limits kinda thang. Manny being Manny.



Sounds great! In addition to helping with scoring duties, I will post regular updates to the PDGA and NEFA discussion boards throughout the weekend, documenting all the action.

I'm not the PDGA's candidate so there should be someone running against me. The Constitution requires the Board to find a candidate for every open Board position, and they've usually been able to.



Everyone is a PDGA candidate. Bruce, Kirk, and Cris are running for competition director. Kirk is currently on the board, so he's sort of an incumbent, but he's not "&lt;b&gt;the&lt;/b&gt; PDGA's" candidate, although I personally pledged to support him months ago, I think he's very level-headed. (Didn't know you were planning to run Bruce, or I'd have had to consider actively supporting you. But I would have had to know. Shees, you even had dinner at my house last Sunday and didn't tell me then that you were running!)

Where's my time for review and discussion! Whaa!

The other two candidates on the ballot are running unopposed (I support them also.), but that does not make them "the PDGA's" candidates either. We, the PDGA board, are required to ensure that there is a candidate in every slot. In practice, no one who wants to run has been turned away since I've been on the board.

Part of that is why the bylaws needed updated. There may have been intent at some point for people to ensure that they get on the ballot even though the board does not select them for that, but the language is so messed up that the practice of letting everyone on has developed.

As John said, and as Bruce supported by quoting: "Art. VII, Sec. 2. The Board of Directors or an appointed committee shall be responsible for: (A) selection of one or more nominees for each elected position;" &lt;b&gt;everyone running&lt;/b&gt; was selected/nominated by the board. So, Bruce &lt;b&gt;is&lt;/.b&gt; a board candidate. [list] :D

Except, that's exactly what Art. VII, sec. 2 says. I don't care. We quit following the Constitution except by happenstance and coincidence a few years ago.



A few DECADES ago. There's been no radical change in that since I started on the board five years ago. I actually think that we've fussed over TRYING to follow the constitution more than previous boards did - at least from what I can tell from minutes and people's memories.

I remember Dave Lebleu working on a new constitution back in the early 90s or so.

Maybe I'm not clear. Sorry. I wasn't referring to changes being made, there have been many.

It's just that I believe that previous boards were not following the constitution/bylaws in a lot of circumstances - IT'S NOT JUST BEEN IN THE PAST FEW YEARS - not because I think that is bad of those boards to have done so - but because the very first thing I noticed was that you CANNOT follow it.

The process for nominations is the example that is clearest to me, because one year I offered to help run elections, since I was not up for re-election, and I spent dozens of hours actually trying to find out what in the heck the language means.

I concluded that parts were written by different people, at different times, some of the people relatively paranoid (Which is both common and reasonable when very small organizations get underway.) and there was no way to do an election and follow the constitution with precision.

(This probably belongs on that other thread.)

Since none of the four PDGA members in my household have received a ballot, I really don't know what my opponents might be for or against, or whether those statements are published with the ballot. But this was interesting; it is from the Bylaws thread:
I'm sorry to disappoint you but the DB [discussion board] is not that important to me and does not play a role in any of the decisions that I make about anything.

Kirk

The opinions of the members are important to me. Many of you, including those I rarely agree with, have intelligent things to say. I can only get a narrow slice of opinions and perspectives talking to players and volunteers at tournaments and league. This message board is a great resource for understanding what our members think and how they think.

Yes, I understand why some don't like the discussion board. I can totally understand someone saying that they do not have the time, nor the energy to separate the wheat from the chaffe. However, if one has the time or inclination to read the board, they will hear many ideas and hopefully they will use these ideas to challenge their own conceptions. I do prefer people that at least listen. They are the ones most likely to learn and progress.

On a more important note, I believe Paul indicated that the new bylaws would possibly eliminate newly elected BOD members. This is not true, is it? It is my understanding that the new bylaws would eliminate their titles, but not their position on the board.

The DISCussion board is a great way to hear the opinions of a handful of our most outspoken members, most of whom have no official responsibilities on behalf of the PDGA, and certainly not at the top strategic level.

It's a terrible way to hear the opinions of most members. Anyone who is the least bit shy, or even those who are not shy but who don't want to subjected to uncalled for personal attacks and criticism, don't post here.

