I got the email from Mr. Towne last night regarding renewal of the Maryland Nomads affiliated club status with the PDGA. This raises a similar question to the one I posed regarding my personal membership. What is the point in doing this?

The only tangible benefit that I can see is the $5 off memberships via the bundled renewals. While that sounds great have you ever tried to organize this effort with disc golfers? It's like bathing a cat. These are the same people who rarely pre-reg for a tourney so to actually have them pony up money in advance to send in at a reasonable time (say mid-December) is impossible. I tried to do it last year, and got several interested comments from our members, but ended up sending mine in solo around Christmas. Then there was a frezy of c.f. activity in late February via the other local affiliated club to get people re-upped before the March tourneys kicked off. So while a theoretical nice plus, in reality it doesn't exist. At least for us here.

Sure you get a named forum on this bored, but you're moderated by Mutt & Jeff, and you could run your own forum under the Other Clubs forum anyways. I did that for two years. I would bet that most affiliated clubs are big enough to have their own bored anyways so isn't existnece here redundant? The bored gurus should make the club forums club members only (we have a forum like this on our bored) and have them be unmoderated. That would encourage clubs to use the bored here for their main business, and also drag more traffic through the other parts of this bored. I know many locals who only troll the local boreds.

So those are the marginal benefits, the negative is having to be affiliated with the PDGA.


The PDGA. I didn't know you smoked.



As with the other thread I would be interested in hearing any reasons for renewal.

Thus the question is:

Is there a date (this year) that the Affiliated Club MUST have their money in by? If not, then try (bathing the cats!) getting the moneys together/assembled around your Ice Bowl date...

Hawk wrote the following (http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=598441&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1) on 11/05/06 at 09:43 AM in the pre-existing Should I Renew? thread that he himself started back in October.


Having weighed both sides of the issue I've decided not to renew and to no longer have my club be a PDGA affiliated club. The cons far outweigh the pros. Good luck & Godspeed to the rest of you.



Kind of seems like he has already made up his mind, and this new redundant thread is just another excuse and opportunity to insult the PDGA and its volunteers. http://www.panthersplanet.net/style_emoticons/default/thumbsdown.gif

...is just another excuse and opportunity to insult the PDGA and its volunteers.



This is actually a point in favor of renewal.

The Maryland Nomads should not renew as a PDGA affiliate club.

I think that Hawk should quit disc golf in general.

Maybe so but, I just renewed. :o:D

if local clubs or individials don't support the PDGA, how will we ever attract sponsors that will or maybe that one big one that would sponsor a national tour?
it's a decision that only you and your club can make, it all comes down to one question------are you better off with or without it?

don't worry discette, the nomads are definitely going unaffiliated next year. the pdga and several of it's uptight members can't take criticism or humor.

i did renew just to regain my am status, but seriously camera, do you think 10,000 active members impresses the sponsors? isn't that about 4 members per course? if you want to impress the sponsors try getting 50,000 members. i bet if the membership was 10$ you might get there. and you would still have about the same amount of money.


:D

Thing is Rich and G are mild mannered and fun to play with on the course, I don't know where all this spite comes from when they log on to this board.

The PDGA is a volunteer organization. Your $50 a year is your "pittence" of an effort to volunteer to promote disc golf on a worldwide level. Be respectful of the people that give more than you are prepared to offer or they may stop giving it, and then you'll be down to your local bored to whine on.

Hold tight folks we're in a Disc Golf Recession.

Nick, be gentle. Everyone "gives" what they have the time and resources to give - in conjunction with what they think their money is getting in return.

One could argue that my taxes are the pittance I pay to live in the US, but if it was that cut and dry, why threaten me with jail time if I don't pay them?

In my opinion, the PDGA needs to work to make the decision to renew / join easier for folks like Rich and G. The fact that they see no value in the affiliate club program should make us wonder if they are alone in those thoughts, or if the program needs to be improved to serve our member clubs better.

i had bigs edit my previous post for the humorless.

i still think it was funny! :D

i resent nick's implication that i don't do enough or that I am in anyway criticiizing individuals efforts. i am only pointing out what i believe to be areas where the pdga as a whole is going the wrong direction IMO.

i think one of the main problems with the pdga is a resistance to new ideas and directions. mostly by shouting down any ideas or input. so i am used to this treatment by the old guard. one day the old guard will have chased away all the new guys who want to help and nobody will be left to do the leading.

i think one of the main problems with the pdga is a resistance to new ideas and directions.



It's not resistance but resources. Most of the initiatives that have been implemented were done by volunteers at some point until some funding was available or are still being done by volunteers. Ideas are a dime a dozen. People willing to expend some effort and follow thru are worth a quite a bit more.

it's both resource and resistance. dont ever underestimate the power of momentum.

on the topic of whether to renew a personal membership, my pesonal view is that for active players the pdga offers a unique bundle of services that support organized competitive events and encourages the long term development of the sport.

for me, the combination of rules and other standards, ratings, and the broad communications that are enabled by the DISCussion Board are valuable. Development activities are always subject to great debate because their inherent riskiness assures some will fail. but we still need to keep trying and the fact that the pdga does continue to try adds to its value.

my own feeling is that the value offered by its event-related and community-building activities makes the pdga a membership organization i'm happy to support with a Membership.

i think one of the main problems with the pdga is a resistance to new ideas and directions. mostly by shouting down any ideas or input.



I'm not sure that you know how to think, even though it is implicit in your words that you do.

Come to a board meeting, present your idea, listen hard for people shouting it down, but you won't hear that.

Call a board member, present your idea, listen hard to hear him shout it down, but you won't hear that.

Call a staff person, present your idea, listen hard to hear him or her shout it down, but you won't hear that.

No, instead just post inflammatory remarks here. That way you can feel important, as though people are really listening to what you say, instead of going where what you say can really matter.

It's called being "chicken" - that is, being afraid to play with the big boys because in the real forums of power you end up being responsible for what you say and do, and that's pretty scary, eh?

yes Dr evil, it is so much better to just agree. Better to be like Mark Cuban, the Mavs owner who now says that the NBA is the smartest and best run organization in the history of organizations. that way you will get along and fit in.

yes Dr evil, it is so much better to just agree.



I said nothing about it being better to agree.

In fact, I suggested several productive ways to disagree - ways in which a member would not get shouted down, as was erroneously and unfairly suggested by the first post.

It does, of course, take more courage to disagree in a productive way than to just post wild miss-statements in this forum. Shouted down, indeed. Note: Shouting in person means raised voices; in an online forum it is ALL CAPS. Hmm?

Seems like some people think they are "shouted down" when anyone just disagrees with what they suggest?

hey the guy felt shouted down. regardless of whether you think he was or not, he felt he was. dont belittle his feelings or brush aside his concerns. they just might contain a kernal or two of truth and reality.

Hey, Pat, he said, about the organization you are a board member of: "[O]ne of the main problems with the [PDGA] is a resistance to new ideas and directions. mostly by shouting down any ideas or input."

How does he know this? Is it a fact? Do you believe this to be true? If so, wow! If it's not, then he needs persuaded otherwise, not encouraged. I know it's hard to persuade people making comments like that in this forum, so why not - as the current board member that you are - at least not encourage him?

Hint: Maybe a phone call would do it, since one of the hazards of DISCussion is that it is often difficult for people to publicly back down from things that they have asserted here: Just one good reason it's not a good governance forum.

Hey, Terry, I dont have any problem with what he said.

how would i know how he "knows" this? its his experience, so i suppose something happened to make him feel that way.

you might be surprised at who, and how many, Members i speak with, so dont assume i dont.

btw, speaking of good governance, it was fascinating to read in the ASEA site that PROXY VOTING BY DIRECTORS is a breach of fiducuiary responsibility. and that ATTENDENCE AT BOD MEETINGS is an absolute imperative to fulfill that duty. it really put my perusal of the minutes from the last two years into perspective.

Straw everywhere...

Sandleman I can stand up for you on your last comment. You sat down with my wife, myself,and a few others at C.O.T.O.,drank abeer with us and let us express ourselfs, not even knowing who we were. THANKS!!! Opps that was a shout.

<font color="blue"> [personal attack removed by member request] </font>

Jerry Lively, PDGA #27260 (Road Kill): Every board member I have ever known has spent lots of time talking to disc golfers, everywhere they go. I count the friendships I've made all over the US as the primary benefit (along with learning good things) of the time and money I spent while on the board.

The trick is to understand that this is true, not just of the particular one or two you have met, and perhaps agree with on some things, but of all of them.

That's a hard level of trust to get to on a forum like this where most posters maintain an alternative identity. I don't, and I think that anyone interested in serious discussion here should not.

Posting under a false identity (Even Brakel understands this.) means that when you post things someone doesn't like, you (The "you" here does not mean you personally, it's a generic "you," it's called a "nuance," I know you're from Texas but I think you can get it.) so without losing social capital.

That means it's easier to post wrong, stupid, even outrageous things. Yet another reason why DISCussion makes a very bad forum for governance.

Note, folks, that even though I am no longer a board member, you can call or IM me, or email me. That route is available, and always was, but rarely, if ever, used by anyone with a criticism. Must be 'cause I am such a tough guy.

Terry, you are now just another wheel squeaking on the DISCussion Board for some oil. welcome 'aboard' /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Pat, keep up the good work ;)

Terry, you are now just another wheel squeaking on the DISCussion Board for some oil. welcome 'aboard' /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif



I know, Rob Johnston, PDGA #22020 (AviarX), I know, but a pretty knowledgeable one. The shoe is on the other foot now in more than one way. :D Bwahahaha.

Hey, especially you Texas guys, I look forward to some face to face conversations on the disc golf cruise next week. I wonder how many will take the chance to get to know the real person and risk having some bubbles burst?

Pat and you have several shared objectives for the PDGA, it would be nice if you would DISCuss common ground and then move to points of difference. as you are now a regular member (a very knowledgeable one at that) and Pat is on the BoD, your establishing those common objectives here on the DISCussion board might go a long way to build a better climate for all of us.

i looking forward to that happening.

i'd love to talk with you on the cruise but i don't have the necessary disposable income.

<font color="blue"> [personal attack removed by member request] </font>







Terry, you're quite amusing as always. You're right that the forum is full of lies, such as every time I read your boasts about how you built the PDGA with your bare hands.

The growth of the PDGA heard its death knell when you jacked up the membership rates to beyond the means of the average disc golfer. Do not blame the new and improved BOD members for the greedy mistakes of your own mediocre administration.

No false identity here, most people know me as John Rock and have since the early 80's. Why the negativity towards people from Texas?

<font color="blue"> [personal attack removed by member request] </font>




You're right that the forum is full of lies, such as every time I read your boasts about how you built the PDGA with your bare hands.



Citation, please, Mikey Kernan, PDGA #14303, to support this bald-faced lie?

Oh, I forgot, we're in DISCussion, no one has to regard things like the truth. A good place for your postings, indeed.

In fact, for those who might think there is any truth in what Mike wrote, I was on the board for five years and during that time it was a great board, with great staff, and good things happened for the PDGA. I've never made a statement anywhere, including in Mike's car driving from New Orleans to Houston and back a few years ago, about myself having played any significant individual role in that. Part of a good team, yes, but what does Mikey know of teamwork?

Persistent broken record: "See why this cannot be a governance forum, Pat?"

No false identity here, most people know me as John Rock and have since the early 80's. Why the negativity towards people from Texas?



If you look over past DISCussions, it's where most of the inane criticism of me (and the PDGA) comes from. You know, Texas: home of former PDGA member Mike Crump and current liar Mikey Kernan.

Fortunately, also the home of Dave Nesbitt, Lyle Ross, and a lot of other great people - to them (and to you) I'm poking fun in my own relatively humorless way; to the Mike's and others who resemble them it's a serious business.

The growth of the PDGA heard its death knell when you jacked up the membership rates to beyond the means of the average disc golfer.



guys who go on disc golf cruises may have a hard time seeing that (?) But maybe the strange option that was added for this year only -- the option for current Pro members to renew as Amateurs with no questions asked -- was designed to help mitigate the loss of members that the raising of membership fees might induce. (?)

i think the PDGA should consider some form of bare bones membership that doesn't involve so many perks (like the subscription to DGWN which is definitely a nice perk) and maybe also incentivize the more expensive level of membership in other ways ...

i also think Pros should not be charged more to join/renew than Am.s. (i renewed in early November as a Pro)

the goal of a cheap (bare bones) entry fee option would be to increase the size of the PDGA which in turn would create more pull with potential corporate sponsors. it would also create a larger pool from which could grow PDGA Pros...

