I've been reading this bored for three years now, and the same complaints keep coming up regarding cost/value received/direction etc. of The Disc Golf Club. Several of us have wasted hours of our lives debating these points online with Hot Tub (http://www.pdga.com/tournament/playerstats.php?PDGANum=15117) and The Apologist. (http://www.pdga.com/tournament/playerstats.php?PDGANum=4949) I've seen their rope a dope strategy work to great success against voices of dissent in the past. The PDGA seems content with the status quo, and as long as members continue to support the status quo (they couch this in phrases like The Greater Good etc.) the PDGA will not be inclined to change. The only way to make them pay attention is to hit them where it counts and that, like anywhere else, is in the wallet. In 2006 53.5% of the PDGA budget came from memberships, and 26.7% came from event fees (i.e. sanctioning fees, player fees, non member fees etc.) meaning that 80.2% of this organization is propped up on the backs of it's members and players. So instead of wasting posts debating with Hot Tub and The Apologist I'm suggesting that anyone who wants change or is unhappy with our divisional structure, or the image of the game or any of the other myriad issues that have been raised on this bored over the past couple of months should simply stop playing sanctioned events in 2007, stop sanctioning their events in 2007 and not renew your membership in 2008. It really wouldn't take all that many members and TD's doing this to impact the PDGA's bottom line. As an amateur do you really care all that much about your rating which has no real competitive value to you in the plethora of divisions that exists? How many of you really care about earning points for a World's invite? Go support your local monthlies and other Z tier events and see if the PDGA suddenly enacts the changes you'd like to see. As for myself I'm just going to play three PDGA events this year (instead of the 13 I've averaged since becoming a member) as I've already pre-reg'd for them so I feel an obligation to go. Obviously I won't be renewing my membership (again) in 2008. When the PDGA becomes a club that runs things the way I can support instead of expecting me to support them simply because they are the McDonald's of disc golf then I'll be back.

only two choices....

only two choices....

Well, d'oh! What did you expect, an attempt to actually learn some valid and useful things? Consider the source.

this thread obviously needs to go.

this thread obviously needs to go.



Not unless it violates PDGA DISCussion Board Rules (http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/boardrules.php?Cat=). Rebellion, criticism or dissent do not violate our Rules.

Only overt personal attacks, physical threats, or blatantly offensive material such as profanity and materials not suitable for a minor are prohibited.

it's like coke paying for a pepsi commercial.

this thread obviously needs to go.



Not unless it violates PDGA DISCussion Board Rules (http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/boardrules.php?Cat=). Rebellion, criticism or dissent do not violate our Rules.

Only overt personal attacks, physical threats, or blatantly offensive material such as profanity and materials not suitable for a minor are prohibited.



So what you're telling me is that the giant set of baby feeding devices that Hawk has on his avatars are minor O.K.ed? Well, my 7 month old would certainly be... filled. :D

The PDGA seems content with the status quo, and as long as members continue to support the status quo (they couch this in phrases like The Greater Good etc.) the PDGA will not be inclined to change.



What changes would you like to see besides the divisional structure?

So what you're telling me is that the giant set of baby feeding devices that Hawk has on his avatars are minor O.K.ed? Well, my 7 month old would certainly be... filled. :D



Nobody has reported Hawk's most recent avatar as offensive. We've had several complaints about other ones over the last few months and have asked him to remove one or two, but have allowed many others to stand. I'd say the current one is okay.

So what you're telling me is that the giant set of baby feeding devices that Hawk has on his avatars are minor O.K.ed? Well, my 7 month old would certainly be... filled. :D



Nobody has reported Hawk's most recent avatar as offensive. We've had several complaints about other ones over the last few months and have asked him to remove one or two, but have allowed many others to stand. I'd say the current one is okay.



Only O.K.?

Can I object to being labeled an "apologist"? It's a big word not suitable for minors, especially if they can't understand it and its inaccuracy.

So what you're telling me is that the giant set of baby feeding devices that Hawk has on his avatars are minor O.K.ed? Well, my 7 month old would certainly be... filled. :D



Nobody has reported Hawk's most recent avatar as offensive. We've had several complaints about other ones over the last few months and have asked him to remove one or two, but have allowed many others to stand. I'd say the current one is okay.



Only O.K.?



Well, nothing you wouldn't see at the beach. Except maybe not to that scale...

Can I object to being labeled an "apologist"? It's a big word not suitable for minors, especially if they can't understand it and its inaccuracy.



It's either that or you get labeled as being a member of the Apologetics Foundation...

So what you're telling me is that the giant set of baby feeding devices that Hawk has on his avatars are minor O.K.ed? Well, my 7 month old would certainly be... filled. :D



Nobody has reported Hawk's most recent avatar as offensive. We've had several complaints about other ones over the last few months and have asked him to remove one or two, but have allowed many others to stand. I'd say the current one is okay.



Only O.K.?



Well, nothing you wouldn't see at the beach. Except maybe not to that scale...



And you call yourself bigs... /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Can I object to being labeled an "apologist"? It's a big word not suitable for minors, especially if they can't understand it and its inaccuracy.



Here's the definition for the benefit of the minors.


a�pol�o�gist �noun 1. a person who makes a defense in speech or writing of a belief, idea, etc.

2. one of the authors of the early Christian apologies in defense of the faith.

3. A person who argues in defense or justification of something, such as a doctrine, policy, or institution.

Obviously I won't be renewing my membership (again) in 2008.



Is it 2008 YET???????

I've been reading this bored for three years now, and the same complaints keep coming up regarding cost/value received/direction etc. of The Disc Golf Club. Several of us have wasted hours of our lives debating these points online with Hot Tub (http://www.pdga.com/tournament/playerstats.php?PDGANum=15117) and The Apologist. (http://www.pdga.com/tournament/playerstats.php?PDGANum=4949) I've seen their rope a dope strategy work to great success against voices of dissent in the past. The PDGA seems content with the status quo, and as long as members continue to support the status quo (they couch this in phrases like The Greater Good etc.) the PDGA will not be inclined to change. The only way to make them pay attention is to hit them where it counts and that, like anywhere else, is in the wallet. In 2006 53.5% of the PDGA budget came from memberships, and 26.7% came from event fees (i.e. sanctioning fees, player fees, non member fees etc.) meaning that 80.2% of this organization is propped up on the backs of it's members and players. So instead of wasting posts debating with Hot Tub and The Apologist I'm suggesting that anyone who wants change or is unhappy with our divisional structure, or the image of the game or any of the other myriad issues that have been raised on this bored over the past couple of months should simply stop playing sanctioned events in 2007, stop sanctioning their events in 2007 and not renew your membership in 2008. It really wouldn't take all that many members and TD's doing this to impact the PDGA's bottom line. As an amateur do you really care all that much about your rating which has no real competitive value to you in the plethora of divisions that exists? How many of you really care about earning points for a World's invite? Go support your local monthlies and other Z tier events and see if the PDGA suddenly enacts the changes you'd like to see. As for myself I'm just going to play three PDGA events this year (instead of the 13 I've averaged since becoming a member) as I've already pre-reg'd for them so I feel an obligation to go. Obviously I won't be renewing my membership (again) in 2008. When the PDGA becomes a club that runs things the way I can support instead of expecting me to support them simply because they are the McDonald's of disc golf then I'll be back.