There isn't generally a lot of useful guidance about PDGA matters here. I read it, peripatetically, because I read everything (http://www.campus-technology.com/news_article.asp?id=18641&typeid=153). But it's way down the list of my sources of useful advice and input from members.

I am not afraid to post here, because it's never the case that I am embrassed by a posting of my own and rarely the case that I don't instantly see such rhetorical and logical flaws in the nastiest postings that I often feel embarassment for the poster rather than any hurt from the posting.

I find it interesting and stimulating. Both of those modifiers come well ahead of "useful."

it doesnt eliminate the people, but i think it does take away the specialization.. ie there wont be an Oversight Director or Competition Director anymore... just Directors. theywill need to figure out what tasks/activities are most imporant and then figure out which board member is best suited for handling that area.

and going to meetings is better??? most members can get online. most members cannot fly to phoenix for a weekend (unless they are coughing up the cash to play)

the board can reach many more Members than any event can. it is not the only solution or the perfect solution. but it IS part of the solution

We reach every member with email about 25 times a year, at least. We reach every member four times a year with DGW.

I just did a quick analysis of the bylaws thread:

* Less than 40 posters
* 90 percent of all posts from about 15 people

Given that most "views" are probably avid posters, wanting to see what's new or re-read something so as not to post about it incorrectly, certainly DISCussion fails as an important communication tool.

Most members do NOT WANT to be involved in decision making. They elect representatives. Some members - a handful - think that they should be engaged in decision making at the same level as the board members the entire membership elected. They're wrong.

mail is ONE WAY communication. hmmm... that means it is NOT really communication. it is publishing.

Members who do not want to particpate do not need to. but just becasue 9000 do not want to thats not a reason to shut out the other 1000

I think you mean "the other 40."

And, yes, one-way communication *is* still communication. You would be surprised at how much two-way communication is stimulated by that one-way communication.

Let me guess, the next request is that someone from staff or the board, conduct an inventory and show you each such communication on a spreadsheet. Yes, that's the ticket. That would be a wise use of resources. :cool:

most members cannot fly to phoenix for a weekend


I heard that Phoenix might be finished now that Augusta is around. Stinks for me, as Augusta isn't driving distance for me.

I think the meeting should have started moving around a few years ago to other southern locales. So hopefully it won't get stuck at the IDGC for too many years either.

I appreciate the BOD members coming on here to defend their actions, but I am concerned that it only gives credance to the hearsay and lies being continuously hurled at them.

Terry, you have considerable powers of communication at your disposal, ability and tools; why not use them to form a better system of governing what goes on here on the message board rather than trying to jump on all the grenades Pat, Jason, Bruce and others constantly lob at you and the PDGA? I'm not saying to stop open discussion, just, to say, empower a group of active board users (even lurkers) that understand bad behavior when they see it and take action, privately and publicly if necessary. They should be as emphatic as possible that such behavior is not acceptable, anywhere in the PDGA. What the guiding "bylaws" of such a group would be would be up to them to decide.

It really does concern me that 3 of these guys are likely going to get on the BOD. Then again, they, I am quite certain are in for a non-stop tasting of their own brand of medicine. Karma can be a bitty.

:D

I appreciate the BOD members coming on here to defend their actions, but I am concerned that it only gives credance to the hearsay and lies being continuously hurled at them.

Terry, you have considerable powers of communication at your disposal, ability and tools; why not use them to form a better system of governing what goes on here on the message board rather than trying to jump on all the grenades Pat, Jason, Bruce and others constantly lob at you and the PDGA? I'm not saying to stop open discussion, just, to say, empower a group of active board users (even lurkers) that understand bad behavior when they see it and take action, privately and publicly if necessary. They should be as emphatic as possible that such behavior is not acceptable, anywhere in the PDGA. What the guiding "bylaws" of such a group would be would be up to them to decide.

It really does concern me that 3 of these guys are likely going to get on the BOD. Then again, they, I am quite certain are in for a non-stop tasting of their own brand of medicine. Karma can be a bitty.




Oh, I don't know. It might be a welcome relief from the tripe that you hurl.

I appreciate the BOD members coming on here to defend their actions, but I am concerned that it only gives credance to the hearsay and lies being continuously hurled at them.