Mike Crump is a former member? I thought his platform was he would not join unless he got the financial info he wanted.

There are lots of good solid PDGA members in this state, and a lot of them have ideas and views that are different than your's and mine. Please don't lump us all together with those that just want to bust your balls.

But maybe the strange option that was added for this year only -- the option for current Pro members to renew as Amateurs with no questions asked -- was designed to help mitigate the loss of members that the raising of membership fees might induce.



Permitting folks, Rob Johnston, PDGA #22020, especially old-timers who went Pro when "everyone did," to go back to Am and be competitive and have more fun was the one single definite goal ("Good things for the PDGA" doesn't have the same precision.) I had when I went onto the PDGA board. There are a lot of TDs I know, core of the PDGA, who don't themselves compete because as Pros they just aren't competitive. Nothing to do with dues increases, just took five years, is all - a lesson to those who hope for any kind of swift change.

So, Mike Kernan, PDGA #14304, I will take credit for that - even though it wasn't "bare hands" so much as "smooth tongue and persistence."

BTW, Rob, I can afford the cruise now, but am only a few years away in memory from my wife and I spending weeks to decide how to spend a $20 bill. I bought my first "new" car in 2000 and drive a 43-year-old car that I paid $3,000 for to work every day. I'm flush now, but I know how that can change. Been there, done that, may be there again some day.

There's a fellow Texan, with rich friends in Saudi Arabia (bin Laden family, you know) and elsewhere, who's been working hard to see more people in that sort of situation. Guess who?

You're right John Stewart, PDGA #4693 (JohnRock), I "misremembered." I don't think Crump ever did join.

Lots of great disc golfers in Texas. (#4693, I am impressed! Smarter than me, I didn't know about disc golf until #15117.) I do not lump them all together with the Mikes. Oops, oh, yeah, Mikey is a few hours away in Louisiana, too, but since the only tournament I attended with him was in Houston, I think of him as Texan. I'll try to break that habit.

Oops, did I just admit being "wrong" twice in one post? DISCussion might melt down if people start doing that.

Replies to Rob Johnston, PDGA #22020 (AviarX). I do not speak for anyone but myself:

Pros paying higher dues: I voted for Pros paying more when that change was made, and I was persuaded by the numbers: The PDGA spends more money on a per-capita basis for each Pro than for each Am, a lot more.

Larger numbers from smaller dues overall: Maybe. But how do you get there from here, with an awful lot of fixed expenses to run a significant nonprofit organization? If you cut dues down now and hope that means twice as many members, you still gotta pay the staff and run the tour until those extra members, who may not come, arrive.

Then, what happens if they don't?

Can you refer to me in one of your posts. The only thing better than reading it would be seeing my real name and PDGA number in bold.

He might be concerned that you will threaten to quit the game if he says anything about you!

This is such an uplifting thread with so many outstanding examples of the reasons we should renew. ;)

Can you refer to me in one of your posts. The only thing better than reading it would be seeing my real name and PDGA number in bold.



No problem, Robert Leonard, PDGA #21676, I'm hoping that the more I do this, the more people will realize that they just might be more reasonable posters if they're identified in person and with their PDGA number. Of course, it doesn't scale up, and I can't keep it up forever, almost 60, you know.

Actually, I think I read someone's profile wrong earlier and I may have used their DISCussion number instead of their PDGA number. Yikes. Three possible admissions of wrongess in a single day. I am sure we will start having Sequel problems with the software soon.

This is such an uplifting thread with so many outstanding examples of the reasons we should renew. ;)



Quite right, Gary Duke, PDGA #9426, and exemplar of the huge majority of great Texas disc golfers! If I were still moderating, I'd likely dump the whole thread.

Okay, see, you got your name and number in bold :D

I hate doing this, but I actually believe that a couple of people need to be persuaded that DISCussion is fun but not a good place for governance, for the future good of the PDGA. So . . . .

"There's a fellow Texan, with rich friends in Saudi Arabia (bin Laden family, you know) and elsewhere, who's been working hard to see more people in that sort of situation. Guess who? "

so what you are saying is "the minority is important" ?

"This is such an uplifting thread with so many outstanding examples of the reasons we should renew. "

As long as you have to be a member to post I hope -- what's his name? Robert Leonard continues to renew 'cause he always adds such great humor to every thread he posts to. :) always makes me laugh (quietly at my desk)
However, most of the other guys should really consider chilling out a little. You know Terry, you should have learned from the Texans by now we will use pre-emptive strikes to remind everyone not to mess with us -- or
our daddies. :o:D
or our friends
or our courses
...
Laura A Phillips-Quattlebaum
20626

I can't keep it up forever, almost 60, you know.


You should quit now.

(#4693, I am impressed! Smarter than me, I didn't know about disc golf until #15117.)



I don't know about being smarter than you, your CV looks pretty impressive! ;) I joined every flying disc association I could find because I wanted them to send me INFORMATION . There weren't many other folks around here back then that I could visit with about flying disc activities, so I had to seek them out.

As long as you have to be a member to post I hope -- what's his name? Robert Leonard continues to renew 'cause he always adds such great humor to every thread he posts to. :) always makes me laugh (quietly at my desk)




Who?

I hate doing this, but I actually believe that a couple of people need to be persuaded that DISCussion is fun but not a good place for governance, for the future good of the PDGA.



Terry, i can't speak for Pat, but it seems to me he has made it clear, and i concur, that this DISCussion board can be a tool through which the PDGA communicates and receives feedback -- not that governance should take place via the DISCussion board. if that is a mis-take rather than a mischaraterization on your part, perhaps you and i and Pat have more in common regarding our notions of the potential value of this forum than you previously assumed :D

note also while we are discussing expenses that virtual meetings and summits do not entail the expenditures that in person summits do. (i am not saying better use of virtual possibilities should make in person meetings obselete -- just that it could potentially save costs, time, as well as provide instantaneous documentation)

we are not "governing" here. we are discussing. or at least attempting to.

you went nutsy on me for what you considered a breach of governance. but you eagerly excuse your own breaches with this "Every board member has. Big deal.".

come on, dude. why not lay off a little. believe it or not, we really would like to discuss things here.

you've made your point - you think i goofed when i made my origianl post about the BoD meeting. ok, we get it. can we please move on now?

You should quit now.



You, Colin Furrow, PDGA #28003, obviously do not know me :D

(Hey, BTW, why is the word "Jackass" over your photo on your MySpace page? And why is the inside stuff private? Must be some good stuff in there. Can I be your friend?)

I'll quit this particular push when PDGA board member Pat Brenner, PDGA #10403 (Sandalman) admits on DISCussion that DISCussion threads do not make a good governance or governance discussion forum.

Pat?

<font color="blue"> [personal attack removed by member request] </font>




Um, I'm Steve Dodge. And silly me, I thought I was trying to help! Wonder twin powers activate. Form of negative effects! :o

So far being on the board has gotten me a free dinner, a couple breakfasts, and an okey doke e-newsletter. Seems like an okay trade off.

Oh yeah, and my mom is even more proud of me.

-----------

PS. To everyone else out there, keep the great ideas coming. Hopefully the PDGA can become a responsive, organized, disc golf touting behemoth!

interesting thread re-title, but i thought maybe Terry was practicing for an audition to win the role of <font color="blue"> Oz </font> in the next remake of the Wizard of Oz...

Pat has never said governance should take place via the DISCussion board, just that the DISCussion board can be one tool the PDGA uses in its governance responsibilities ...

Terry, are you trying to prove your case by mischaracterizing Pat's position? :o

(Hey, BTW, why is the word "Jackass" over your photo on your MySpace page? That's my Team name
And why is the inside stuff private? Cause it's not public info
Must be some good stuff in there. Yup
Can I be your friend?) If you ask nicely.

I'll quit this particular push when PDGA board member Pat Brenner, PDGA #10403 (Sandalman) admits on DISCussion that DISCussion threads do not make a good governance or governance discussion forum.

Pat? Why would he do that?

"There's a fellow Texan, with rich friends in Saudi Arabia (bin Laden family, you know) and elsewhere, who's been working hard to see more people in that sort of situation. Guess who? "

so what you are saying is "the minority is important" ?




Don't you know how to use the "Quote" thingy. Also, your new sig is boring. Please share more PDGA budget numbers with us. That's the type of info we want to base our renewel option on. :D

I'll quit this particular push when PDGA board member Pat Brenner, PDGA #10403 (Sandalman) admits on DISCussion that DISCussion threads do not make a good governance or governance discussion forum.

Pat?



DISCussion threads, and discussion boards in general, can make a positive contribution to governance. factors that negatively impact the potential contribution include thread drift, emotional arguments rather than reasoned discussion, and personal attacks on other participants. limiting those influences via a published set of "Rules" that describes appropriate behavior and the penalties for breaching those standards.

so, i cannot "admit" to the statement to which you ask me to "admit". even this current thread is informative.

ok, we get it. can we please move on now?



Help, this PDGA board member - Pat Brenner, PDGA #10403 (Sandalman) is trying to hinder my free speech! I mean, I know he said "please," but he's on the board of directors - joined at the hip with the good 'ol boys who secretly rule things in disc golf. It's so intimidating.

You gonna get Steve Dodge's (PDGA #22042) (SteveDodge - very brave!) boys to "ban" me, Pat? Even after he continues to refuse to re-suspend his good buddy Jason Southwick's posting privileges for a verified breach of the agreement he made when I let him back on last May? (Can anyone say "conflict of interest?)

Oh, and Steve, what's with this "Hopefully the PDGA can become a responsive, organized, disc golf touting behemoth!" tagline? Are you still running for the board? I thought you were on the board now? Sounds like campaign language to me.

Doesn't that make the former board members still there, not to mention staff and other hard working volunteers think that maybe you have no appreciation for what they've done? Won't that make your job harder than it should be? Isn't it time to shift gears and govern?

ok, we get it. can we please move on now?



Help, this PDGA board member - Pat Brenner, PDGA #10403 (Sandalman) is trying to hinder my free speech! I mean, I know he said "please," but he's on the board of directors - joined at the hip with the good 'ol boys who secretly rule things in disc golf. It's so intimidating.

You gonna get Steve Dodge's (PDGA #22042) (SteveDodge - very brave!) boys to "ban" me, Pat? Even after he continues to refuse to re-suspend his good buddy Jason Southwick's posting privileges for a verified breach of the agreement he made when I let him back on last May? (Can anyone say "conflict of interest?)

Oh, and Steve, what's with this "Hopefully the PDGA can become a responsive, organized, disc golf touting behemoth!" tagline? Are you still running for the board? I thought you were on the board now? Sounds like campaign language to me.

Doesn't that make the former board members still there, not to mention staff and other hard working volunteers think that maybe you have no appreciation for what they've done? Won't that make your job harder than it should be? Isn't it time to shift gears and govern?




that post needs to go on the record.

btw, i already renewed. ooops... maybe BoD members get free membership. i should check on that. well, it doesnt matter, i've documented my reasons for renewing on a different thread.

Terry, are you trying to prove your case by mischaracterizing Pat's position? :o



Nope, Rob Johnston, PDGA #22020 (AviarX) that's not the case.

If you go back to another thread on which this was more-discussed - Man, these obligue references to something someone said somewhere in some thread sure do make it hard to pin things down don't they? - my current efforts were touched off by a posting in DISCussion of a personal set of "minutes," which if such a thing were to continue would bring governance to DISCussion and degrade the quality of real board discussions.

I think Pat and Terry both had too much bad turkey last weekend.

Renewal question. To stay a certified official one must not let your your membership lapse. Is there a grace period going into the new year that is allowed or must it be strictly continuous. For example: some clubs send in batches of renewals in January. Is that a lapse in membership that would put one's official status in jeopardy?

that post needs to go on the record.

btw, i already renewed. ooops... maybe BoD members get free membership. i should check on that. well, it doesnt matter, i've documented my reasons for renewing on a different thread.



It is on the record, Pat, d'oh!

And, there you go again. Don't you know that if you post even the possibility that board members get free memberships, you create the wrong belief in the heads of dozens of people that that is true?

You just wait, some time in the future, someone will post that as a truth. Great forum for communications, eh?

ok, now to clear up two things:

1. i will report direct personal attacks, yes. after that its up the the moderators as per the board Rules.