I was a skater in the 80's when skateboarding was small look at it now. The sport has progressed! More than a half a billion in T.V. And mechandise sells. a yr.
I wanna compare disc golf to where skateboarding was in the 80's almost breaking through to a bigger market, give it time!
It will happen!
Have Faith!

DISCGOLF(PDGA). You guy's can quote me on this when you are alot bigger in a couple of years. Matter of fact you can have that comparison.
Later
RT

. . . When the PDGA becomes a <font color="red"> CLUB </font> that runs things the way I can support instead of expecting me to support them simply because they are the McDonald's of disc golf then I'll be back.

(emphasis mine)

Maybe you shouldn't think of the PDGA as a club.
It is more democratic than most actual dg clubs, regardless of what all the Terry-bashers post.
Sounds like what you want, Mr. Hawk, is to go in the back room of the local hobby shop and play DungeonMaster with your own set of rules.
So . . . GO!
And take your Farrah Faucet posters with you.

Hawk, your survey is totally one sided. It offers no real choices, and demonstrates your attitude towards the PDGA. They (PDGA) does a great job, and handle problems in a professional manner as an Organization we are proud of. To attempt to Rally support in a one sided poll, is not the way we do things here. In a democratic society, we identify problems, weigh options, and develope a solution best suited for all. See ya in 2009

Mini Thumber

actually bigrock, in a democratic society freedom of speech is essential. and standing around thinking everything is perfect is fooling yourself.

do i totally agree with hawk's position? no. i also told him that his poll was one sided.

i do however believe that things need to change in order to grow. why can't we sanction ratings based events. why are there even other divisions offered at our majors and a tiers? there should be 2 divisions at A TIERSand NT events. men and women. if you want to play the biggest events you should be able to put up. if not, stick to the b and c tiers. just my opinion. the main thing that bothers me about the pdga is the closed mindedness to ideas and the stunning lack of concern by the BOD and director about the image portrayed by drug use at events. there are many things needing fixing. but in my opinion, at least make an effort to fix something here and there. maybe open only nt events? maybe yearlong bans for first offense of drug or alcohol at a pdga event? maybe x tier sanctioning to try ratings based pdga events? what are we waiting for?

"why can't we sanction ratings based events" i thought we could. i really did... i need to check on this one. the mid-nats are ratings based... why would we allow it there but no where else?

btw, its OPEN and women, not men and women :D

while a longer ban help enforcement or further encourage players to not turn in their buds? other than stiffer sentences, what else can be done? expand the marshalls program? require off duty cops at A tiers? i'm not saying you are wrong... just asking for workable ideas. i agree that there is not a pervasive commitment throughout the organization (that includes Membership) to get rid of weed... so how do you build that commitment?

Hawk, boycotting the PDGA will not solve the problem.

I personally do not like all the directions the PDGA has been taking the last few years.

On the otherhand, I think they have made HUGE strides in other areas.

Just so you know (as if you have never read any of my posts)

I think the PDGA was VERY weak on the drug issue. However, after Terry explained to me why the rule was passed the way it was, I can only support longer suspentions for players who are actually caught in the act.

I also do not like the PDGA setting my payouts and entry fees. I don't mind "suggested guidlines", however I have a problem with changing what has made my tournament a huge success over the last 10 years.

I also think they have diluted the payout too much by paying deeper for upper divisions.

I also don't like the "manditory" players package for Am's.

However, I will not boycott the PDGA. I will support board members in the future that support my views and I will make my position known here on the board.

"image of the game".

i am far from being a a purist but i have a difficult time with the opinions of someone that has an issue with the "image of the game" while having a somewhat inappropriate avatar that certainly could be argued isn't in the best interests of our image.

i also find the "survey" ludicrously biased. i'd be willing to listen to hawkgammon's points of view if the survey offered dissenting voting options.

every one of us has the power to make a difference in the image and the direction of our sport at our own local levels. It's not just up to the PDGA to do this. I see their role as a supporting role and in my many years as a PDGA member i've had many opportunities to effectively share my opinion in various committees. i haven't gotten any sense that the system is in any way un-democratic.

for hawkgammon to state that the pdga is happy with the status quo is also a ludicrous statement. every year in the various committees i am part of there are long discussions with the intent to make positive changes. evolution is a process. we're certainly nowhere as a sport or an organization where we were 5, 10, or 15 years ago.

cutting off funding doesn't seem like the best solution to me. gathering more corporate support at the grassroots level and for our showcase events attacks the funding issue from the bottom up and the top down. The PDGA marketing Director John Duesler is doing a great job from both perspectives, but results don't show up overnight. That too is a process. I've been working with John on a number of projects and I have seen his passion and his energy and it is already paying off in many subtle ways.

But again, at our own local levels we have much more impact than does the PDGA board or PDGA employees. I believe we should be doing a much better job at partnering with charity and corporations than we are currently doing. That can't be blamed on the PDGA. For our past 2 NT events in Warwick, and with the NT / B-Tier event I am hosting at the Sugarbush Resort in Vermont in September, we've been able to leverage contacts and relationships to help raise the bar for added cash at our showcase events. For the Sugarbush event we'll be bringing on board many new corporate and civic partners that will add value to the event for pros and Ams alike. Hopefully we can generate plenty of grassroots exposure as well.

Hawkgammon - I don't know you. I don't know who you are. I don't know what your contributions to the sport have been. I appreciate your desire to express your viewpoint so passionately, even though I don't necessarily agree with your approach or your viewpoint. So please don't take my comments above as a personal attack. Take your passion and your energy and use it to make a huge difference at your local level in a manner that benefits the sport in the manner you believe works best.

dan doyle
pdga #310
warwick, ny

"why can't we sanction ratings based events" i thought we could. i really did... i need to check on this one. the mid-nats are ratings based... why would we allow it there but no where else?

I clipped the following from the PDGA Events Guide http://www.pdga.com/documents/2006/06EventsGuide.pdf :
X-Tier: Doubles, ratings-based events, team events, and experimental events with formats approved by the
Competition Director. An X-Tier can be sanctioned at the A, B, or C Tier level for the purposes of points
allocation, depending on purse and field size. In doubles or team events points are awarded for each player beaten
or tied excluding your teammate(s). About 50 X Tier events will be held in 2006.