Terry, you have considerable powers of communication at your disposal, ability and tools; why not use them to form a better system of governing what goes on here on the message board rather than trying to jump on all the grenades Pat, Jason, Bruce and others constantly lob at you and the PDGA? I'm not saying to stop open discussion, just, to say, empower a group of active board users (even lurkers) that understand bad behavior when they see it and take action, privately and publicly if necessary. They should be as emphatic as possible that such behavior is not acceptable, anywhere in the PDGA. What the guiding "bylaws" of such a group would be would be up to them to decide.

It really does concern me that 3 of these guys are likely going to get on the BOD. Then again, they, I am quite certain are in for a non-stop tasting of their own brand of medicine. Karma can be a bitty.




Oh, I don't know. It might be a welcome relief from the tripe that you hurl.


Wow! What a great post from a level-headed and almost always mellow member!

Oh yeah.....WORD!

Eh.
I get my dander up ocassionally. I always feel dumb when I read what I posted later, but it always seems so right at the time! :D

Tripe Touche!

:D

:D



:Ddouble down...

:D



:Ddouble down...



This is why I can never be in politics....

... it doesn't take much to make me like someone again.

I'm new to the PDGA and the message board, but I think is is a great communication tool if used properly. I understand that some people will always use it to be disruptive to the process, but those people will find a way to be disruptive no matter what is done. I feel that the BOD should monitor the message board, and adress questions and concerns posted to the best of their ability. The board provides every member with the ability to make comments and suggestions and ask questions. The fact that few take advantage of it is no reason to disregard it. As to a "group of active board users (even lurkers) that understand bad behavior when they see it and take action, privately and publicly if necessary" , that's what moderators are for. I also think that " What the guiding "bylaws" of such a group would be would be up to them to decide " is a recipe for disaster, no one person or group should serve as lawmaker, judge, jury, and executioner.

I'm new to the PDGA and the message board, but I think is is a great communication tool if used properly. I understand that some people will always use it to be disruptive to the process, but those people will find a way to be disruptive no matter what is done. I feel that the BOD should monitor the message board, and adress questions and concerns posted to the best of their ability. The board provides every member with the ability to make comments and suggestions and ask questions. The fact that few take advantage of it is no reason to disregard it. As to a "group of active board users (even lurkers) that understand bad behavior when they see it and take action, privately and publicly if necessary" , that's what moderators are for. I also think that " What the guiding "bylaws" of such a group would be would be up to them to decide " is a recipe for disaster, no one person or group should serve as lawmaker, judge, jury, and executioner.



You know, if we could keep questions to the BoD in a single thread or two (like the ask Dave D thread), this might be doable. If we have to search every thread for questions, then it's not doable.

Chap

This doesn't effect me either way, but I think it is better to NOT have any expectation of official response from the PDGA Officers here, but rather that those REALLY interested in communicating with the PDGA Volunteers and Officers put forth the strenuous effort of clicking on the Contact Link.

Direct private communication puts the kabosh on grandstanding, witch-hunting and bullying, afterall, who would you be trying to impress in a personal message?!? Your buddy You or Yourself?

If some BOD members feel like chatting here, fine, but there should remain no expectation and certainly no requirement to do so. I know if I were on the BOD I'd never ever visit or have anything to do with this forum of mild and lite entertainment. I've been visiting here for over 12 years now and can state as absolute fact that nothing of any consequence has ever been decided (let alone discussed) here. It is all trash talk and chit chat.

I'm by no means saying I don't like the DB, just that I see it clearly for what it is and for what it ISN'T.

If you can't seperate the things written here from the real work away from here you need some serious help... and a break from you keyboard.

if thats how you feel about the DB, then please oh please stop using it! you will be a much happier person if you no longer have to deal with all the "trash talk and chit chat".

plus it will free up some bandwidth for those who DO understand how to use modern communications technology.

thank you.

I'm new to the PDGA and the message board, but I think is is a great communication tool if used properly. I understand that some people will always use it to be disruptive to the process, but those people will find a way to be disruptive no matter what is done. I feel that the BOD should monitor the message board, and adress questions and concerns posted to the best of their ability. The board provides every member with the ability to make comments and suggestions and ask questions. The fact that few take advantage of it is no reason to disregard it. As to a "group of active board users (even lurkers) that understand bad behavior when they see it and take action, privately and publicly if necessary" , that's what moderators are for. I also think that " What the guiding "bylaws" of such a group would be would be up to them to decide " is a recipe for disaster, no one person or group should serve as lawmaker, judge, jury, and executioner.