2. Using the form COI disclosure form that is currently used by the firm of a well respected CPA, i have submitted two revisions that would make the form useful for disclosing the conflict of interests the inevitably occur in organizations such as the PDGA. In the meantime, Steve has always been very forthcoming about his relationship with Jason. he has repeatedly met his duty to disclose.

Terry, it seems to me Pat's ideas are a lot sounder than you may prefer to believe -- if you give them a FAIR hearing. like anything else, if you cherry-pick what you hear a position to be, it becomes far easier to rebuke that position...

resolved: the DISCussion board can be a great tool for communication and feedback -- or -- it can be a place of havoc. it is up to each of us to try and tip it one way or the other ;)

1. i will report direct personal attacks, yes. after that its up the the moderators as per the board Rules.

2. Using the form COI disclosure form that is currently used by the firm of a well respected CPA, i have submitted two revisions that would make the form useful for disclosing the conflict of interests the inevitably occur in organizations such as the PDGA. In the meantime, Steve has always been very forthcoming about his relationship with Jason. he has repeatedly met his duty to disclose.



(a) I agree, personal attacks are absolutely wrong. That's what Jason did to our executive director - again - after agreeing in the first place not to until November 2007, in order to have posting privileges restored last May. (Steve has seen the message in which Jason agreed to that.)

(b) Disclosure is one thing, acting inappropriately on the conflict of interest is another. You know: "This is my buddy Jason" = disclosure. "My buddy Jason doesn't have to stick to his agreement" = inappropriate action.

What's really funny is that, so far, Pat has chosen to continue this in DISCussion instead of giving me a call. He really does like this as a communication's forum. Me, I'm using it to make a point. I'd rather talk on the phone, but the point isn't made yet, apparently.

i dont have your phone number, terry. since your orignal attack on me was here, i assumed this was your preferred mode of communication.

my number is not unlisted. my cell phone is: 682-225-1008.

i dont have your phone number, terry. since your orignal attack on me was here, i assumed this was your preferred mode of communication.

my number is not unlisted. my cell phone is: 682-225-1008.



(a) Not an attack on you, personally, Pat, a defense against your behaviors as a public person - a board member. And made on DISCussion because that's where the offending behavior took place. Continued on DISCussion to make the point that DISCussion is not the place for that kind of discussion.

(b) As I have pointed out repeatedly, my phone number is at the bottom of every single post I make. Sigh, I guess you have not actually been reading my posts?

Terry,

one of the duties of the oversight director was to investigate any questions of impropriety from a Member.

the September Minutes (http://www.pdga.com/documents/boardminutes/2006-09-21BODMeetingMinutesApproved.pdf) show that the Board discussed and agreed that "Directors will carry out tasks for which they were elected".

if you would like to suggest that a BoD Member has acted improperly, please provide me the details of the situation. i have not seen the agreement to which you refer, and it seems important to the matter you describe. if you wish i will make inquiries on your behalf.

contact me at the earliest convenience at [email protected] or at 682-225-1008.

thanks,

pat

just called. no answer. left a message.

Yeah, we got us a truce until we can talk tomorrow around lunch. Hope *everyone* can back off until then, to see if we can reason with each other.

kisses

And, there you go again. Don't you know that if you post even the possibility that board members get free memberships, you create the wrong belief in the heads of dozens of people that that is true?

You just wait, some time in the future, someone will post that as a truth. Great forum for communications, eh?



And Terry, if you print it in the rules that the OB line is OB, but nothing else changes in the OB rules, lots of players will think that a disc lying IB and touching the OB line is OB. So should rules also not be published?

People will read what they want to read.

Alan Sweeton, PDGA #22691 (bigs) is glad that this discussion is over, or at least on brief hiatus.

(a) Not an attack on you, personally, Pat, a defense against your behaviors as a public person - a board member. And made on DISCussion because that's where the offending behavior took place. Continued on DISCussion to make the point that DISCussion is not the place for that kind of discussion.



I think the point you are making, Terry, is the opposite one you are intending to make.

<font color="blue"> [personal attack deleted by moderator on request] </font> /msgboard/images/graemlins/ooo.gif

Edited by MP3 to rephrase in a more acceptable way:
<font color="blue">What I read here is how an otherwise respectable, knowledgeable and intelligent person is communicating in a way that goes against these positive attributes. And despite that uncharacteristic behvior, it is easy to see past the behavior to know that something larger in scope is going on.
</font>


That sort of approach to digesting DISCussion board postings is all that one needs to see that this is a useful communications tool/forum (but certainly not the only tool). Some posts are for serious, some are for fun/entertainment, some are provocations, some are informational, some are senseless (at times by intent), some are brainstorming, etc., etc.

One has to accept that communications will have some abiguity and will never be as nice and neat as corporate briefings or minutes or press releases. But one also has to accept that for a community to exist, there needs to be a "public square".

The DISCussion Board is a central gathering point of a community.....and communications within any community are never as antiseptic as you seem to want them (including people's usernames - that mean no more than their handle, by the way).

Let's get back on track. Looks like the poll is leaning towards NO renewal. :confused: :D

We may need a refresher on just what is a "personal attack," folks. Check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_attack. Emphasis (bold) mine:

"Generally, a personal attack is committed when a person substitutes abusive remarks for evidence when examining another person's claims or comments. It is considered a personal attack when a person starts referencing a supposed flaw or weakness in an individual's personality, beliefs, lifestyle, convictions or principles, and uses it as a debate tactic or as a means of avoiding discussion of the relevance or truthfulness the person's statement. It works on the reasoning that, by discrediting the source of a logical argument, namely the person making it, the argument itself can be weakened.

This line of "reasoning" is fallacious because the attack is directed at the person making the claim and not the claim itself. The truth value of a claim is independent of the person making the claim. No matter how morally repugnant a person might be, he or she can still make true claims. For example:

Witness: "I saw X murder the shopkeeper."
Defense attorney: "Isn't it true that you are a convicted felon?"

On the other hand, illuminating real character flaws and inconsistencies in the position of an opponent are a vital part of the public political process and of the adversarial judicial process. Use of a personal attack in a logical argument constitutes a logical fallacy called ad hominem, a term that comes from a Latin phrase meaning "toward the man"."

What you don't like hearing is not necessarily an "attack"; nor is a criticism directed at an individual necessarily a "personal attack." Just wanted to get that straight, and out here in public, outside the new corridors of power. :D

Oh great Puppetmaster,

You know what's great about the new BOD members? They believe in following actual PDGA rules. So it shouldn't actually be a surprise that Mr. Dodge refuses to enforce some back-room suspension that Theo gave Southwick...you know, the one where he didn't get a hearing, a chance to provide evidence, you know, basic jurisprudence so lacking in this overpriced organization.

On another subject, those of you in the betting pool on when a post of mine gets edited, we do not have a winner just yet, since the edit of my post upthread was actually only the quoted part of Terry's usual uncalled-for personal attack.

Like I said, Mikey, not that I expect you to get it, but I think the moderators will, read up on just what a "personal attack" is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_personal_attacks . . . and is not. Hint: It's not just something you don't like to read that is directed at an individual person.

I did, before I started these postings, and I am confident that none of my posts - not one - have fit the criteria. I suspect that every other one, or so, of yours might.

Your new user name alone should have had you suspended from posting privileges on this PDGA resource if the folks now in charge were on top of things.

Off to the Ann Arbor Mongolian Barbecue :) my wife is a guest cook tonight at a charitable event for a formerly-disc-golfing youngster my son's age who had an accident and is now a quadruplegic. (He's handling it well.)

C'ya all tomorrow. Be sure to do the "personal attack" homework.

interesting thread re-title, but i thought maybe Terry was practicing for an audition to win the role of <font color="blue"> Oz </font> in the next remake of the Wizard of Oz...

Pat has never said governance should take place via the DISCussion board, just that the DISCussion board can be one tool the PDGA uses in its governance responsibilities ...

Terry, are you trying to prove your case by mischaracterizing Pat's position? :o



[discsussion interuptus]Actually, that is exactly what Pat is doing, whether or not he has specifically written that. His direct action was to take decisions that he disagreed with, that were settled democratically by the Board, and bring them to this open forum to try and win his point.[discussion uninteruptus]

Funny how my post was edited and I was put on probation for a "personal attack" when what I said did not come close to matching wiki's defintion. I was commenting on a person's short-term recent behavior, NOT their character (or personality, beliefs, lifestyle, convictions or principles). In fact, what I said about their character was glowingly positive.

Either the moderator failed to comprehend wiki's definition, or the person requesting that my post be edited did not understand the definition.

Boy, I really can't go back and read through this. I see that Terry is still propping up his strawman; and now he is responding ad nauseum to every post, and editing posts.

This board rocks. :p

Boy, I really can't go back and read through this. I see that Terry is still propping up his strawman; and now he is responding ad nauseum to every post, and editing posts.



What, exactly, is that "straw man" you speak of. Can you define it? Try this: Straw man: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

"A straw man, or straw person, argument is a logical fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent. A straw-man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact misleading, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted."

I'd like an example of my having done that if you want to back up your "personal attack." :cool:

Sorry, heading out the door, really, but I couldn't resist this. I would love to have a straw man of mine pointed out - I like learning experiences.

I think Pat and Terry both had too much bad turkey last weekend.

Renewal question. To stay a certified official one must not let your your membership lapse. Is there a grace period going into the new year that is allowed or must it be strictly continuous. For example: some clubs send in batches of renewals in January. Is that a lapse in membership that would put one's official status in jeopardy?

You just have to renew every year. If you renew in January, February, March, it does not matter.

Hey, does anybody know what this thread is about? It's about whether a club in Maryland, I think, should spend $20 and renew its affilliated club status.

The Waterford Junior Girls Club is not likely to do a ten member bundled membership this year because only six of our dozen members are playing tournaments. But we'll renew as an affilliated club because they enjoy reading club news on the message board.

We're coming to the end of the year with a nice budget surplus, so the club will probably also pay for PDGA memberships for all of its members who are playing tournaments.

"Oooh, ahh! You wish you were a junior girl!" :D

It's pretty simple actually, and I pointed it out to you on the "PDGA Summit" thread when I claimed that you distorted a position in order to rebut it. At that time, I was referring to your distortion of a prevalent view that the message board could be better used by the BOD to communicate with the membership. You stated that people wanted "governance through the message board." That was not what was being advocated, but you asserted it, probably because it was an easy target. On this thread, you seem to still be doing that. Thus, my 'propping up the strawman' claim.

The other good news is that you don't have to bundle memberships this year to get the discount. So the 6 players can still get the discount without needing 4 more players to go in with them.

Funny how my post was edited and I was put on probation for a "personal attack" when what I said did not come close to matching wiki's defintion. I was commenting on a person's short-term recent behavior, NOT their character (or personality, beliefs, lifestyle, convictions or principles). In fact, what I said about their character was glowingly positive.

Either the moderator failed to comprehend wiki's definition, or the person requesting that my post be edited did not understand the definition.



your crime was who you offended -- not the substance of your post. you dared question the great Oz. you said he was uncharacteristicly acting like a donkey derrier. i'm surprised you weren't banned for life! /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

I think Pat and Terry both had too much bad turkey last weekend.

Renewal question. To stay a certified official one must not let your your membership lapse. Is there a grace period going into the new year that is allowed or must it be strictly continuous. For example: some clubs send in batches of renewals in January. Is that a lapse in membership that would put one's official status in jeopardy?



I'd suggest starting another thread with this question or shooting the question to [email protected]ga.com - Lorrie should be able to let you know.

---------

Whoops. Bruce's junior girls beat me to the answer, which I now know.

ok, we get it. can we please move on now?



Help, this PDGA board member - Pat Brenner, PDGA #10403 (Sandalman) is trying to hinder my free speech!<font color="red">Pot meet kettle</font>
I mean, I know he said "please," but he's on the board of directors - joined at the hip with the good 'ol boys who secretly rule things in disc golf. It's so intimidating. <font color="red"> the main factor in this BoD intimidation is the secrecy in which they hide themselves. </font>


You gonna get Steve Dodge's (PDGA #22042) (SteveDodge - very brave!) boys to "ban" me, Pat? Even after he continues to refuse to re-suspend his good buddy Jason Southwick's posting privileges for a verified breach of the agreement he made when I let him back on last May? (Can anyone say "conflict of interest?)<font color="red">did he sign a conract? I he didn't and just made a promise to abide by your terms then wouldn't these terms be void once you gave up power and so the new moderators can decide what is appropriate? </font>



Oh, and Steve, what's with this "Hopefully the PDGA can become a responsive, organized, disc golf touting behemoth!" tagline? Are you still running for the board? I thought you were on the board now? Sounds like campaign language to me.