(bold, italics are mine) Has this changed for 2007? Have people (especially those proposing a different divisional structures in other threads) tried to develop ratings-based events under this classification and been turned down by the PDGA? Just honest questions here...

nanook

Delete this #$*&$! thread. As a dues paying PDGA member, I consider it a waste of resources, and my dues, to allow posts that actively seek to hurt the organization. Using PDGA resources to rally a boycott of the the PDGA is, IMHO, not okay.

I also consider creating such posts suitable for censoring on this PDGA resource. That means I think hawk is worthy of getting some discussion board discipline applied for attempting to hurt the org. A certain other posted has his competing orgs name in filter file for similar activites, which also got him banned from here.

Hawk,
I've read many of your posts and have agreed with some of your points. By starting this thread, with it's slurs and pompous tone, however, you've dug yourself a big hole credibility-wise and it's going to take a lot of effort on your part before many people will take anything you have to say seriously.

I don't think anyone takes what Hawk says seriously...even Hawk.

Don't feed the Trolls!

yes, they said you can't do ratings based unless the divisions are easily transferable for points...regular divisions would work, but makingabove 955 play pro doesn't. unless the pdga approves it.

Delete this #$*&amp;$! thread. As a dues paying PDGA member, I consider it a waste of resources, and my dues, to allow posts that actively seek to hurt the organization. Using PDGA resources to rally a boycott of the the PDGA is, IMHO, not okay.

I also consider creating such posts suitable for censoring on this PDGA resource. That means I think hawk is worthy of getting some discussion board discipline applied for attempting to hurt the org. A certain other posted has his competing orgs name in filter file for similar activites, which also got him banned from here.



Rhett,

A lot of people have brought up this same point, and for the record, I agree with it. But we have to follow the Rules that we have established - rebellion, criticism or dissent do not violate our Rules. The feedback about the DISCussion board has been very positive recently because we have a set of rules and procedures and follow them religiously; content that violates our rules is handled accordingly, and material that doesn't violate our rules is permitted unconditionally. Consistency is the goal, and with a moderation team and a Communications Director to provide oversight, we're achieving that. The system is now devoid of the bias that a one moderator system with no oversight may have fell into.

I'm told that because of this thread, there may be some discussion and a possible rule change. But for now, it doesn't violate any rule.

Jeff...

I hope the discussion board continues in this manner. Although on one hand I'd wish that posts that bash the PDGA in the manner that Hawk did wouldn't be posted, on the other hand I also believe that good can come from those kind of opinions / posts. I like the notion of dissent followed by opposite positions not just for the sake of free speech but because perhaps good dialogue can help move us forward. If a few good posts follow a bash-post maybe some insights are gained that otherwise wouldn't have been achieved. So Thank You Hawk....

dd

Delete this #$*&$! thread. As a dues paying PDGA member, I consider it a waste of resources, and my dues, to allow posts that actively seek to hurt the organization. Using PDGA resources to rally a boycott of the the PDGA is, IMHO, not okay.

I also consider creating such posts suitable for censoring on this PDGA resource. That means I think hawk is worthy of getting some discussion board discipline applied for attempting to hurt the org. A certain other posted has his competing orgs name in filter file for similar activites, which also got him banned from here.



he is obviously a member, and thus supporting the PDGA.

I don't think he wants to get rid of the PDGA, only to change how it operates. A paying member in a orginazation such as this should have the right to voice their opinion on here. censoring him would be rediculous.

he's doing a lot less harm IMO than a lot of the posts Nick used to make on here, and Hawk's are MUCH, MUCH, less offensive.

he is obviously a member, and thus supporting the PDGA.


I guess you are new here. Hawk made it perfectly clear that he disagreed with the direction of the PDGA and then chose to vote with his dollars and not renew his membership. I completely respect that decision and applaud Hawk for sticking to his beliefs in such a manner.

Somehow, somewhere, and under uncertain circumstances (which, BTW, are some of the things that Hawk disagreed with that led him to not renew) someone at some PDGA BOD meeting made a motion to comp Hawk a membership. Per the story I was told on this message board, the motion was denied and then immediately afterwards some/several/a couple of PDGA BOD members busted open their wallets and paid for Hawk's membership. There was never a reason given as to why.

So as you can see, Hawk did not renew specifically because he did not want to support the PDGA. Now that he has been renewed against his will, he is using PDGA resources to call for a boycott of the PDGA. You can use "moderator rationalization" all you want, but there is no way in heck that should be allowed or encouraged.

If you say s<font color="black">hi</font>t on here you will get banned, but if conspire to bring down the org is it just free speech.

This sounds to me like retarded bleeding heart liberalism mated with an overdose of PC. :p

For what it's worth, I'm a brand new member to the PDGA and my biggest question is about the seemingly out of whack divisions in tournaments.

Hawk's post just lets me know this is a widely discussed subject.

Considering that he didn't renew himself, you'd think he'd just abandon the PDGA. The fact that he continues to appear shows how much he desires the PDGA to evolve and the game to develop (get better in his opinion). Perhaps in his eagerness to see improvements he's being a little unrealistic.

. . . Per the story I was told on this message board, the motion was denied and then immediately afterwards some/several/a couple of PDGA BOD members busted open their wallets and paid for Hawk's membership. There was never a reason given as to why . . . .



<font color="red">The fact that this motion to pay for Hawk's membership was even on any PDGA BOD agenda blows my mind. </font>

What about me?
If I, an average player and infrequent poster, was to quit, would the BOD try to lure me back?
What about any other player?
What determines who is valued enough to deserve a free ride?

Earlier in this thread, I proudly posted about how the PDGA is a democratic organization. Boy, I feel stoopid.

If I knew this had happened, I would not have renewed for 2007.

Board members can make motions any time. The Board member who made the motion is accountable if you don't think the request was worthy, not the Board that voted it down. Over the years, many members and volunteers have been proposed for membership renewals and some have received them and some have not. It's all been in the Board minutes.

the BoD member accountable for the motion also knows that honorary memberships have been given out in the past, so the BoD members was not proposing something without precedent.

yes, they said you can't do ratings based unless the divisions are easily transferable for points...regular divisions would work, but makingabove 955 play pro doesn't. unless the pdga approves it.

that is odd, considering points are for the most part meaningless. very few people are ever turned away from worlds, at least on the Am side, suggesting that points are not the real qualifier - having the time, cash and desire to travel are.

But I wonder if the other comp-membership motions were for members who had shown exemplary service, were volunteer of the year, or the like.
Has a motion like this ever been made just to retain a dissenting member?

If these motions are not uncommon, then I'd like to see some guidelines for comp memberships. Suggestions:
- comp memberships must be fair and requirements must be consistent.
- make x number of comp memberships available each year and the BOD votes on who gets 'em.
- establish some standard requirements, i.e., is part of a club, volunteers at x number of events each year, and plays x number of tourneys.