You know, if we could keep questions to the BoD in a single thread or two (like the ask Dave D thread), this might be doable. If we have to search every thread for questions, then it's not doable.

Chap



I just spent an hour looking for the ask John Chapman thread, it isn't there. This DB stinks! :)

On a lighter note, I like the thought, I think a thread directed towards specific questions would be good.

specific threads have always worked well. threads shouldnt live forever, at least in the upper sections of the board. it would be very cool to have a thread for each major initiative the pdga was considering, or had, underway.

specific threads have always worked well. threads shouldnt live forever, at least in the upper sections of the board. it would be very cool to have a thread for each major initiative the pdga was considering, or had, underway.



a thread like that would have to be heavily monitored and kept on topic.

no it wouldnt. threads like that exist all over the place, and have existed forever.

There should heavy bullying to keep threads like those on topic. :cool:

LOL :eek: :D/msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif :p

There should heavy bullying to keep threads like those on topic. :cool:



THAT'S FUNNY!!

I have a question for Rhett. Rhett, since you made it impossible for anyone to post on your thread about "swearing on the board" I'll ask it here.

My question is, WHO is the judge and jury who will decide what is appropriate and inappropriate and therefore put on suspension from posting? Is that you alone, just you? Or is there a panel of a few people who will make that decision - the decision to suspend? :confused:

There should heavy bullying to keep threads like those on topic. :cool:



THAT'S FUNNY!!

I have a question for Rhett. Rhett, since you made it impossible for anyone to post on your thread about "swearing on the board" I'll ask it here.

My question is, WHO is the judge and jury who will decide what is appropriate and inappropriate and therefore put on suspension from posting? Is that you alone, just you? Or is there a panel of a few people who will make that decision - the decision to suspend? :confused:



Freedom of Speach !!!! This is not Iraq.

There should heavy bullying to keep threads like those on topic. :cool:



THAT'S FUNNY!!

I have a question for Rhett. Rhett, since you made it impossible for anyone to post on your thread about "swearing on the board" I'll ask it here.

My question is, WHO is the judge and jury who will decide what is appropriate and inappropriate and therefore put on suspension from posting? Is that you alone, just you? Or is there a panel of a few people who will make that decision - the decision to suspend? :confused:



Freedom of Speach !!!! This is not Iraq.



Which post are you referring to?

I'm not the one who's not letting anyone post on a thread. Or you might be responding to the original quote.. who knows...

There should heavy bullying to keep threads like those on topic. :cool:



THAT'S FUNNY!!

I have a question for Rhett. Rhett, since you made it impossible for anyone to post on your thread about "swearing on the board" I'll ask it here.

My question is, WHO is the judge and jury who will decide what is appropriate and inappropriate and therefore put on suspension from posting? Is that you alone, just you? Or is there a panel of a few people who will make that decision - the decision to suspend? :confused:




It is his decision soley, he didn't like some of the PMs from some one our thread and he just shut down the entire Tulsa thread and all topics with in the main thread. It is now dead as of about 6:00pm today.

Thanks Rhett, your such a guy. ;)

Last I read,
TRAVERSE CITY, Mich. � The Michigan Court of Appeals yesterday struck down a 105-year-old law against using vulgar language in front of women and children, throwing out the conviction of a canoeist who let loose a stream of curses after falling into the water.

Three years ago, the ACLU filed a lawsuit on behalf of the Flying Dog Brewery after the Colorado Liquor Enforcement Division declined to approve a beer label in 1995. Regulators said the slogan "Good Beer No S---" on the label did not meet federal standards banning "obscene or indecent" labels.

The Colorado division later dropped its practice of approving labels, and the Flying Dog label gained federal approval earlier this year.

Patrick Sheldon Suiter had gone to the Canyon County Courthouse to speak to an officer about a fraudulent-check case in which a friend was victimized. The officer refused to file a complaint without some verification that Suiter was authorized to act on behalf of the victim. Suiter became angry and critical of the police department. After being told by the detective to calm down, Suiter said, �Hey, f--- off� and began to leave. He was then arrested by two officers and accused of disturbing the peace.

