Mike has sent me his initial thoughts for this thread.

I will hold onto the already-edited version - which I was about to post - until I decide whether I want to risk my posting privileges in what "might be" a battle over "what might be" after-the-fact rulings that, intended or not, fortunate or unfortunate, "might" restrict free speech and the sharing of ideas relating to a PDGA board election.

I do not believe that the PDGA should restrict me from quoting from messages sent to me by someone when what I post will not contain content forbidden by the rules of DISCussion. Nor do I think it is appropriate to make up a new rule to stop a board candidate's thoughts from being posted. (And it's disingenuous to posit that the previous ruling about allowing others to use your identity has anything to do with quoting from others using your own identity.)

Meanwhile, in my own words, not Mike's, he suggested to me a compromise that would still have him serve out the remaining days of his [I think well-deserved] suspension, but delay the remainder of it until after the election. In other words, suspend the suspension so that he can participate here as a board candidate.

To me, that is problematic, because his postings - if that were to happen - should be subject to DISCussion rules, and I don't think that without pre-posting moderation he could maintain that level of reasonableness for that long. And I do not think that postings during a suspended suspension should be any less moderated than other postings.

Even though it is a pain in the butt for me, my acting as a pre-post moderator, editor, and poster (Not allowing him to post under my name, which is really what the existing rule forbids.) is a better solution.

And, even though I think the power of DISCussion is overrated, I am extremely uncomfortable with the tension inherent in a board candidate not being able to use all of the forums available to other board candidates.

Thoughts?

They aren't going to ban you for breaking a rule they have not made yet. The rule precludes,
4. Allowing others to post under your account name.

You'd merely be conveying what Mikey told you, which is something we all do all the time here.

However, passing along Mikey's bile might subject you to the same penalties as Mikey would incur under Bonus Rule 3.5(C). :D

Meanwhile, I like the idea of a temporary suspension of Mikey's suspension. I think it would ensure that his candidacy goes nowhere. Him posting through you is going to make him sound reasonable and sane.

Well, you just quoted Mike on the other thread, which is not quite the same thing as passing on something he sent directly to you, after you edited it. I agree that the precedent rule is totally inapplicable.

Why I have not already posted Mike's first message to me, edited, is this line in a moderator's reply: "This is a moot point now anyway - the request was already made, and has been denied by the executive director."

That could mean, although it is quite vague, that my request (although I had not yet made a request) had already been denied. Since I hadn't yet made a request, I don't know what was denied. But I figured I was safe enough starting a thread and not passing any of Mike's words through.

I have been impressed by Peter Shive's responses on his thread. He'll be a good board member.

Can we still post his name? [censored].



:)

Mikey may have recanted his item 10 now that I've supported some of his requests for rules clarifications. :)

Terry and Bruce,

Please see the e-mail I sent you showing that a proposal was already made to allow Mike Kernan to post under a "posts must be previewed" system for the duration of his current suspension, and it was denied by the PDGA Executive Director.

Furthermore, unless I receive further clarification from my boss, the Communications Director, posts that come from other accounts that blatantly and obviously come from Mike Kernan will be viewed as sharing of accounts which is against PDGA DISCussion board rules.

I know that everyone's intentions are in the right place, but Mike Kernan violated the rules of the DISCussion board and should be required to follow the duration of his suspension according to the disciplinary procedures we established. Allowing him to post in *any* capacity, even for 'official business', or moderated, or through someone else's account, ruins all credibility in the disciplinary system we have all worked hard to build up.

May I remind everyone once again, that voting for PDGA Board Member Candidates will take place from June 1 to July 31 2007, and Mike Kernan's suspension ends on July 6, 2007. That is a period of 25 days, or more than 3 1/2 weeks, with which Mike Kernan can present any information about his candidacy for PDGA Board Member or respond to questions on this PDGA DISCussion board.

that's okay he'll be suspended again by July 8

: ) :

While I understand the MB rules and generally agree with them, this is stupid. I often quote people who I would never want posting. I understand it is a fine line but it is also an unclear one.

For example. If mike responds on the SN MB and someone moves that post here and it is non-deflamatory, then mike's intent wasn't to post here and I see no problem.

Of course it might be simpler to have people ask their questions here, and provide a link to the SNMB where mike can respond. After all, it is the internet and the SNMB is only a couple of clicks away...

In my opinion, this is entirely wrong.

With regard to the portion of the election during which Mike will be able to post, I know from personal experience managing previous PDGA elections that a lot of voting takes place in response to the initial notification of the election. Without having hard numbers, I can't support this other than anecdotally, but I think most votes probably come in during the first weeks.

OTOH, I don't think posting here is all that influential.

What about the quoting of a post by Mike on the Southern Nationals list by Bruce? Mike didn't ask him to do that or intend for him to. Are we allowed to "mine" Mike's statements in other fora and quote them here?

If not, that seems a bit over the edge to me. Basically, there is a tension here between message board rules and electoral procedures. Since you are moderator, I understand your focus on the rules, but I think the rules need to give a bit when they conflict with essential governance issues.

P.S. I don't have the email yet, although someone else has mentioned that ED decision to me in a PM.

P.P.S. Do we have the technical functionality to permit a board candidate, Mike, to post only on a single thread, which could for the duration of the election be free of general DISCussion rules?

So because Mikey names himself as a candidate for the BoD, he gets a free pass from being unable to follow the rules?

No rule previously existed that would keep me from passing on statements from Mikey that I had vetted for rules-breaking content.

Apparently, and not in public (not a criticism) someone had proposed a similar scheme as mine and it was decided that scheme was not permitted.

At the moment then, there is no applicable DISCussion rule to forbid what I suggested.