I'll spend some time this week going through BOD minutes and some older threads to find some precedent. Maybe this has been hashed through before.

yes, they said you can't do ratings based unless the divisions are easily transferable for points...regular divisions would work, but makingabove 955 play pro doesn't. unless the pdga approves it.



The ratings divisions are already in the data system. If you offered the color divisions from Mid-Nats with Gold (975+) being a merch division instead of cash and then offered open divisions for men & women, I believe you would get sanctioned with no exceptions needing to be approved.

Or, offer just the color divisions and have Gold be the only cash division. However, allow Ams to enter it at a 50-60% discounted Trophy Only entry fee. That wouldn't be more than a few if any anyway. No approval should be required to do this format.

Or, offer only the color divisions and provide the option for pros to convert any merch winnings into cash at 50% (or higher, up to TD) conversion. This would need approval but would likely get it since it's not ground breaking.

Why not post the ideas you have? Did I miss them? I am not sure what the root complaint is here. For that reason I responded "sheep". Tell us what you are thinking.

general guidelines would be great, especially since the Members funds would be paying for it. perhaps that is one of hte good things that will come from this.

honestly, i didnt think it was gonna be controversial. after all, we, the Members, are paying $70 per "obelisk" for past BoD Members. aparently just for getting elected and serving on the BoD. thats like two times the cost of a Membership, but apparently the BoD at the time thought spending $280 per year for "obelisks" for past BoD members was an appropriate way to spend Members money. with that in mind, i didnt think a single Membership would matter so much.

I am curious:
How do the ball golfers (PGA) handle this? For that matter, does anyone know how any sports' governing body handles these points the Dr. Evil brings up??
I am a neophyte of sorts in these matters, so for now I am prolly asking stuff that has been asked over and over.

Why not post the ideas you have? Did I miss them? I am not sure what the root complaint is here. For that reason I responded "sheep". Tell us what you are thinking.



Charles,

Thanks for your interest. I don't want to go around in circles again and again. I barely have the time or inclination to endlessly debate Hot Tub and The Apologist. The background can be found in these threads:

Competition (http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=649433&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=7&fpart=1)

Pot (http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=649450&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=21&fpart=1)

"Am's" (http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=649427&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=93&fpart=1)

I am curious:
How do the ball golfers (PGA) handle this? For that matter, does anyone know how any sports' governing body handles these points the Dr. Evil brings up??
I am a neophyte of sorts in these matters, so for now I am prolly asking stuff that has been asked over and over.

The PGA is exactly the opposite of the PDGA. They have so many people wanting to get on the pro circuit that they have lots of barriers to entry. You have to graduate from Q School. You have to earn so much on the lower tour before you can move up. You have to earn so much on the upper tour or you get moved down. It's shark eat shark in the PGA because they wanted to concentrate the money so that touring pros could make a decent living.

Also, with the USGA losing your amateur status is not the same as gaining pro status. Losing your amateur status is more like being banned, unless you lost it because you went pro.

At the amateur level, the USGA has open competitions, age and gender restricted competitions, and competitions where there are divisions based on handicap, but the scores are not handicap adjusted.

general guidelines would be great, especially since the Members funds would be paying for it. perhaps that is one of hte good things that will come from this.

honestly, i didnt think it was gonna be controversial. after all, we, the Members, are paying $70 per "obelisk" for past BoD Members. aparently just for getting elected and serving on the BoD. thats like two times the cost of a Membership, but apparently the BoD at the time thought spending $280 per year for "obelisks" for past BoD members was an appropriate way to spend Members money. with that in mind, i didnt think a single Membership would matter so much.



I had no idea about the obelisks, either.
Guess I had better read meeting minutes on a regular basis.

Perhaps guidelines need to be set up for honoring past BOD members as well. Have all past BOD members been recognized in the same fashion?
There should be a standard process for making determinations like this.
Since it is the members' money, members should know about it (meeting minutes are fine, but I'd like to see a line listing in the annual financials as well).

Being fair is important.
Full disclosure is important.
Objectivity is important.

You can use "moderator rationalization" all you want, but there is no way in heck that should be allowed or encouraged.



Well, we certainly don't encourage it, but until the rule is changed, it's allowed. Send a PM or an e-mail to [email protected]" target="_blank ([email protected]) if you'd like to voice your opinion about the rule.


If you say s<font color="black">hi</font>t on here you will get banned, but if conspire to bring down the org is it just free speech.

This sounds to me like retarded bleeding heart liberalism mated with an overdose of PC. :p



It should sound like what it is - having a set of rules and procedures and following them consistently. It's dealing with content that violates our rules, and permitting unconditionally material that doesn't violate our rules.

Hey, something we maybe agree on.

Serving on the Board is intrinsically rewarding for those who continue to do it year after year. Some people get a kick out of being in charge.

Some former board members deserve an obelisk for their service. Some don't. Giving one to every out going board member cheapens the award and avoids making any hard decisions.

From Hawk


I'm suggesting that anyone who wants change or is unhappy with our divisional structure, or the image of the game or any of the other myriad issues that have been raised on this bored over the past couple of months should simply stop playing sanctioned events in 2007, stop sanctioning their events in 2007 and not renew your membership in 2008.



I'm suggesting that anyone who wants change or is unhappy with our divisional structure, or the image of the game or any of the other myriad issues that have been raised on this message board over the past couple of months should simply...Send an email to every BOD member and provide them with your complaints and/or your suggested solutions to the problems you are having as a member. Let them know if you will be boycotting in protest or renewing in support.

Providing direct feedback to BOD members will ultimately yield better results than a "boycott". If you are genuinely interested in change and are not willing or able to volunteer your time and efforts to improve the PDGA (by helping in your local area, or running for a BOD position), please take the time to write to your BOD and committee members and let them know how you feel.

We should not let an extremely divisive and very vocal minority set the agenda for our organization. Those who want to continue to attack the BOD on here are welcome to continue while it is allowed. They can continue to create disruption and spark defensiveness from members and volunteers alike. The rest of us should appeal directly to BOD members in a mature fashion that may actually yield a positive result.

Regardless of where you stand on any issue, please take the time to personally let our BOD members and committee members know your opinions and where you stand. It is great that we have this message board, however ONE personal email or call from a concerned member is likely worth more than ONE HUNDRED posts, whether insulting or supportive.

Well said, Suzette.

Well, except that boycotting in protest won't do anybody any good. If it has enough support to be successful, it will do several years worth of damage to the PDGA infrastructure, if it doesn't get enough support, those involved will probably just stay away and any good they could have done will be lost.

those involved will probably just stay away and any good they could have done will be lost.



2nd

OR...

I know this is crazy, but just wait!