Doesn't that make the former board members still there, not to mention staff and other hard working volunteers think that maybe you have no appreciation for what they've done? <font color="red">The same is true of any other official coming into office. I mean every president or governor comes in saying they will make right the wrongs of the current systen and I'm sure a few federal agencies and members of government get upset but then again that freedom of speech comes up. </font>


Won't that make your job harder than it should be? Isn't it time to shift gears and govern? <font color="red">
Yeah it sure is and maybe listen to what the members have to say. Ever heard of the sunshine laws? Well it is about bringing the governing body of the country or in this case out of the shadowy corners and into the sunshine by holding regularly in public session. Meetings were defined as either formal or informal, of the officials, including teleconferences with the exception of discussions over personal problems. I figure if this had made us the best country to live in that maybe it can make us an even better organization. </font>

Oh yeah I almost forgot! <font color="blue"> [offensive comment deleted] </font> After wading of this I am pretty sure you will pass Nick up on my all time schitt list if you keep posting in such a snobbish way.:confused:

You act as if you are THE MAN on the board and treat everyone as if they were subserviant to you. Are you really that conceited? Or maybe you just have very poor people skills? Do you have insecurities that you feel you have to try to cover up by treating people like trash? You seem like the type of guy who would support a fascist government in wehich the people are servants of the elite and used for money and labor. :(

Oh yeah I almost forgot! <font color="blue"> [offensive comment deleted] </font> After wading of this I am pretty sure you will pass Nick up on my all time schitt list if you keep posting in such a snobbish way.:confused:

You act as if you are THE MAN on the board and treat everyone as if they were subserviant to you. Are you really that conceited? Or maybe you just have very poor people skills? Do you have insecurities that you feel you have to try to cover up by treating people like trash? You seem like the type of guy who would support a fascist government in wehich the people are servants of the elite and used for money and labor. :(



Wow Matt, that's pretty brutal, do you even know the definition of fascism? Remember that Terry served in our armed services during Viet Nam and is accomplished in the arts of communication through the web, it's what he does for a living.

Let me see if I can give you some perspective on Terry's postion.

Why did Hawk start this thread? Do you really think that Hawk doesn't have the intelligence, the acumen, the capicity to decide for himself whether he should re up next year? Perhaps it is that he doesn't have the guts, or the balls to make the decision on his own. Somehow I don't think that is true. You'd have to be a pretty worthless wreck to be unable to handle such a decision on your own. Then again, maybe Hawk feels we haven't the intelligence to make the decision on our own?

One might make the argument that Hawk's goal is to spread as much discord, or to do as much damage as possible on his way out, what a noble cause. Conversely, you might argue that Hawk is trying to implement change or push the PDGA in a better direction. Any Organizational Behaviorist would tell you that this is a pretty bad way to do that.

I don't think that any of those are true. Hawk is doing what Hawk always does. He is getting attention. This is the same thing he does when he sets up semi-nude women in his avitars (the same goes for semi-nude men), it's what the Hawk knows best thread under miscellaneous is about, and it's what his personal competition with Dr. Evil is about... "Hey look at me!"

Now, there's nothing wrong with wanting attention, we all like it in some measure, but there is something wrong with using the trashing of something other people have worked very hard at building as your way of getting attention. If you really think you're poorly served, go away. It's that simple. If you really want to change things, volunteer or run for an office; help to implement change. Even Pat's approach, as much as I disagree with it, involved getting involved.

This is what lights Terry up; Hawk is doing this for entertainment value.

Now Hawk is likely to come on here and defend himself, but you think about it Matt. What is the purpose of this thread? Is it really going to help change anything?

As for Terry's style of posting each person's identity. What Terry knows is that people are often willing to do what Hawk is doing from annonymity. They know deep down that what they are doing is wrong but they don't want to admit it to themselves. If you identify them they are much less willing to act; take for example the KKK. Unfortunatly, I suspect Terry is wrong in this. His knowledge is correct but people are still far enough removed from the message board that they will feel safe from their actions here even when identified. I feel this because I readily identify myself here in order to increase my sense of responsibility for my actions. Nonetheless, at times I act in a very inappropriate manner. It's sort of like calling a valued contributer to the sport whom you've maybe met once a fascist, something you'd never do in person...

Lyle O. Ross
21163

BTW - there's a reason I ask you if know the definition of fascism. It has become a catch phrase for both the neo-cons and the liberals. Neither uses is correctly but each knows it has a potent impact. Terry is the antithesis of a fascist. In actuality, Pat is closer. His notion that his actions are correct no matter the rule of law or the democratic process is very close to what a fascist leader does. Let me be clear though, I would never call Pat a fascist, his end goal is to empower the membership, hardly a fascist goal.

There goes James causing trouble again..... :confused: :D

This thread reminds me of a classic movie....One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest :p

So it shouldn't actually be a surprise that Mr. Dodge refuses to enforce some back-room suspension that Theo gave Southwick...you know, the one where he didn't get a hearing, a chance to provide evidence, you know, basic jurisprudence so lacking in this overpriced organization.



Thanks for the support Mikey, but I am guessing that you (and Terry) don't know all of the particulars in this case.

Well it seems pretty clear to me

Facsism-governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism.

This is what I feel that the PDGA has been coming closer and closer to with the exception that we have a BoD instead of a dictator. Even so they do most activities behid closed doors and with the exception of Pat and probably Steve they act as if they were a single person who rules without a decent system to control these activities. :confused:

You should quit now.



You, Colin Furrow, PDGA #28003, obviously do not know me :D

(Hey, BTW, why is the word "Jackass" over your photo on your MySpace page? And why is the inside stuff private? Must be some good stuff in there. Can I be your friend?)



Terry say pretty much the same thing I did and he doesn't have his post deleted. Why is this? I guess I should have said that after reading the way in which he words his posts it makes him seem like a not so nice guy? I have met Terry and he seemed to be a good guy and I was just trying to maybe give him a heads up so that he is not judged based solely of his recent posts.

It's pretty simple actually, and I pointed it out to you on the "PDGA Summit" thread when I claimed that you distorted a position in order to rebut it. At that time, I was referring to your distortion of a prevalent view that the message board could be better used by the BOD to communicate with the membership. You stated that people wanted "governance through the message board." That was not what was being advocated, but you asserted it, probably because it was an easy target. On this thread, you seem to still be doing that. Thus, my 'propping up the strawman' claim.



I believe that what is being advocated amounts to precisely that. In fact, what was posted by one board member is clearly seen by several experienced, senior association executives that I have shared it with as bringing governance to the DISCussion thread.

In other words, I truly believe it, so it therefore cannot be a straw man. A straw man is something you create for the purpose of diversion of argument; never something you really believe in.

Well it seems pretty clear to me

Facsism-governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism.

This is what I feel that the PDGA has been coming closer and closer to with the exception that we have a BoD instead of a dictator. Even so they do most activities behid closed doors and with the exception of Pat and probably Steve they act as if they were a single person who rules without a decent system to control these activities. :confused:



Amazing fantasies.

In other words, I truly believe it, so it therefore cannot be a straw man. A straw man is something you create for the purpose of diversion of argument; never something you really believe in.



Are you pleading insanity? :p

Terry, can you please define "governance" in the way that you are using it here?

Terry is a socialist, not a fascist. But at their extremes they are indistinguishable.

Craig Wesnofske #23673, here. I just want to publicly express my ill feelings towards the moderators of this bored for putting MP3 (Dave Marchant #24242) on probation. One needs only discuss with any member of the Charlotte disc golf club, hall of famers of this area, and most likely all the employees of Innova East, to understand that the perception of the moderators towards his post was completely taken out of context. It is appauling to think the PDGA and the moderators of this bored do not appreciate what he has done to promote the sport, the PDGA, and understand that his insight and ideas are extremely valuable in gaining membership and assisting disc golf in gaining credibility. Pretty sad!

After reading this entire thread, if I was a moderator, I would be more concerned with how many of the statements made by Terry could easily be perceived as attacking and detrimental to the PDGA and this bored. If I made some of the statements Terry has made here, I would not ever go to Texas!

Thanks for your support PP. I'm flattered, but I think you overstate my case a little. I chose inflammatory language to point out what you notice as inflammatory and snide responses by Terry (several of them have been edited out since they were made). That was wrong of me.

I communicated with the moderator and Steve Dodge on this and understand their position....and they understand mine. I appreciated the tone and manner in which they communicated. I think I will have no problem keeping my nose clean for 3 months and get out under the cloud of the "big P" unscathed. :cool:

Your communication skills should serve as an example for others on here, Dave. Having just read the whole thread this morning, I hope you can understand where I was coming from. This thread reaks of double standard doo-doooooo!

it's both resource and resistance. dont ever underestimate the power of momentum.

on the topic of whether to renew a personal membership, my pesonal view is that for active players the pdga offers a unique bundle of services that support organized competitive events and encourages the long term development of the sport.

for me, the combination of rules and other standards, ratings, and the broad communications that are enabled by the DISCussion Board are valuable. Development activities are always subject to great debate because their inherent riskiness assures some will fail. but we still need to keep trying and the fact that the pdga does continue to try adds to its value.

my own feeling is that the value offered by its event-related and community-building activities makes the pdga a membership organization i'm happy to support with a Membership.

It is appauling to think the PDGA and the moderators of this bored do not appreciate what he has done to promote the sport, the PDGA, and understand that his insight and ideas are extremely valuable in gaining membership and assisting disc golf in gaining credibility. Pretty sad!



What I think would be appalling is if the moderators of this board took a persons history and contributions into account when deciding what punishment to apply when they violate the rules of the message board. To allow any one person to get away with not following the rules while others are punished for the same behavior would be a serious transgression and misuse of power.

And I do admit that I am surprised at some of the content that has been allowed to remain in this thread.

So then, do you include Terry's statements as part of the inapropriate content and thus punishable like others?

To allow any one person to get away with not following the rules while others are punished for the same behavior would be a serious transgression and misuse of power.

Thanks MTL!

I had no need to post when Gary said the exact thing I was thinking.

The problem is that Terry is very careful about the content of his posts. I don't think that any single post steps across the line, but the collective tone of the posts seems to be objectionable.

Like Pat, his goal is a good one and one he strongly believes in.

Collectively, I see folks FOR disc golf here. What is up for grabs, at least in some folks' minds, is how due process concerning change is being used/abused. We have the 'information age' vs 'behind closed doors' duking it out! /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

If there's information that you find inappropriate, submit a formal complaint and it will be reviewed. That's the only reason anything has been moderated in this thread.

Craig, you say "shame on the moderators" for editing Dave's post and then give reasons why he is a great guy. I have no doubt that Dave is a great guy, but that has no bearing on whether or not his recent post was appropriate or not.

If there's information that you find inappropriate, submit a formal complaint and it will be reviewed.



When?

What are the guidelines for this?

Well it seems pretty clear to me

Facsism-governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism.

This is what I feel that the PDGA has been coming closer and closer to with the exception that we have a BoD instead of a dictator. Even so they do most activities behid closed doors and with the exception of Pat and probably Steve they act as if they were a single person who rules without a decent system to control these activities. :confused:



Sorry but you're wrong Matt, on both fronts. Get out your dictionary and look up the definition and read the whole thing. Current defs often add in the concept of a leader who is above the law (i.e. Hitler, Bush etc.) Let me be clear, the definition of fascism is directed towards states, it doesn't fit any context but a nation, especially not an organization like this one, even if we had a dictator who ruled from on high. It includes militant nationalism, which doesn't apply in any measure to any organization but a country. Again, the term is used because it is incendiary. [yawn]

While I have posted this many times, it seems that it is true, T.V. has eliminated our culture's ability to focus and remember something for more than 5 minutes. If you buy the notion that the PDGA is a dictatorship ruled on high then you have to accept that all democracies are dictatorships ruled on high. In all cases the body of the country or organization votes for a leadership thus empowering that leadership to act on their behalf. If the leadership does not deliver then the membership has the right to vote them out of office. Before Bruce pokes in, the New Constitution is set up in such a way that the Board could take away the right to vote. [Yawn] However, in a capitalist system, and this is a capitalist system, the only vote that really matters is the one you make when you send in that hot little check. If you want we can come back to this very hashed issue later.