Police said Suiter wasn�t arrested for what he said, just how he said it. The U.S. Supreme Court concluded long ago that a profane expression cannot be the sole grounds for prosecution. In a landmark case in 1971, the high court dismissed a charge of disturbing the peace against a man whose jacket bore the message: �F--- the draft.� In finding that �one man�s vulgarity is another�s lyric,� the court essentially barred the future prosecution of vulgar written messages, including bumper stickers and T-shirts.

Suiter�s profanity was spoken, not written, but the Idaho Supreme Court cited that profane protest of the draft in concluding that Suiter�s insulting remark to the police officer was indeed speech protected by the First Amendment.

The court noted that abusive and highly provocative epithets directed toward ordinary citizens can be banned as so-called �fighting words.� But in this case, the comment was addressed to a police officer, a public servant with a duty not to be provoked to violence by mere words. In addition, a total of just six people heard the remark, none of whom characterized it as yelling, shouting or screaming. It was an uncomfortable moment, but not a highly disruptive one.

Courts face an extraordinary challenge in addressing these issues. Words that were once shocking to polite society are now staples on both cable and broadcast television. Rather than try to legislate language, government can realistically only prosecute the disruptive behavior that sometimes accompanies profane language.

Profane words may be constitutionally protected, but that doesn�t give us a license to say whatever we want, wherever we want, and most important, however we want. In other words, �fire� is not the only word you can�t shout in a crowded theater.

In other words, �fire� is not the only word you can�t shout in a crowded theater.



suggesting that doing the right thing entails voting "no" to the new By-laws appears to be legal however, despite the radical reputation some would prefer to paint on those voicing such dissent :p

ok, this is thread drift, but a few years ago I was taking care of a ticket. For what ever reason I was mad and started to argue with the clerk. A police officer came out and stood right there next to me.

I was informed after the incident that if I had cussed, I would have been arrested. Luckly, it takes a lot to get me to cuss.

bryan, you should look up the facts on global warming. that'll make you cuss for sure.

yes I did look them up. I also posted my thoughts on that on that thread. (this is not the place)

There should heavy bullying to keep threads like those on topic. :cool:



THAT'S FUNNY!!

I have a question for Rhett. Rhett, since you made it impossible for anyone to post on your thread about "swearing on the board" I'll ask it here.

My question is, WHO is the judge and jury who will decide what is appropriate and inappropriate and therefore put on suspension from posting? Is that you alone, just you? Or is there a panel of a few people who will make that decision - the decision to suspend? :confused:




It is his decision soley, he didn't like some of the PMs from some one our thread and he just shut down the entire Tulsa thread and all topics with in the main thread. It is now dead as of about 6:00pm today.

Thanks Rhett, your such a guy. ;)



No wonder he hasn't responded. Wow, that a lot of power for one individual!!! There should be a committee or something!!

There should heavy bullying to keep threads like those on topic. :cool:



THAT'S FUNNY!!

I have a question for Rhett. Rhett, since you made it impossible for anyone to post on your thread about "swearing on the board" I'll ask it here.

My question is, WHO is the judge and jury who will decide what is appropriate and inappropriate and therefore put on suspension from posting? Is that you alone, just you? Or is there a panel of a few people who will make that decision - the decision to suspend? :confused:




It is his decision soley, he didn't like some of the PMs from some one our thread and he just shut down the entire Tulsa thread and all topics with in the main thread. It is now dead as of about 6:00pm today.

Thanks Rhett, your such a guy. ;)



No wonder he hasn't responded. Wow, that a lot of power for one individual!!! There should be a committee or something!!



Interesting !!!!!! As a PDGA dues paid member for 24 years , I would like to vote on that !!!! ;)

The profane words in the Michigan case were not constitutionally protected speech. The Court of Appeals expressly stated, "Finally, we would observe that the First Amendment does not protect obscene speech, Sable Communications of California, Inc. v. FCC, 492 U.S. 115, 124, 109 S.Ct. 2829, 106 L.Ed.2d 93 (1989), and the Legislature, if so inclined, could enact a properly drawn statute to protect minors from such exposure." The statute in the Michigan case was struck down as void for vagueness. It did not adequately define the prohibited conduct.

�one man�s vulgarity is another�s lyric�



You mean those Okies are really poets? :p