Run for the Board of Directors and work to institute the changes that you feel so passionately about instead of shooting off comments from the Peanut Gallery.

baaaa! i've got to say -- i voted sheep and was pleasantly surprised to see the sheep are kicking derrier! :p

The over-under is 90% of those that voted in this poll to not renew in '08 will renew anyway.

:D:eek: :D

To anyone who has voted, what are the results looking like? I refuse to vote for either of those choices, but I'd like to know how things are shaping up without waiting until 1/1/2008. Thanks.

To anyone who has voted, what are the results looking like? I refuse to vote for either of those choices, but I'd like to know how things are shaping up without waiting until 1/1/2008. Thanks.



support the boycott and will cut back/eliminate my play in sanctioned events in 2007 and not renew in 2008.
36 votes = 39%

am a sheep, fearful of change, and support the status quo.
55 votes = 60%

It's 60-40 status quo which is shocking. I was sure status quo would crush the boycott. I think this reflects a more widespread dissatisfacton with the way things are going by the silent majority. That is the problem with Discette's "keep it behind closed doors" idea where you can be placated and pooh poohed away by the powers that be via pm and email. Operating in that manner feeds the false perceptions of the Hot Tubs of the Association. Remember how convinced he was that drugs/booze weren't a problem during events and that no one was selling their plastic? Well the polls pounded home how wrong he was on those issues, and I think this poll sends a message that it's not just one or two "cranks" who are unhappy with the current reality.

I think there's probably plenty of us who refuse to vote as well because we don't like either of the choices.

Btw, thanks Aviar-X.

What he said.

It's 60-40 status quo which is shocking. I was sure status quo would crush the boycott. I think this reflects a more widespread dissatisfacton with the way things are going by the silent majority. That is the problem with Discette's "keep it behind closed doors" idea where you can be placated and pooh poohed away by the powers that be via pm and email. Operating in that manner feeds the false perceptions of the Hot Tubs of the Association. Remember how convinced he was that drugs/booze weren't a problem during events and that no one was selling their plastic? Well the polls pounded home how wrong he was on those issues, and I think this poll sends a message that it's not just one or two "cranks" who are unhappy with the current reality.



I also thought that more people would be pleased with the status quo. In addition to the possibility that people are refusing to vote, it is also possible that those who are upset with the status quo are more likely to vote (the pleased portion of people seeing no reason to vote because they are happy as is).

Look at it this way, how often do people write letters of applause to a business when things go well? How about when they have a horrible experience? Just a possible reason for the numbers...

As for whether or not this thread should have been started.... I think that it is fine. If one dissenting thread can sink an organization, then there probably are problems. Besides, these are discussion boards, so discuss! What I hate is seeing people close their mind to possibilities without offering a reasoned argument (the "I know I'm right, no questions asked" argument, if you will).

That is the problem with Discette's "keep it behind closed doors" idea where you can be placated and pooh poohed away by the powers that be via pm and email. I think this poll sends a message that it's not just one or two "cranks" who are unhappy with the current reality.



Hawk, how many BoD members have you PMed or emailed? I know that I reply to everything you send me (and I am still awaiting your comments on my questions to you regarding the divisional stuff). I cannot speak to past boards, but I think we've got a pretty responsive group on the BoD today.

I am glad that you have the right to use PDGA resources to discuss your opinions of PDGA failings. I am proud that this thread has not been removed. Its existence proves that the PDGA listened to folks complaining about the inconsistent DB moderation, and the BoD did something about it. Now there are clear rules and if you break them you lose. If you don't, it is okey doke.

And regarding your poll results, as a board member I can take no stock in them due to the nature of the wording. The fact that 60% of the folks are willing to say they are sheep is pretty astounding.

Lastly, in your first post, you state that 80% of the PDGA money comes from member and tourney fees. 10 years ago, this number was 95% (just a guess) and in 10 more years, it will be 65%. As sponsorship/advertising, retail sales, the income from the new IDGC continue to increase, the percentage paid by the members will continue to decrease and the value given to the members will continue to increase.

On a final note of agreement, I strongly support the notion that the TDs should be paying less for running PDGA events. The only question that remains for me is how and how quickly to lessen these fees.

For what it's worth, I'm a brand new member to the PDGA and my biggest question is about the seemingly out of whack divisions in tournaments.

Hawk's post just lets me know this is a widely discussed subject.

Considering that he didn't renew himself, you'd think he'd just abandon the PDGA. The fact that he continues to appear shows how much he desires the PDGA to evolve and the game to develop (get better in his opinion). Perhaps in his eagerness to see improvements he's being a little unrealistic.



Well said. This hits the nail on the head for me too. I ran for the BoD because there were some things that I thought needed fixing. I think you are right that Hawk (and I) love the concept of the PDGA but that we are not always pleased with the implementation. I can't speak for Hawk, but I believe things are headed in the right direction.

Keep all of the comments coming, they make our organization better.

Steve,

I don't have a pm from you. I sent you my divisional theory, you said you would tweak and get back to me.

Bad debate sytle speculating on what percentages might have been in the past regarding membership/fee percentages of revenue, and tossing out a random percentage for the future.

As for the responsiveness of BOD members and other officials I would say it's 50-50. I have sent stuff that has gone unanswered. I won't bust out the ones who don't respond at all or take forever. The bored mods have been the most responsive going back to the Hot Tub era through the current boys.

Bleak

I am glad Steve Dodge is on the BOD...I am more confident and optimistic about the future of where he leads us than I have been in the past. Open and honest communication is what the members want more than anything, and I hope that this trend continues...

Steve,

I don't have a pm from you. I sent you my divisional theory, you said you would tweak and get back to me.



I emailed you my comments on Feb 14th at 2:07 PM.


Bad debate sytle speculating on what percentages might have been in the past regarding membership/fee percentages of revenue, and tossing out a random percentage for the future.



I'll agree. I should have asked HQ for these numbers but I am lazy. So here are some figures.

1998: 244k incone
83% - members/tourneys
16% - merch
00% - sponsors
00% - IDGC

2003: 545k income
86% - members/tourneys
10% - merch
03% - sponsors
00% - IDGC

2007: 1.118 million estimated
80% members/tourneys
10% merch
05% sponsors
04% IDGC

I personally would like to hold the income from members / tourneys steady and increase the PDGA income via the other three areas. This would drive down costs, drive up value, both of which will increase membership.

My eyes are now open. And hopefully we can do better at driving the percentage from members down and the percnetage from Sponsors, Merch and IDGC up. It is pretty cool to see that these three have increased from:

1998: $ 39000
2003: $ 71000
2007: $212000


As for the responsiveness of BOD members and other officials I would say it's 50-50. I have sent stuff that has gone unanswered. I won't bust out the ones who don't respond at all or take forever. The bored mods have been the most responsive going back to the Hot Tub era through the current boys.



If you email a board member and get no response, I would recommend emailing them again and CCing another board member. That is what I did when I was a member and the second email always got a response.