Again, all democracies run this way and there are checks and balances as to what those voted into power can do. In the case of our government we have literally thousands of rules with a few very clear ones (directly in our Constitution) that act as checks and balances. They have all pretty much failed with our current Administration hence the democratic process creamed the Republicans in the last election. Did the Republicans really do anything wrong, well yes, but ignoring that, they were in essence doing what the electorate voted them into office to do. Obviously what they decided to do was not what the voters wanted.

The PDGA is no different. If the PDGA really takes actions that it's membership doesn't like, there will be a change. Of course the system here isn't perfect due to the overall lack of warm bodies available to run for office. That is, a rebel who doesn't necessarily fit what the majority wants can get into office and make a mess simply because there is no one running against him/her.

Your notion, and that of Pat and others, that this is a dictatorship run on high, simply conveys a lack of knowledge about democracies and how they work. That shouldn't surprise anyone given the general lack of knowledge about politics that polls show exist in this country.

You, and Pat or Hawk or anyone else might not like what the Board is doing, but that doesn't mean they are wrong or a dictatorship. I don't much care for what our President does but that doesn't change the fact that for the most part he is following the democratic procedure. I can carp about it and point out those instances where he breaks the law but I can't lie about what he's done.

The reality is that the Board has followed the rules. They are much more open than what is presented on this MB. The real issue is that there is a subpart of our membership that thinks the Board should respond directly to them. It's sort of like my saying that the President or my State Congress person should reply and be directly responsive to me (look at the numbers, the volume of voters and participants is not that different for some districts).

Now, I am going to grant that information could be made available more quickly in this forum, but that isn't the same as saying they don't provide information at all. They do in a regular and reliable fashion; just not one that some members feel is adequate. Again, you might disagree, but that is within their job duties to determine. If someone doesn't like that, they need to vote or do something to change it, like volunteer, but lying about the situation isn't the answer. BTW - it is indeed a lie to say they operate behind closed doors. All meetings are announced in advance, are open to the public, and are presented in summary in DGWN. This is hardly Putin poisoning dissenters here. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Last point, it has become a favorite political tactic to misstate what your opponent is actually doing and to keep repeating that until it sticks. It�s a sad thing to see that the PDGA is no less susceptible to that than the public at large.

Collectively, I see folks FOR disc golf here. What is up for grabs, at least in some folks' minds, is how due process concerning change is being used/abused. We have the 'information age' vs 'behind closed doors' duking it out! /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif



Yes, exactly......that is why I asked Terry for his working definition of "Governance". I am really not sure what Terry stands for in this discussion. It seems like he thinks that no part of governance can be conducted on the DISCussion Board; that any thing related to the PDGA Government finding its way into a 2-way dialog with its customers/members/constituancy would have a detrimental long term effect on the health of the PDGA.

Look up "Governance" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governance) and "Good Governance" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Governance) in Wikipedia (links provided). Terry may well have a different working definition and base assumptions, but from what I read here, there are lots of aspects of governance (and especially "good governance") that would fit very well into this communications channel.

Terry?

If there's information that you find inappropriate, submit a formal complaint and it will be reviewed.



When?

What are the guidelines for this?



Click on the "Rules" link at the top of this page

excellent post

The problem is that Terry is very careful about the content of his posts.



Yep. I am. Puzzling how that can be seen as a "problem," though. If only it were contagious. Sigh.

Pat and I had a loong call this morning. I think we're on the same page now, regarding what set me off in the first place. Which is not to say we agree on everything, but my very specific concerns about the PDGA's future are very specifically allayed.

"Your notion, and that of Pat and others, that this is a dictatorship run on high"

please do not put words into my mouth. i have never said that, nor do i believe it. do i believe there could be more transparency? yes. do i believe the pdga is a dictatorship? no.

Here are a few snippets from Wikipedia that I think support expanding the role of the DISCussion Board into the PDGA governance process:

Corporate governance aims to:
* align the actions of the individual parts of an organisation toward aggregate mutual benefit
* provide the means by which each individual part of the organisation can trust that the other parts each make their contribution to the mutual benefit of the organisation and that none gain unfairly at the expense of others
* provide a means by which information can quickly flow between the various stakeholders to ensure that the changing nature of both the stakeholder needs and desires and the environment in which the organisation operates get effectively factored into decision processes

Good governance can be understood as a set of 8 major characteristics:
* participation,
* rule of law,
* transparency,
* responsiveness,
* consensus orientation,
* equity and inclusiveness,
* effectiveness and efficiency and
* accountability.
These characteristics assure that
* corruption is minimized,
* the views of minorities are taken into account and
* that the voices of the most vulnerable in society are heard in decision-making

Collectively, I see folks FOR disc golf here. What is up for grabs, at least in some folks' minds, is how due process concerning change is being used/abused. We have the 'information age' vs 'behind closed doors' duking it out! /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif



Yes, exactly......that is why I asked Terry for his working definition of "Governance". I am really not sure what Terry stands for in this discussion. It seems like he thinks that no part of governance can be conducted on the DISCussion Board; that any thing related to the PDGA Government finding its way into a 2-way dialog with its customers/members/constituancy would have a detrimental long term effect on the health of the PDGA.

Look up "Governance" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governance) and "Good Governance" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Governance) in Wikipedia (links provided). Terry may well have a different working definition and base assumptions, but from what I read here, there are lots of aspects of governance (and especially "good governance") that would fit very well into this communications channel.

Terry?



Excellent post. It seems to me that the problem lies in the approach. The MB, or this site in general, comes under the categories of transparency and accountability. While the "opposition" often states that is how they want this site to be used, they are being a little disingenuous. The site is used for transparency and accountability and it could be used more so, but that isn't their goal. Their goal is to be able to affect the actions of the Board through this medium. Or to state it more clearly, their goal is to affect Board decisions and actions period, the medium is irrelevant, this one just happens to be the current focus. That is not good governance and it is inappropriate, period.

Sooooo, you have a situation where Terry is talking about what they are trying to accomplish, control of Board decisions, while they're very astutely focusing on transparency and accountability. If you doubt what I'm writing look at Pat's actions. The Board came to some positions on certain items. Pat disagreed with those positions so he brought them to this MB to try and affect the outcome. He's not using the MB for transparency or accountability, he's using it to support his agenda and thus affect the outcome of a decision already made. Politics is politics, even in the PDGA.

BTW - even in this the 'opposition' is incorrect. Governance does occur here. I've seen several instances where this medium has been used very efficiently to affect Board actions, some for the better, and some for the worse. Therein lies the problem. Do you really want your Board jumping to the few loud voices that occur in this one environment? Only at the level that there is information but that is already in place.

"Your notion, and that of Pat and others, that this is a dictatorship run on high"

please do not put words into my mouth. i have never said that, nor do i believe it. do i believe there could be more transparency? yes. do i believe the pdga is a dictatorship? no.



Transparancy? If only I could quirk my eyebrow like Spock could.

Please refer to my last post.

Well it seems pretty clear to me

Facsism-governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism.


This is what I feel that the PDGA has been coming closer and closer to with the exception that we have a BoD instead of a dictator. Even so they do most activities behid closed doors and with the exception of Pat and probably Steve they act as if they were a single person who rules without a decent system to control these activities. :confused:





Sorry but you're wrong Matt, on both fronts. Get out your dictionary and look up the definition and read the whole thing. <font color="red">That definition came from Wilkipedia </font>



Current defs often add in the concept of a leader who is above the law (i.e. Hitler, Bush etc.) <font color="red">So Bush is a fascist? </font>

While I have posted this many times, it seems that it is true, T.V. has eliminated our culture's ability to focus and remember something for more than 5 minutes. <font color="red"> Wow you sure make generalizations. </font>


Again, all democracies run this way and there are checks and balances as to what those voted into power can do.<font color="red"> What checks and balances does our organization have besides our vote? </font>



The PDGA is no different. If the PDGA really takes actions that it's membership doesn't like, there will be a change.<font color="red">This starts now! The pdga also needs a consecutive term limit IMO but they BoD wouldn't ever agree to give up some of its power. </font>

Your notion, and that of Pat and others, that this is a dictatorship run on high, simply conveys a lack of knowledge about democracies and how they work. <font color="red">Personal attack on our intelligence/knowledge? </font>

I don't much care for what our President does but that doesn't change the fact that for the most part he is following the democratic procedure. <font color="red">I thought he was a fascist? </font>

The reality is that the Board has followed the rules. They are much more open than what is presented on this MB. <font color="red">Explain</font>

Now, I am going to grant that information could be made available more quickly in this forum, but that isn't the same as saying they don't provide information at all. <font color="red"> Yeah they provide outdated minutes. </font>

They do in a regular and reliable fashion.<font color="red">reliale as in eventually it will be reported??? </font> BTW - it is indeed a lie to say they operate behind closed doors. All meetings are announced in advance, are open to the public, and are presented in summary in DGWN. This is hardly Putin poisoning dissenters here.<font color="red">What about teleconferences? I doubt they would let me listen in on one </font>

Last point, it has become a favorite political tactic to misstate what your opponent is actually doing and to keep repeating that until it sticks. <font color="red"> Like calling the president a fascist? </font> It�s a sad thing to see that the PDGA is no less susceptible to that than the public at large.

Or to state it more clearly, their goal is to affect Board decisions and actions period, the medium is irrelevant, this one just happens to be the current focus. That is not good governance and it is inappropriate, period.



Why is it bad governance and inappropriate? If you mean by �the opposition�, current board members, then I agree. If it is regular members, then I strongly disagree.


Sooooo, you have a situation where Terry is talking about what they are trying to accomplish, control of Board decisions, while they're very astutely focusing on transparency and accountability. If you doubt what I'm writing look at Pat's actions. The Board came to some positions on certain items. Pat disagreed with those positions so he brought them to this MB to try and affect the outcome. He's not using the MB for transparency or accountability, he's using it to support his agenda and thus affect the outcome of a decision already made. Politics is politics, even in the PDGA.



Please drop this already! Pat understands this. Pat and Terry had a long talk this AM and seem to have come to an understanding. Please respect them in this and show a little good will.


Governance does occur here. I've seen several instances where this medium has been used very efficiently to affect Board actions, some for the better, and some for the worse <font color="red">(in your opinion at least)</font>. Therein lies the problem. Do you really want your Board jumping to the few loud voices that occur in this one environment? Only at the level that there is information but that is already in place.



I agree with you that the DB has affected governance effectively at times. And I respect the maturity and discernment of the BOD to look past the loud voices and look at the larger picture. They have repeatedly demonstrated that to me that they see the big picture��unfortunately usually well after the fact.

My position is that it would build on the trust and enthusiasm (that is already there) throughout the ranks if people felt like there was more of an ongoing 2-way street. Communicating the �why�s� of decisions is treating people like mature adults and inherently builds trust and good will.

It's bad governance and inappropirate because it's the job of the Board to represent the organization as a whole, not the loud voices that appear here.

Let me be clear, I don't agree with every decision the Board makes, but I'm also adamant that using this medium to affect decisions is inappropriate. It isn't representative of the sport as a whole. Take the obvious, when was the last time you saw any top Pro express an opinion on this topic? How many people are actually following and commenting here?

Information, yes, direct influence no.

Matt, you haven't participated in a meeting because you haven't tried. That's a pretty poor excuse for saying they're a dictatorship. BTW - try Websters.

Sandalman, my appologies, you haven't called them a dictatorship. You just implied it in various ways prior to getting elected. Do I have to go dig up the posts? BTW - when you posted the numbers in your afterline, why didn't you post how great they were until after you were called on it? Just curious...

If there's information that you find inappropriate, submit a formal complaint and it will be reviewed.



When?

What are the guidelines for this?



Click on the "Rules" link at the top of this page



And not to try and build more work for the moderators, but every post has four icons at the end of it. The third icon is a "Notify Moderator" button. I've never tried it, but apparently it works.

The pdga also needs a consecutive term limit IMO but they BoD wouldn't ever agree to give up some of its power.



False. When given the opportunity, this board has already shown a willingness to reduce the length of its members' terms.

Just 2&endash;3 years ago, the PDGA board of directors decided to move the election date so that new directors could be on board during the planning process for the next year''s tour.

Prior to that, new directors joined the board on February 1, in the middle of an ongoing year for which all decisions had previously been made.