I believe we are headed in the right direction. And value oriented members will make sure we continue that way.

Thank you Hawk. Keep the ideas and eye opening comments coming. I for one am glad that I ponied up 10 bucks to keep you in the PDGA. (I'm also glad that you are a bad enough golfer to warrant dropping back to Am status. :cool:)

Steve,

You'll need to resend the comments. Didn't get them.

If you email a board member and get no response, I would recommend emailing them again and CCing another board member.



It's a shame you have to do play games top get people to snap to it and do their job. I have to do the same thing here at my job. I email someone from another dept and they never respond, however, if I email them and CC my boss, BAM!, instant response.

I agree that communciation from members to board members is a little bad.

However, I will point out a few things...

1. First of all, the example of emailing your boss was given. Your boss is paid, the BOD is not. They are volunteers with 40 a week jobs. Everytime I have emailed Guru, Laura, or Da (paid staff) I have recieved a quick reply.
2. Steve is doing a GREAT job with emails and improving communication.

Typically, it's not the job of Board members to respond but to listen. If you want a response on some topic or get it added to the agenda for a future Board meeting, it should be sent to the PDGA office.

It's 60-40 status quo which is shocking. I was sure status quo would crush the boycott. I think this reflects a more widespread dissatisfacton with the way things are going by the silent majority. That is the problem with Discette's "keep it behind closed doors" idea where you can be placated and pooh poohed away by the powers that be via pm and email. Operating in that manner feeds the false perceptions of the Hot Tubs of the Association. Remember how convinced he was that drugs/booze weren't a problem during events and that no one was selling their plastic? Well the polls pounded home how wrong he was on those issues, and I think this poll sends a message that it's not just one or two "cranks" who are unhappy with the current reality.



Hawker, your polls "prove" nothing. Your posted questions wouldn't survive even the first cut in an introductory class on writing survey questions.

It's hopeless to address the factual misstatements you made about my earlier posts on plastic and drugs because the air can't be cleared while you continue filling it with so much dispersed saliva. But I don't worry too much about that, because, with that saliva you continue to dissolve what little credibility you may once have had . . .

We already know that a lot of people who respect the PDGA's current situation aren't responding because of how you worded the poll. Yet, now you think the numbers from this poll "mean" something. Yeah. Right.

That wouldn't even survive Remedial Analysis 101.

the Board is elected by, and is responsible to, the Members. it is absolutely okay to contact a Board member directly. the Contact page on this site is one easy way to reach the Board.

In the interest of customer service, I believe that the PDGA should post contact information on the website for board members and not just rely on the Web-based form. Every leader's phone number and email address ought to be freely available.

When using a Web form like the one the PDGA has up for staff and volunteer leaders, I do not feel any sense of connection with the person to who I am presumably directing a message, or confidence that it is going to get there. I think that's a common feeling.

That's why when I was on the board I started putting my contact info on each of my posts. The funny thing is, the information is/was rarely used. The handful of people who have emailed me direct, phoned me, or IM'd me, know how much I enjoy hearing from other PDGA members. But it's been pretty rare.

In fact, I had an IM chat the other day with Mike Crump, and other than the occasional chat with my friend Terry Miller, that's the only PDGA related IM chat so far in 2007.

...the example of emailing your boss was given. Your boss is paid, the BOD is not...



Actually it was copying my boss on emails to get my co-workers to respond to me, but that was not meant to single anybody out (BoD), it was just an example from my life to supplement what Steve posted previously (copying another BoD member when emailing BoD member gets you a faster response).

so the suggestion is that we all do something that your personal experience indicates is ineffective? um,... ok.

so the suggestion is that we all do something that your personal experience indicates is ineffective? um,... ok.



You there! Stop questioning visionary leadership.

so the suggestion is that we all do something that your personal experience indicates is ineffective? um,... ok.

[misdirected criticism removed]

i was reefering to making the phone numbers and emails freely available on the site. maybe even as a signature line. but your experience is that no matter how much you publicized that info no one contacted you. i wasnt reefering to the webform.

Thanks for the clarification. I apologize for once more poking fun at your reading comprehension. :cool:

Don't you find it interesting that even with all of that information available, few communications happen? Maybe no one cares? Maybe everyone is satisfied?

Maybe people are intimidated at the thought of starting a one-on-one conversation with me? Nah, not that, surely. Look at that kindly face, no hint of intimidation there.

I do think that the full contact info should be posted. It may not result in more communications, but I think it would result in a greater appearance of acceptance and readiness for communication.

Put on a red cap with a white pom on the end in that picture and people might start asking you for things, but only if they were nice and not naughty... :D

...Don't you find it interesting that even with all of that information available, few communications happen? Maybe no one cares? Maybe everyone is satisfied?

actually, i am encouraged with the amount of calls, emails and PMs i have received since landing on the BoD. quite a number of individuals have discussed things in person out at the courses. people do seem to care. some seem very satisfied and some seem less so. i hope to keep the satisfied ones satisfied while addressing the most common ideas for improvement that the Members bring up.

Typically, it's not the job of Board members to respond but to listen. If you want a response on some topic or get it added to the agenda for a future Board meeting, it should be sent to the PDGA office.



I don't know the "proper" procedure, but sending a proposal to a BoD member should elicit a response and they should either explain what needs to be tweaked to make it a proper proposal or ask the President to put it on the agenda for tbe next meeting.

I'm not saying Board members shouldn't respond. But based on the emails I receive as a committee head, more than half are better handled by PDGA Staff because they are routine requests and staff has the answers. Likewise, now that Board members aren't elected to head Committees, proposals may be better directed to PDGA committee contacts and staff who will get the info to those working in that area.

I think the PDGA was VERY weak on the drug issue.



Are you saying that the PDGA has forced some of its members to turn to drugs in order to help deal with how they are governing the organization? Please explain. I'm obviously confused.

I have been away for a while, I hurt my shoulder and coming on here depressed me. The PDGA will never make every member happy(nor should that be their goal), because most decisions they make will have people on both sides that have valid reasons for their beliefs. The job of the PDGA should be to TRY and continue the growth of the disc golf. Will every decision they make be popular? No. Will every decision they make be right? No, but everyone makes bad decisions and we aren't responsible for decisions of over 10,000 paid members and countless other non-PDGA members. My point is, maybe I am naive, but I do believe the BOD are trying to do what they feel is best for disc golf, and boycotting will not change that, nor should it. Boycotting will barely even be noticed because the growth will outweigh the people leaving at least it has the 20,000 plus that have chosen to not to renew in the past. I will miss your avatars though Hawk, maybe that is why the board payed for your membership, I will pitch in a dollar to keep those avatars coming, do we have another 49 people willing to pay a $1 for the avatars.

terry, a few things. first, the "contact me i love to hear from members" thing isn't true. i tried, remember? that was 2-3 months ago...don't worry, i'm not holding my breath for a reply.

second, hawk's poll was done that way on purpose. it's funny. what's more funny is your response...he counts on that, it's part of the gag. i for one thank you, it makes for good message board humor. additionally, criticizing another's reading comprehension skills and being hawk's unknowing fall guy creates an enormous credibility gap.

third, you are absolutely correct, you are not intimidating in the least. (we're in a virtual world here, i haven't been hit yet!)

lastly, i boycotted the pdga last year. it didn't mean a thing to the pdga, but boy did it make me feel good. i'd encourage others to do as i will and renew every other year putting the pdga dues in line with what they are actually worth.

ps. every e-mail i've sent to mr. dodge has been responded to quite quickly and quite professionally. we are lucky to have him and i thank him again for his service.

Since joining in 1999, I have always felt satisfied with my membership.
Emails and phones calls have always been answered within 24 hours.
Member benefits have grown each year, while the price has only increased once.

All the many benefits that Brian Hoeniger posted are indeed direct member benefits, and a great deal of work went into establishing them.
Past and present BOD members, State Coordinators, Committeepeople, TDs, and myriad of volunteers make this machine work.
Why?
ALTRUISM and hard work.

[Cheap shot deleted by poster]

Some of you can boycott all you want.
It just makes you sound stupid and shortsighted because you're not doing anything positive to improve what you see as a bad situation.

terry, a few things. first, the "contact me i love to hear from members" thing isn't true. i tried, remember? that was 2-3 months ago...don't worry, i'm not holding my breath for a reply.



Kevin, you emailed me on December 18 at 12:56 pm. I replied on December 18 at 1:03 pm.

I'll say one thing - it's always astounded me how many players/members of the PDGA are 100% willing to fork over their dues for the sole purpose of bettering the sport with zero expected personal gain to themselves.

It goes hand in hand with the volunteers who work for the PDGA, the TD's who volunteer their time and the players who both create, build and maintain courses across the country and around the world.

I don't know of another sport with as many generous people as Disc Golf.

I don't know of another sport with as many generous people as Disc Golf.



True, worldwide. I agree. It's almost like a really, really good church!

that's funny. i get it. the old, "thanks for the e-mail, i'll get back to you soon with my response," counts as a reply with you? weak. expected. is the pirate's slogan, "blowhardy harhar?"

I don't know of another sport with as many generous people as Disc Golf.



True, worldwide. I agree. It's almost like a really, really good church!


Too bad this message board makes it seem like 65% of PDGA members hate the org but are so stupid that they keep renewing anyway. Maybe this thing has out-lived its useful life?

the org or the DB?

that's funny. i get it. the old, "thanks for the e-mail, i'll get back to you soon with my response," counts as a reply with you? weak. expected. is the pirate's slogan, "blowhardy harhar?"

For the record, you posted above that you were still waiting for my reply, which as I noted you had in fact received.

Also for the record, here is what I wrote in my reply, which did substantively address the primary thrust of your message that involved me as a private citizen, which was that you thought my posts had become confrontational.
I appreciate your message and I will read it carefully.

The tenor of my recent posts, though, indicates that (a) I am no longer a board member, and so can speak my mind without the caveats that someone in an elected position with fiduciary responsibilities has to pay attention to and (b) my concern that a couple of new board members think too highly of discussion on DISCussion.

I did not promise any further messages or an ongoing discussion. And the rest of your message was primarily a complaint about the PDGA, consisting of statements and conclusions - no questions or requests for my thoughts.

If I were still on the board when you wrote to me then I most likely would have continued the discussion, regardless, seeing it as a responsibility of that position. But I am not, and did not. Nor did you.

the org or the DB?


This thread!

The discussion board.

The discussion board.



Yeah your only saying that so you can finish it out as the biggest post ***** before Ware catches you. :D

that's funny. i get it. the old, "thanks for the e-mail, i'll get back to you soon with my response," counts as a reply with you? weak. expected. is the pirate's slogan, "blowhardy harhar?"

For the record, you posted above that you were still waiting for my reply, which as I noted you had in fact received.

Also for the record, here is what I wrote in my reply, which did substantively address the primary thrust of your message that involved me as a private citizen, which was that you thought my posts had become confrontational.
I appreciate your message and I will read it carefully.

The tenor of my recent posts, though, indicates that (a) I am no longer a board member, and so can speak my mind without the caveats that someone in an elected position with fiduciary responsibilities has to pay attention to and (b) my concern that a couple of new board members think too highly of discussion on DISCussion.

I did not promise any further messages or an ongoing discussion. And the rest of your message was primarily a complaint about the PDGA, consisting of statements and conclusions - no questions or requests for my thoughts.

If I were still on the board when you wrote to me then I most likely would have continued the discussion, regardless, seeing it as a responsibility of that position. But I am not, and did not. Nor did you.



After reading this, it sounds like dscmn would have liked a full on apology for ever questioning anything he agreed with and a promise to never post anything he didn't like again... :D

So on behalf of disc golfers everywhere, those of us who support the PDGA apologize for doing so. Terry for being a biased defender, Chuck for being an apologist, and myself for being generally irritating... or was that irritable?

Please note that this is humor, I'm not really allowed to speak on behalf of Terry or Chuck... for some reason they don't trust me?

Lyle, I trust you completely to speak for Terry and Chuck. :D

The discussion board.



Yeah your only saying that so you can finish it out as the biggest post ***** before Ware catches you. :D



Funny...whetever thread I go to...there's Ware's footprints. Let's give it up for the weather man!!!!

lyle,

i support the pdga too. they got my money. that's support. i'm not looking for any type of apology and i'm not sure where you're getting that from. it could be that i'm not reading what you wrote correctly; however it reads a bit like the a prescription may be getting a bit out of control. (smiley)

i grow tired of self-promotion, especially when there is evidence to the contrary. the vindictiveness is annoying. it got the best of me. i apologize.

lyle,

i support the pdga too. they got my money. that's support. i'm not looking for any type of apology and i'm not sure where you're getting that from. it could be that i'm not reading what you wrote correctly; however it reads a bit like the a prescription may be getting a bit out of control. (smiley)

i grow tired of self-promotion, especially when there is evidence to the contrary. the vindictiveness is annoying. it got the best of me. i apologize.



Simply having fun at your expense. Please accept my apologies. Miscommunication is one of the biggest problems with a written medium as your main means of information exchange. I've been posting here for years now and some people are very good at it. Terry is one of them. If he says something, you can go to the bank on it. Chuck is very similar.

I love watching people call them out. I don't ever think I've seen someone really get one up on Terry (other than in their own mind) and I've only seen Chuck come out on the short end once. Tone poles, that's all I'll say.

In the end, this should all be in fun. I've yet to see someone post here that didn't want to do what is best for the PDGA.