In doing so, the board had two choices:

(a) Add 6 months onto the terms of the current board members; or

(b) reduce current board members' terms by 6 months.

As was reported in DISCussion and even discussed here more than once, the board decide the best route was to shorten each member's currently-elected-for term.

So now, new board members join the board on September 1 each year. If that were not so, I would still be on the board until February 1, 2007.

So, despite this assertion: "The pdga also needs a consecutive term limit IMO but they BoD wouldn't ever agree to give up some of its power." - experience shows that the board will give up its "power" by shortening the length of terms a member can serve.

There's no doubt in my mind that the board would vote for term limits if the issue ever was important enough to rise on the priority list as something worth spending time on. I expect that to happen as part of the overall fleshing out of the new bylaws that will be happening in the next year or two.

Also fact: I gave up my seat and chose not to run for re-election primarily to make room for new blood. There's no doubt in my mind that I could have run, and won, a third elected term.

BTW - Pat, in the best interests of good governance and since we're being open, what percentage of the membership comes to the PDGA site, and what percentage posts to the MB? It would be awesome to see a spread, something like 10 members come here once a day, 20 come here once a week etc. so we aren't just looking at the total number, which might not really reflect their impact on the site.

Now Terry,

You're being modest, in how many elections has the BoD had to go looking for warm bodies because no one would run? Term-limits [Spock eyebrow raise] That's two in one day.

I will renew my membership because:
-the $ is going toward growing the sport
-the elected members (whom I helped elect) seem to be folks of integrity who want too grow the sport and maintain fairness
-general communication has improved greatly in recent years
-the tour, tour structure, and divisional structure works (can be improved, but good for now)
-player ratings and course ratings continue to evolve
-the PDGA is an organic entity which will continue to grow, to try, to fail, to succeed, and to provide opportunity for thousands of disc golf players worldwide

All the other crap, including this comical discussion board, is peripheral to me. Helping to grow the sport we love is enough reason to renew.

Wow, I don't agree with Lyles categorization that people want to affect the BOD's decisions through the board. The BOD members are not required, or even obligated to read any discussions on the board. They are free to propose what they wish and vote their will. That is the heart of governance. So, given that, I don't see how the discussion board could ever be confused with the act of governance. At most, it is a vehicle for communication.

As a communication tool, I don't notice any problem with the membership's ability to voice their opinions. The problem I see is that the discussion board could be used by the BOD to get their ideas out and sell them; or simply introduce themselves and say "This is what I care about." We are perfectly capable of taking this communication from the BOD and starting our own threads and discussing those topics. The members of the BOD can join in, read silently, or completely ignore the discussion.

The loss that is going on is not some upward governance scheme by the membership, it is the downward communication from the BOD to the membership.

It's bad governance and inappropirate because it's the job of the Board to represent the organization as a whole, not the loud voices that appear here.



We agree here. Like I said, I trust the leadership in their discernment in how they take input and ideas from all sources, this one included.


Let me be clear, I don't agree with every decision the Board makes, but I'm also adamant that using this medium to affect decisions is inappropriate. It isn't representative of the sport as a whole. Take the obvious, when was the last time you saw any top Pro express an opinion on this topic? How many people are actually following and commenting here?



With the way that things presently are � the culture and dynamics of this DB � I can understand why there is not more active and intelligent participation here. I also think that recognizing one �public square� for a community as diverse and far flung as the PDGA�s, would be a bad thing.

What I am advocating is changing the status quo. Changing it in a way that will continue to build trust, cooperation, and good will and take it to a new level. I see the internet and interactivity on the internet as the major medium where this can happen.

If the PDGA wants to develop an economy that will support a substantial Professional player base, they/we need to build a really, really, really substantial base of non-professionals who are actively competing and addicted to DG. �Really, really, really� means something like 50,000 players for every professional who is making their livelihood off the sport. To accomplish this, major trust, cooperation and good will is needed.

Sandalman, my appologies, you haven't called them a dictatorship. You just implied it in various ways prior to getting elected. Do I have to go dig up the posts? BTW - when you posted the numbers in your afterline, why didn't you post how great they were until after you were called on it? Just curious...


any implications you saw are the result of youir own biases, not my beliefs.

i did not post my feelings about the numbers until i was asked what i thought about them. the numbers are the numbers, and i believe the Members are smart enough to evaluate numbers themselves. i was not "called" on anything. some people did ask me why i was criticizing the PDGA by posting those numbers. their assumption that i was criticizing the PDGA is their assumption/bias. it is not reality. when i was asked what i tohught about hte numbers i replied. no conspiracy or ulterior motive here. sorry. maybe on the Impeach Bush thread, though.

BTW - Pat, in the best interests of good governance and since we're being open, what percentage of the membership comes to the PDGA site, and what percentage posts to the MB? It would be awesome to see a spread, something like 10 members come here once a day, 20 come here once a week etc. so we aren't just looking at the total number, which might not really reflect their impact on the site.




....and what has the trend been in the last 5 years of PDGA members that renew.

Wow, I don't agree with Lyles categorization that people want to affect the BOD's decisions through the board. The BOD members are not required, or even obligated to read any discussions on the board. They are free to propose what they wish and vote their will. That is the heart of governance. So, given that, I don't see how the discussion board could ever be confused with the act of governance. At most, it is a vehicle for communication.

As a communication tool, I don't notice any problem with the membership's ability to voice their opinions. The problem I see is that the discussion board could be used by the BOD to get their ideas out and sell them; or simply introduce themselves and say "This is what I care about." We are perfectly capable of taking this communication from the BOD and starting our own threads and discussing those topics. The members of the BOD can join in, read silently, or completely ignore the discussion.

The loss that is going on is not some upward governance scheme by the membership, it is the downward communication from the BOD to the membership.



Agreed, but then again, that's what's happening James, it's happend in the past and it is exactly what Pat has done recently. So while I agree with your message, and argue that it should be so, I think we need to understand that isn't what is happening.

BTW - I can't state clearly enough that I feel the site as a medium for commmunication, transparency, and accountability is important. But all to often, it's been focused on as if it is the only means. The clear communication that has occurred elsewhere has been ignored in that all consuming message. That is unfair and inaccurate. It is also not unlikely, hence my last post to Pat, that as a medium to convey information to the membership as a whole, the site has a marginal impact.

Lastly, you contradict yourself, you talk about the site as a communications tool and as a way to provide information to the BoD while saying "they don't have to pay attention." There is no question that the site is being used to influence decisions and there is no question that posters come to this place to do exactly that. If no one else will step up to the plate I will. I come here to influence the PDGA and Board, I know it works, I've seen it in action.

Sandalman, my appologies, you haven't called them a dictatorship. You just implied it in various ways prior to getting elected. Do I have to go dig up the posts? BTW - when you posted the numbers in your afterline, why didn't you post how great they were until after you were called on it? Just curious...


any implications you saw are the result of youir own biases, not my beliefs.

i did not post my feelings about the numbers until i was asked what i thought about them. the numbers are the numbers, and i believe the Members are smart enough to evaluate numbers themselves. i was not "called" on anything. some people did ask me why i was criticizing the PDGA by posting those numbers. their assumption that i was criticizing the PDGA is their assumption/bias. it is not reality. when i was asked what i tohught about hte numbers i replied. no conspiracy or ulterior motive here. sorry. maybe on the Impeach Bush thread, though.



Thanks Pat!

BTW - Pat, in the best interests of good governance and since we're being open, what percentage of the membership comes to the PDGA site, and what percentage posts to the MB? It would be awesome to see a spread, something like 10 members come here once a day, 20 come here once a week etc. so we aren't just looking at the total number, which might not really reflect their impact on the site.

that would be an interesting analysis. i cannot say what date i could commit to completing it, but i would be happy to do so if you really want. i'd enjoy contemplating the results of it as well.

may i submit for consideration that the purpose of a great many posts here, indeed much of all communication in general, is to influence decisions and actions?

may i submit for consideration that the purpose of a great many posts here, indeed much of all communication in general, is to influence decisions and actions?



Yes, but how should that occur and how appropriate is it in this medium? Is it fair to give a handful of members disproportionate influence... members who have not been elected to office?

ANY member can come onto this MB & spout all of the "influences" he/she wants. So any unfairness or claims of "disproportionate influence" are imaginary.

....and what has the trend been in the last 5 years of PDGA members that renew.



Don't have the trend and I'm no longer on the board so I am not going to bother staff for it myself, but the current renewal rate for individual years has been shared with the board of directors and also on DISCussion a few times. I would not be surprised if someone can also find it in an old Disc Golf World issue's year-end report from the PDGA.

Each time that I remember, the PDGA's annual renewal rates were within the desired range for membership associations.

I'm thinking that the one year I remember, it was in the range something like 79 percent overall, and I'll say that here with a caveat that it's a guess-from-memory. I do remember for certain that the last time I got the figure I compared it to my day job and it was only a single percentage different than the renewal rate for my far more mature employer-association, the Society for College and University Planning (SCUP) - and SCUP plays an important role in its professional members' lives.

My guess is that the percentage has been rising. It almost certainly rose this past year, given that we set records, by huge amounts, for membership numbers - probably from renewals and new memberships. Similarly, I would expect it to go down some in a year following such huge growth, since I also recall that the lowest percentage of renewals is from first-year members. (Remember that I said that in case I blame a decline in renewals on new board members next year!)

It's pretty amazing that a 25-year-old (or thereabouts) association has more than a third of the members it's ever had current right now.

I know the new memberships are on the rise. I paid for my son when he was 5 days old... #24447, two and a half years ago. According to the PDGA membership page we are approaching #31500. So, 7000 new members in 2.5 years and only 11,130 TOTAL current members...for a difference of 4130(renewals)?? :confused:

"Similarly, I would expect it to go down some in a year following such huge growth"

yes, i share your concern about that possibility. especially given that we'll have a new membership manager in 2007. Lorrie is an awfully tough act to follow! (thats a compliment, just to be clear).

let's hope that with good planning and a solid transition team the numbers stay up during 07-08. not only will that mean the PDGA came through the transition in flying colors, but also that there wont be a membership decrease for someone to blame on a combination of me and this blasted message board :D

Rich raised this point on the exclusive State Coordinators thread but I think it's interesting enough to thrash out here. When Ms. Gibson emailed me back replying to my reply of her renewal email informing her that I wasn't intending to renew she cited my subject heading as one of the reasons the PDGA is so wonderful. Rich and I have felt for a long time that the movers and shakers in the PDGA aren't out on the courses during events seeing what is going on, or actually know who their membership is. For instance here at the number of sanctioned events played by select big mack daddy's in 2006 as of today's player profiles:

Brian Hoeniger-5
Theo Pozzy-3
Pat Brenner-8
Cris Bellinger-7
Steve Dodge- 0
Terry Calhoun-2
Chuck Kennedy-10
Stork Roddick-5
David Gentry-2
Jon Lyksett-1
<font color="red">Mutt & Jeff </font>
Alan Sweeton-18 (okay finally someone who might be in touch with reality)
Jeff Lagrassa- 0 <font color="blue"> Has not played a sanctioned event since 2004 when he played in two! </font>

I would suspect that these numbers are below the average for active (i.e played at least one sanctioned tourney a year) players in The Associaton. I learned from Ms. Gibson that is how the PDGA is referred by the inside crowd.

At this level of participation can these decision makers (other than Alan & Chuck) be considered in touch with reality, or are they living in ivory towers?

Lastly, you contradict yourself, you talk about the site as a communications tool and as a way to provide information to the BoD while saying "they don't have to pay attention."


I don't remember talking about the board as a way to provide communications TO the BOD, just FROM the board.

The bottom line for me has nothing to to do with abstract ideas on governing, or the dynamics of the message board. My concern is that I continually witness and hear about discontent from the membership. Much of that is inevitable, but some is certainly preventable. One easy way to counteract negatavity is to replace it with positive, persuasive messages. The BOD rarely ever does this. They always leave it out there to fester. Is it surprising that the discontent builds, and many members view the BOD as disinterested and incapable?

If only there was a way to find out how many events the movers and shakers had attended or helped run.

Dave Gentry and I were the only people at these four majors: Mid-Nats, Am & Pro Worlds and USDGC with Dave also at Japan Open and Players Cup.

Lastly, you contradict yourself, you talk about the site as a communications tool and as a way to provide information to the BoD while saying "they don't have to pay attention."


I don't remember talking about the board as a way to provide communications TO the BOD, just FROM the board.