Lyle, I trust you completely to speak for Terry and Chuck. :D



I'm not sure who should be the most offended by this... I do know if I were Terry and Chuck I'd be sending you a PM. :D

I don't ever think I've seen someone really get one up on Terry

only because mercy has been granted.

[QUOTE]
I don't ever think I've seen someone really get one up on Terry



not even chuck norris?

[QUOTE]
I don't ever think I've seen someone really get one up on Terry



not even chuck norris?



Nope, only Bruce Lee could have, but he's gone.

just read some of this thread.....I think instead of wasting time on the topic....just read the first post...that super-smart-better-than-you-perfect-knows all in the world-person is NOT renewing for 2008....

Great!...bye

I'd be worried as a TD also Brandon if an event like Loriella essentially filled with pre-registrations before the boycott idea got started, and now your event is only 33% filled with a week to go post-boycott. Coincidence? Hmmm...

nice quote of Hot Tub as your sig. however -- below is a quote from the one you refer to as "hot tub" that i find most curious: [emphasis added]


. If you knew me in real life you would know me as the one person you know who admits he was wrong more than anyone else, and who more than anyone else you know loves to learn a new perspective or opinion.

I'd be worried as a TD also Brandon if an event like Loriella essentially filled with pre-registrations before the boycott idea got started, and now your event is only 33% filled with a week to go post-boycott. Coincidence? Hmmm...



I'm thinking is it because Loriella offered trophy only and Sherando did not.

I wonder how many players went trophy only at Loriella. I know of two on the Am day.

I did on Am day.

#4 would be me

nice quote of Hot Tub as your sig. however -- below is a quote from the one you refer to as "hot tub" that i find most curious: [emphasis added]


. If you knew me in real life you would know me as the one person you know who admits he was wrong more than anyone else, and who more than anyone else you know loves to learn a new perspective or opinion.





I thought Terry's call on that one was weak. Hawk's a wimp of a critic compared to AC, UPM, and others... :D

Perhaps Terry should have written, "one of the most average, mediocre spirited, critics of the PDGA." Of course, Terry did get his point across.

off the top of my head i think it was 8 for am day. imo trophy only is merely an extra pain in the butt for the td PROVIDING YOUR ENTRY FEES ARE REASONABLE TO BEGIN WITH.

Have a great feeling that Sherando will turn out to be a wonderful event...and likely full. Have 13-14 sponsors...and a good weather forecast. People coming from VA,MD,DC,NC,MA,DE,WV,PA, and maybe a few more I may be not aware of...Great course...perfect balance of left/right - long/short - tight/open...beautiful scenery all around. AHHHHHHHHHHH........NO TROPHY DIVISION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I MUST CANCEL this event...the anti-PDGA people have found that elusive reason to NOT go to tournaments....the old "trophy-division controversy"....should have known this would be the fall of disc golf as we know it!!!!!!

I think there is a caveman guy on a T.V. commercial who put it best in reaction to one of Hawks' lil' chirps.....WHAT?

Trophy division may be offered next year...maybe.

Anyway....done with this also...Brandon

John,
Point taken on the trophy only being a pain for the TD, but the trophy only am option is a great idea IMO for the disc golfer like myself who are :
1) on a budget
2) like to compete
3) aren't very good

nice quote of Hot Tub as your sig. however -- below is a quote from the one you refer to as "hot tub" that i find most curious: [emphasis added]


. If you knew me in real life you would know me as the one person you know who admits he was wrong more than anyone else, and who more than anyone else you know loves to learn a new perspective or opinion.





I thought Terry's call on that one was weak. Hawk's a wimp of a critic compared to AC, UPM, and others... :D

Perhaps Terry should have written, "one of the most average, mediocre spirited, critics of the PDGA." Of course, Terry did get his point across.



Who? Now Lyle you know I could one up those boys no problem. I just thought I'd give some others a chance to debate Hot Tub and The Apologist. I felt guilty that the two of them were following me around here 16 hours a day like love struck teenagers.

off the top of my head i think it was 8 for am day. imo trophy only is merely an extra pain in the butt for the td PROVIDING YOUR ENTRY FEES ARE REASONABLE TO BEGIN WITH.



Eight doesn't account for that small Sherando pre-reg list then. Hmmm...

John,
Point taken on the trophy only being a pain for the TD, but the trophy only am option is a great idea IMO for the disc golfer like myself who are :
1) on a budget
2) like to compete
3) aren't very good


Excellent point.

nice quote of Hot Tub as your sig. however -- below is a quote from the one you refer to as "hot tub" that i find most curious: [emphasis added]


. If you knew me in real life you would know me as the one person you know who admits he was wrong more than anyone else, and who more than anyone else you know loves to learn a new perspective or opinion.





I thought Terry's call on that one was weak. Hawk's a wimp of a critic compared to AC, UPM, and others... :D

Perhaps Terry should have written, "one of the most average, mediocre spirited, critics of the PDGA." Of course, Terry did get his point across.



Who? Now Lyle you know I could one up those boys no problem. I just thought I'd give some others a chance to debate Hot Tub and The Apologist. I felt guilty that the two of them were following me around here 16 hours a day like love struck teenagers.



I'm sorry Hawk, you're just not mean enough, or maybe you're just too smart. The rat pack does not = the N*azis? Now Eric, well maybe... :D

On the other hand, I'd much rather debate you than UMP, he and the AC were on the edge, so to speak.

"Big-Bird" wrote...

I'd be worried as a TD also Brandon if an event like Loriella essentially filled with pre-registrations before the boycott idea got started, and now your event is only 33% filled with a week to go post-boycott. Coincidence? Hmmm...

101 @ Sherando...

What to do in case this happens again, take foot out of mouth, slice a huge chunk of the humble pie and remove head from rear canal.

Could not resist urge to point out the pure ignorance...and do not show more of it by calling people names again...such "third-grade" comments do not do your, at least eigth-grade, mind justice.

Chains

2006 Membership: 11,302
Historical growth trend: 10%
2007 Membership: 11,634
2007 growth: 2.9%
Percentage of 2006 memberships from new memberships: 25.9%
Percentage of 2007 memberships from new memberships: ?
Historical membership loss each year: 20%
2007 membership loss: ?
Hmmm...

2006 Membership: 11,302
Historical growth trend: 10%
2007 Membership: 11,634
2007 growth: 2.9%
Percentage of 2006 memberships from new memberships: 25.9%
Percentage of 2007 memberships from new memberships: ?
Historical membership loss each year: 20%
2007 membership loss: ?
Hmmm...



Man I've missed you. The MB just isn't the same without it's meanest!

You only have about two months left to make a statement here Hawk.
Since you aren't going to renew. We will all miss you. I am sure all the other players around your course will get an extra earful in 2008 since you can't show your true colors here.
Take care and fly free