The bottom line for me has nothing to to do with abstract ideas on governing, or the dynamics of the message board. My concern is that I continually witness and hear about discontent from the membership. Much of that is inevitable, but some is certainly preventable. One easy way to counteract negatavity is to replace it with positive, persuasive messages. The BOD rarely ever does this. They always leave it out there to fester. Is it surprising that the discontent builds, and many members view the BOD as disinterested and incapable?



Agreed!

Rich raised this point on the exclusive State Coordinators thread but I think it's interesting enough to thrash out here. When Ms. Gibson emailed me back replying to my reply of her renewal email informing her that I wasn't intending to renew she cited my subject heading as one of the reasons the PDGA is so wonderful. Rich and I have felt for a long time that the movers and shakers in the PDGA aren't out on the courses during events seeing what is going on, or actually know who their membership is. For instance here at the number of sanctioned events played by select big mack daddy's in 2006 as of today's player profiles:

Brian Hoeniger-5
Theo Pozzy-3
Pat Brenner-8
Cris Bellinger-7
Steve Dodge- 0
Terry Calhoun-2
Chuck Kennedy-10
Stork Roddick-5
David Gentry-2
Jon Lyksett-1
<font color="red">Mutt & Jeff </font>
Alan Sweeton-18 (okay finally someone who might be in touch with reality)
Jeff Lagrassa- 0 <font color="blue"> Has not played a sanctioned event since 2004 when he played in two! </font>

I would suspect that these numbers are below the average for active (i.e played at least one sanctioned tourney a year) players in The Associaton. I learned from Ms. Gibson that is how the PDGA is referred by the inside crowd.

At this level of participation can these decision makers (other than Alan & Chuck) be considered in touch with reality, or are they living in ivory towers?



I'm not sure how relevant this is. First, what is the average number of tournaments played by the average member? Gary Duke has a spreadsheet we produced a year or so ago for Texas players. The average is below 3. There are a handful of guys that are high hitters but most aren't.

Your post seems to indicate that playing lots of tournaments a)gives you perspective, b)puts you in touch with the reality of the sport, c) gets you out of the Ivory Tower. I'm not sure I'd agree with those conclusions.

You might ask yourself how many events they attended, how many leaders in the sport they talked to, how much time they spent talking about and working on the sport as a whole, and what other roles they play. There's a reason most of these guys don't play a lot of tournaments... they don't have the time to get everything done that is asked of them anyway. You might ask Chuck how much time he spends every week working on this stuff to get a perspective.

I'm not sure how relevant this is. First, what is the average number of tournaments played by the average member? Gary Duke has a spreadsheet we produced a year or so ago for Texas players. The average is below 3. There are a handful of guys that are high hitters but most aren't.




so it would make more since for most Texicans to just pay the $5 nonmember fee at an event as long as it's not an A-tier or higher.

Brian Hoeniger-5
Theo Pozzy-3
Pat Brenner-8
Cris Bellinger-7
Steve Dodge- 0
Terry Calhoun-2
Chuck Kennedy-10
Stork Roddick-5
David Gentry-2
Jon Lyksett-1
Alan Sweeton-18
Jeff Lagrassa- 0


Bruce Brakel - Played 15, ran 8 as a non-player. Obviously way too busy playing the game and running the game to have an opinion that matters.

This is a classic example of an incredibly inaccurate perception that gets out there and makes an impact and then sinks when it's shown to be inappropriate, yet leaves a negative impact behind.

I hope you know what Samuel Clemens said about statistics, G.A. Corricle, PDGA #22013 (HawkGammon)?

Can you really believe that those numbers reveal that "the movers and shakers in the PDGA aren't out on the courses during events seeing what is going on, or actually know who their membership is"? OMG! I keep re-reading your post to see how I can minimize the ignorance, but I can't.

Your statistics show me as competing in two sanctioned PDGA events. Does that prove your assertion?

Let's use me as an example, because I know me the best: However, I am certain this is true of many if not all of the others. Compare the following with your own broad experience with disc golf this year.

Let's add in the sanctioned event next week on the disc golf cruise, shall we? That's 3.

* I marshaled a Major (Am Nationals)
* I marshaled an NT and an A-Tier (Discraft Great Lakes Open)

And when I marshal an event, I am out there - ask people who're at them. (Didn't take any PDGA pay for those, either; not even combat pay for being threatened when I DQ'd a player at the Am Nationals.)

* I attended the PDGA Summit at the Memorial and interacted there with about 50 movers and shakers in disc golf.

* I was tournament director for two (2) Ann Arbor-area events and attended a number of a3disc board of directors meetings, most of which were either in my office or at my home.
* I competed in 6 local non-sanctioned events.
* I competed in about 15-20 weeklies.
* I was deeply involved as a staff person at an additional - at least 6 tournaments, including the sanctioned "No Foolin'" event.

* I've been involved in the redesign of a local course and in the approval and design of two additional local courses.
* I got a two-full-page-with-color-photographs published about disc golf in the Ann Arbor news.
* I supported my son in his 3.5-month, 18,000-mile, 24-state, 210-course disc golf summer tour and, through him, talked to lots of people I have never met.
* He and my son-in-law, both lazy shiftless folks who have too much time to compete, each played in many more tournaments than I or my wife (also an avid player who I hear from about ladies' issues constantly) bring me feedback constantly.
* And that reminds me, I created the women-only disc golf email list, too.

* I maintained and improved my own private course and hosted dozens of traveling and local players who wanted to experience it.

* Oh, and I was on the PDGA board of directors for 8 months and received and forwarded or replied to hundreds of email and phone queries from players and media.

* And there's more, but this is a quick list, dashed off in 3-5 minutes of memory writing.

* Oh, and I have a busy day job, three kids, and a lucrative side writing gig + I am on three other national board of directors of nonprofits. I had to turn down two very kind and generous offers of exemptions to play in the USDGC because in October I had three conflicting business trips!

What you have proven is that you may well have a rather limited idea of what constitutes being out on the courses and seeing what goes on. It's a great deal more than playing a lot of tournaments.

And then there's the issue of looking at different years over time . . . oh, well, that only matters unless you're not trying to "prove" a preconception.

"I hope you know what Samuel Clemens said ..."
I believe today is his birthday. :)

Even cooler. Sure wish he was around now. Maybe he'd be hosting The Daily Show?

Geez Terry,

You're such a lazy git! No wonder you fell asleep in the hot tub.

Jon Stewart does a pretty good job, but I would like to see what MarkTwain and a few others would have to say about current events (and perhaps this discussion thread) if they were able.

Geez Terry,

You're such a lazy git! No wonder you fell asleep in the hot tub.



And I'm almost 60 :DI sure hope all those Am Senior Grand Masters out there are gearing up for worlds in 2007 :D:D:D

Now, time to dodder back to the secret good 'ol boys hideout and be secretive and avoid disc golfers some more. Sure wish I knew more about what disc golfers care about.

I posted before that the average number of rated rounds per year for those who have at least one rated round in the year is about 15. That's about 5 to 7 sanctioned events excluding doubles and most X-tiers.

One other note, when I was playing 20+ events a year, I was focused much more on my game and what I was doing than I am now. That didn't put me in touch with the other players and what they were thinking. I spend the majority of the free time I have doing DG related things, but very little time playing. I spend a lot more time talking with players and what they are thinking now than I ever did when I was playing almost every weekend.

Remember, Hawk, just yesterday I admitted I was wrong three times in here. Surely you can, too?

I truly am impressed by your initiative to call the office and get data. Isn't Lorrie nice? The staff is so customer friendly.

hawk, i wish i played more also, no kidding.

2001 - 11 events (i started playing in 98)
2002 - 3 events (lived in china from june til late november)
2003 - 13 events
2004 - 7 events (my wife's first year in the country, and we had an infant... travel was not much of an option)
2005 - 11 events
2006 - 8 events (working on my MBA killed off a couple fall events i like to attend)

now add in the weekly minis ( i probably average more than 1 per week)

not too shabby, i would say. what do you consider enough?

I posted before that the average number of rated rounds per year for those who have at least one rated round in the year is about 15. That's about 5 to 7 sanctioned events excluding doubles and most X-tiers.





Sorry I missed that Chuck. Thanks! Wouldn't it be somewhere between 3-4 and 7 depending on what the player played? That is 3 two day vs. 7 one day events?

Also Chuck, amongst all your other activites, did you look to see what the spread is? That is, how many play 2 rounds, how many play 4 rounds, how many play 8 rounds etc. Just curious.

Jeff Lagrassa- 0 <font color="blue"> Has not played a sanctioned event since 2004 when he played in two! </font>

At this level of participation can these decision makers (other than Alan &amp; Chuck) be considered in touch with reality, or are they living in ivory towers?



Hey Hawk,

You must be seriously delusional if you think that Alan or I have any impact on 'decision making' within the PDGA. All we do is occasionally moderate the message board when someone requests it! The only decision we make is when someone reports an offensive post.

This is like asking if Microsoft Corporation is out of touch with thier customers because the janitor that mops the floor of the office doesn't own a computer.

<font color="blue">[edited for clarification] </font>
Your observation that most BoD members don't play in many PDGA-sanctioned tournaments is valid.

I've looked at the whole data file ranked by number of rounds but didn't count or graph anything. Since there a quite few more D, C and even B-tiers with just 2-rounds, the average number of events is probably at least 5.

Also fact: I gave up my seat and chose not to run for re-election primarily to make room for new blood. There's no doubt in my mind that I could have run, and won, a third elected term.



It defnitely would have been a fun race. :D

Your point is completely valid for the other BoD members you mentioned.



So: (This is not a "personal attack," BTW.)

(a) Great, we have a moderator who doesn't even read the posts and thinks that Hawk's post was something other than (demonstrably, in fact demonstrated as such already, read the posts) ignorant ("Your point is valid" - I would like to hear that explained in the light of actual facts for just one board member: read my post Jeff); and

(b) Apparently thinks that he is a board member? Check it out: "Your point is completely valid for the other BoD members you mentioned." (bolded emphasis mine)

Oh, brave new world. <font color="green"> </font>

Hey Hawk,

You must be seriously delusional



Is that a "personal attack" by a moderator? Blind leading the blind . . .

It defnitely (sic) would have been a fun race. :D



Call me out on line, get an online response:

The race would have been over before you knew it was a race :D

"Call me out on line, get an online response"

you called me out online and then complained that you didnt get a telephone response.

(just making a silly little comment, not picking a fight)

I say that some guy is posting in a way that people who have never met him may get the wrong idea and thing he is not such a nice guy and well I get punished. Anyway probation is going pretty good and is the only form of formal punishment I have ever received. Heck I don't even have a behavior profile at school. Then again I did have my paper ice cream cone taken away in Pre-K for talking in music class so I guess that makes the pdga #2.

Your point is completely valid for the other BoD members you mentioned.



So: (This is not a "personal attack," BTW.)

(a) Great, we have a moderator who doesn't even read the posts and thinks that Hawk's post was something other than (demonstrably, in fact demonstrated as such already, read the posts) ignorant ("Your point is valid" - I would like to hear that explained in the light of actual facts for just one board member: read my post Jeff); and

(b) Apparently thinks that he is a board member? Check it out: "Your point is completely valid for the other BoD members you mentioned." (bolded emphasis mine)

Oh, brave new world. <font color="green"> </font>



Terry,<ul type="square"> I certainly do not consider myself a board member; perhaps using the word 'other' resulted in that misinterpretation. In fact, I went out of my way to stress that I have about as much role in decision-making as the janitor who mops the floor at night. And therefore, my PDGA tournament participation should matter about as much as the janitor's.

I was referring to Hawk's point that most of the BoD doesn't really play in many PDGA tournaments. I don't know if that means anything, (and you made a well-constructed post on why it doesn't) but that observation alone is valid and can't be argued.[/list]

Hawk is absolutely correct that I played in ZERO PDGA events last year. And that is one of the reasons that I ran for the board. Up here in New England, PDGA events are few and far between. One of my goals while I serve on the board is to create even more value to running a PDGA event. And hopefully this will lead to more PDGA events in New England.

Until that happens, I can continue to enjoy PDGA tournaments vicariously through everyone that gets to play in them. I feel the PDGA is our best medium for presenting disc golf in a professional way to future interested media, sponsors and players.

I'm not sure that you know how to think, even though it is implicit in your words that you do

- Terry calhoun on page 2 of this thread.

sorry, i've out for a while in class. i consider this a personal attack, basically calling me stupid. and you have the nerve to accuse others of personal attacks! ha! pot/kettle/black?

funny how you continue to prove my point for me i see you as an example of the intractable leadership in the pdga that is not open to new ideas or directions and thinks very highly of themselves.

steve and pat on the otherhand seem willing to listen. kudos to them!

Jon Stewart does a pretty good job, but I would like to see what MarkTwain and a few others would have to say about current events (and perhaps this discussion thread) if they were able.



one of my favorite Twain quips is:

"Reader, suppose you were an idiot and suppose you were a member of Congress ... But i repeat myself" :D

i wonder if he'd say: suppose one is an idiot and suppose one is in the inner circle of the PDGA ... but i repeat myself :eek: :D

We have the 'information age' vs 'behind closed doors' duking it out! /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif



maybe my view is skewed, but it seems to me the "behind closed doors" group is far more likely to complain to a moderator that one of the "information age" members has crossed the line. since someone generally has to complain to a moderator in order to trigger censorship, it may lead to the mis-perception that the moderators are either part of the "behind closed doors" camp or are their puppets (which is even worse) :o :D

i think it is safe to assume our organization will move with the times and eventually the information age approach will dominate. either that or our sport will have its growth stunted by staying with the obselete "behind closed doors" appraoch ...

I feel left out...maybe I've officially lost mover and shaker status. :cool:

I played in 11 PDGA events this year, and probably would have played more if not recovering from surgery to repair a herniated disc in November 2005, and staffing/marshaling/attending another 7-8 events, including the Memorial, Am Worlds (actually, the last 4 in a row, and 5 of the last 8), US Womens, and BG Open.

I'll try and do better next year. :)

That being said, I think either playing in, or helping run PDGA events gives you perspective and helps you communicate with the players out there. What's the right number of events? Who knows, and the exact number's not really that important. What's important is getting out there, and talking to people (a far better communication tool than this message board....I much prefer direct contact).
Some of us have physical limitations, family or job obligations, or in Steve's case, a dearth of PDGA events within driving distance. I suspect Steve would like to change that.

Chap

And for the record, the phrase "There are three kinds of Lies, damned lies, and statistics" was popularized by Mark Twain here in the States, but was actually coined by Benjamin Disraeli.

The information age doesn't guarantee better information just more of it. This thread contains virtually zero content that's specifically disc golf related beyond the initial thread complaint, while much of value has been done in the same time period "behind closed doors" (if you only knew of course /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif). In fact, it sounds like whatever time it took Pat and Terry to hash out issues over the phone was more effective and useful than any time and ink spilled here.

if the behind closed doors camp would just relate their actions here more openly the "if only you knew" comments would be both foolish and unnecessary ;)

Dave Gentry and I were the only people at these four majors: Mid-Nats, Am & Pro Worlds and USDGC with Dave also at Japan Open and Players Cup.



i remember seeing David Gentry at the USADGC last year and he seemed to be doing a good job dealing with the Factor :eek:

that's a lot of travel and time to officiate rather than play. does he get reimbursed by the PDGA for his travel expenses?

You assume that communicating much of what happens would be useful and worthwhile. It's not. It's like getting a third quarter score and stats - might be a curiosity - but doesn't convey the key information which is who won and what their final stats were. I believe members get the final stats and enough of the play-by-play although I agree that that should be provided faster. They can also get free tickets to some of the games to see all of the action.

that's a lot of travel and time to officiate rather than play. does he get reimbursed by the PDGA for his travel expenses?



He's an employee so yes. Volunteers including Board members can get reimbursed for travel expenses also, but I know a few Board members, Terry being one of them, didn't always ask for it.

(just making a silly little comment, not picking a fight)



That's fine, that all had a dual purpose, one of which was highlighting some issues with DISCussion.

I was referring to Hawk's point that most of the BoD doesn't really play in many PDGA tournaments. I don't know if that means anything, (and you made a well-constructed post on why it doesn't) but that observation alone is valid and can't be argued.[/LIST]



Jeff, he had (selective) data showing that some PDGA leaders don't play in a lot of PDGA events so far in 2006, that appears to be a fact. But, so what?

The data was offered in support of *this* statement: "Rich and I have felt for a long time that the movers and shakers in the PDGA aren't out on the courses during events seeing what is going on, or actually know who their membership is."

In other words, the data, which is likely correct, was offered to support the the points that

(a) many PDGA leaders aren't out on the courses when events are being played; and

(b) many PDGA leaders don't actually know who their membership is.

And you agreed: "Your point is completely valid for the other BoD members you mentioned." You didn't say "Your data that some PDGA board members didn't play a lot of sanctioned events in 2006 is valid." You said "Your point is completely valid for the other BoD members you mentioned."

So, do you believe that Hawk's two points:

(a) many PDGA leaders aren't out on the courses when events are being played; and

(b) many PDGA leaders don't actually know who their membership is.

Are valid? Do you think that the leaders you support in your role as DISCussion moderator are out of touch and don't really know who their members are?

that's a lot of travel and time to officiate rather than play. does he get reimbursed by the PDGA for his travel expenses?



You're kidding, right?

Either you don't know that Dave is a PDGA staffer or you think that the PDGA might *not* pay for the work-related travel of staffers?

Chalk up another piece of evidence that reasonable discussions in DISCussion may be impossible simply because some of those participating make little effort to learn anything. Dave's been a staffer for a while now and there's been no secret about it.

Oh, wait, shoot, I just revealed an insider secret. Dave is a PDGA staffer. Now he might have to answer phone calls and be customer friendly. Sorry, secret Cabal. :D

I feel left out...maybe I've officially lost mover and shaker status.



Or, maybe the "data" looked a little better for the purposes of the assertions it is intended to support with you left off the list, John.

i think it is safe to assume our organization will move with the times and eventually the information age approach will dominate. either that or our sport will have its growth stunted by staying with the obselete "behind closed doors" appraoch ...


You young'uns who think old guys don't know technology, Internet, and the like need to do some Googling. I get paid $200/hr in my side gig to write about the "Information Age" - we're actually past that and into the "Knowledge Age," or even past that now. There are actually lots of knowledgeable, professional people who consider me an expert on information technology and generational differences.

You don't hear about it here much because it's a bit irrelevant, but this incessant bleat that only those who are young, or not "in power" (I'm not now, BTW!), or who prefer to be ignorant - understand the Internet and social networking functionalities is more revelation of ignorance than anything else.

(just making a silly little comment, not picking a fight)



That's fine, that all had a dual purpose, one of which was highlighting some issues with DISCussion.


Lyle, does it concern you that someone is using the message board to advance an agenda?

The information age doesn't guarantee better information just more of it. This thread contains virtually zero content that's specifically disc golf related beyond the initial thread complaint, while much of value has been done in the same time period "behind closed doors" (if you only knew of course /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif). In fact, it sounds like whatever time it took Pat and Terry to hash out issues over the phone was more effective and useful than any time and ink spilled here.


to me this thread contains a vast amount of information relevant to disc golf. i have found it very useful to hear Members and other BoD folks comments.

So, do you believe that Hawk's two points:

(a) many PDGA leaders aren't out on the courses when events are being played; and

(b) many PDGA leaders don't actually know who their membership is.



No I don't, Terry. Perhaps you missed it, but I wrote the following:
I was referring to Hawk's point that most of the BoD doesn't really play in many PDGA tournaments. I don't know if that means anything, (and you made a well-constructed post on why it doesn't)

See that, I agreed with you that it doesn't!

You're reading way too much into this, Terry. All I was trying to do was dispel the ridiculous notions that the moderators are 'decision makers' within the PDGA, and that our PDGA tournament participation means anything. And furthermore, I agreed with you on your point.

Brian Hoeniger-5
Theo Pozzy-3
Pat Brenner-8
Cris Bellinger-7
Steve Dodge- 0
Terry Calhoun-2
Chuck Kennedy-10
Stork Roddick-5
David Gentry-2
Jon Lyksett-1
Mutt &amp; Jeff
Alan Sweeton-18 (okay finally someone who might be in touch with reality)
Jeff Lagrassa- 0 Has not played a sanctioned event since 2004 when he played in two!

At this level of participation can these decision makers (other than Alan &amp; Chuck) be considered in touch with reality, or are they living in ivory towers?





Hawk states that playing is apparently the only level of participation one can have for a PDGA "leader" to be considered "in touch with reality". I do believe nearly all the people on that list have worked at PDGA events or ran events in their areas over the past few years.

It has already been pointed out the Brian and David have attended (worked) at several Majors and Terry, Chuck and Chap have posted some impressive volunteer resumes. Even our "janitor" Mr. LaGrassa did lots of work for Pro Worlds 2004, plus he voluteered his time for other events in MADC.

I am pretty sure that I saw Jon Lyksett at Pro Worlds, The Memorial, Golden State Classic and US Masters over the past three years. I imagine he has been a Marshall at other events too. Plus he is very active with the EDGE program. I think Cris B. has also hosted an NT event for the past two years and marshalled other events as well.

I don't think the amount of events "played" by leadership is a valid measurement of how "in touch" they are. I think a Marshall, TD or tournament volunteer would have many more opportunites to get feedback from the players and organizers and actually know how tournaments are run than someone actually playing an event.

But hey, showing how many events the "leadership" helped with wouldn't support Hawk's argument so I can see why he neglected to include those facts.

that's a lot of travel and time to officiate rather than play. does he get reimbursed by the PDGA for his travel expenses?



You're kidding, right?

<font color="blue"> not at all. i did not realize if i volunteered to fill such a capacity i would get reimbursed for travel expenses. do such volunteers/staff even get a per diem? </font>

Either you don't know that Dave is a PDGA staffer or you think that the PDGA might *not* pay for the work-related travel of staffers?

<font color="blue"> i thought there was a possibility that volunteers donated their time and resources to the PDGA out of their love of the sport. my lack of disposable income would preclude me from taking on such a responsibility but if expenses are reimbursed that's a different story. when i read how many events David attended and thought about how the cost of attending a nearby event often prevents me from going i wondered if he was rich and very devoted or if he was devoted but maybe the PDGA compensated him for his expenses. i guess it was a little idealistic and naive to think he might donate the expenses although i hear you have done that in the past and probably some others have as well. </font>

Chalk up another piece of evidence that reasonable discussions in DISCussion may be impossible simply because some of those participating make little effort to learn anything. Dave's been a staffer for a while now and there's been no secret about it.

<font color="blue"> sorry i don't have a running list of who is paid and who is not and for what services. if i did, i might consider applying for an opening should it become available downstream. is there a link you can provide? im also not sure why you choose to address my ignorance with condescension or with an adverserial attitude though? </font>

Oh, wait, shoot, I just revealed an insider secret. Dave is a PDGA staffer. Now he might have to answer phone calls and be customer friendly. Sorry, secret Cabal. :D



<font color="blue"> i wish you were as loyal to the PDGA membership as you are to its inner circle ;) </font>

i think it is safe to assume our organization will move with the times and eventually the information age approach will dominate. either that or our sport will have its growth stunted by staying with the obselete "behind closed doors" appraoch ...


You young'uns who think old guys don't know technology, Internet, and the like need to do some Googling. I get paid $200/hr in my side gig to write about the "Information Age" - we're actually past that and into the "Knowledge Age," or even past that now. There are actually lots of knowledgeable, professional people who consider me an expert on information technology and generational differences.

You don't hear about it here much because it's a bit irrelevant, but this incessant bleat that only those who are young, or not "in power" (I'm not now, BTW!), or who prefer to be ignorant - understand the Internet and social networking functionalities is more revelation of ignorance than anything else.



<font color="blue"> not sure how you went from my talk about guys who prefer to do things behind closed doors to assuming i think people in that camp have little knowledge of information technology or of generational differences.

next time you say something like: </font>


Chalk up another piece of evidence that reasonable discussions in DISCussion may be impossible simply because some of those participating make little effort to learn anything.



<font color="blue"> take care to follow your own advice: if you click on my pdga number you'll realize i am no spring chicken (some of us who don't prefer the 'behind closed doors' approach may be in a different generation than you may prefer to think) </font> ;)

Chalk up another piece of evidence that reasonable discussions in DISCussion may be impossible simply because some of those participating make little effort to learn anything.


with all due respect, rather than continuing to prove a negative that we all know can happen, why not contribute to the proof of a positive that we also all know can happen?

"Whether you believe you can do a thing or not, you're right." :cool:
~ Henry Ford