You must know that I am one of Mike's most consistent critics, my criticisms being based on the content of his postings.

Even prior to the current circumstances, it had occurred to me (without Mike in the context) that I would be comfortable with and see the value, perhaps need, of some more open-even-than-DISCussion forum with regard to electoral campaigns for the board.

Yes [sigh] my mind works like that. So does Bruce's and Chuck's. If nothing else, be glad you don't have to live inside our brains. :D

I agree with the silliness of the "can't quote his comments" ruling. I generally don't get involved with the rabble-rousing and PDGA conspiracy theories, but I can't see how disciplining Kernan should include restricting what another person posts. This sort of reaction by the PDGA only adds to his outlaw image, which some people seem to take a shine to. It should not be his language and ideas that get suspended, only his (he, the person's) ability to use the PDGA resource. Well, at least the clean language...

Well, I got the e-mail and what Terry and I are talking about is not what that e-mail is talking about. Mikey is not a friend of mine and I'm not going to let him use my account. Neither am I proposing that his posts be screened by me and allowed or disallowed on a post-by-post basis.

But if I want to talk about something he has posted over at SN or NEFA or quote something he said there, there is no rule against that. If you want to make a rule against that, make a rule that banned members can't be quoted, paraphrased or mentioned here. If you don't want to make a rule about that, fine, but don't think that ccing me on a running e-mail discussion about some other topic is making a rule about that.

Nothing has even been directed to me.

I'm fine with Mikey being banned. He's earned it. If he has something amusing to say about his candidacy over at SN or NEFA, there's no rule prohibiting anyone from noticing it, mentioning it, linking to it, talking about it or quoting it. Until you make a rule. I'll watch the rules section for new rules.

So because Mikey names himself as a candidate for the BoD, he gets a free pass from being unable to follow the rules?



While on every level I agee with Terry, I think Tony makes a very pertinent point. UPM is dedicated enough to stirring the pot, to run for office if he felt it would give him unmitigated access to the MB to post whatever drivel he wanted to; even it it was to post erotica. Mike's persistence in proving his point is equivalent to a four year old's. If I don't get my way I'm going to hold my breath till I turn blue!

That aside, I like the notion of a politcal thread that is limited to candidate access where candidates could comment. Let Mike post there.

1) Limit access to members only for viewing
2) If you don't want to read it don't go there
3) If mike was unable to contain himself on that thread it would tell the voters exactly what they need to know

Actually, and I hesitated to suggest this, because it is more staff or volunteer work and it is something that I did not do when I managed the election process (partly due to the work load, partly due to other things, like moving the election on line) . . .

And given that I really do NOT think that the DISCussion board is very influential or important . . .

Why not (and it isn't too late to do this if there are staff or volunteer resources available) schedule in 2-3 more sets of candidates' statements - to be sent by email to all voting-eligible members - between now and when the voting begins?

The logistics would be tough and I would have concerns about false or misleading statements (Like politics isn't full of those!) but it would (a) let the candidates have a bit of back and forth if they want and (b) provide enough access to voters outside DISCussion to satisfy at least my concerns about the tension between DISCussion rules and our governance process.

If nothing else, the email transmissions would be brief versions of "PDGA Member News" with nothing more than the voting timeline and links to the current and previous sets of statements.

If Mikey give his USDGC winnings to charity, can he come back? ;)

Someone is able to see complex patterns, eh? :D

Ask Mike Kernan (http://www.nefa.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=2324)

some thoughts:

1. suspension should not be suspended. holding a BoD seat does not place a person beyond the rules. any individual who wishes to use the message board as a part of the campaign process should have the foresight needed to retain their posting privileges during the sweet spot of the campaign. duh.

2. having someone else post the general platform, comments, whatever is fine. no rule has been broken. no account has been used by someone other than its "owner". this really should be a nonissue. let terry post mike's thoughts if he wants. there really is no downside.

3. if the suspension is a Disciplinary Committee issue, then why is the ED handling requests relating to its decisions? (please understand that i am not disagreeing with the ED's decision. just wondering if this represents an existing process, a new process, a one time quick resolution, etc... and what the ramifications of this approach might be)

I think some realization of common sense is called for here. Posting a quote is one thing; managing a thread as an in-between for a suspended poster to circumvent the disciplinary policy and suspension terms is quite another. That's what we're talking about here.

PDGA Board member, Steven Dodge, asked for my opinion on allowing Mike Kernan to post on the Discussion Board during the elections. I replied, "I would not be in favor of making an exception like this for <u>anyone</u> who has lost posting privileges on the Discussion board. I also stated, "This is not the first, second, or even third time that Mike has lost his posting privileges. He has demonstrated time and again that he is not willing to abide by the Discussion board rules. I think that you would agree with me that Mike would be the first person to jump up and down screaming bloody murder if the PDGA were to not follow the rules and make an exception like this for anyone else."

In my opinion, quoting someone is normal and acceptable on the Discussion Board, however acting as a go between to purposely circumvent the rules and a suspension of one's posting priveleges, should not be allowed.

Should we waive all message board and PDGA tour suspensions just because the offending parties announce their candidacy? Would this not encourage everyone who has been suspended to announce themselves as a candidate as a means of being re-instated? Should our candidates and elected officials not be held to the same standards as the rest of the members?

Regards,
Brian Graham
PDGA Executive Director

All candidates need a voice. As this is the closest to a community gathering spot, yes, he should be allowed to share his views.

Hopefully personal feuds (on both sides) will stay out of the Ask the candidate threads. Those are better left to personal messages or their own threads. I hate having to sift through one person's often manic baiting and digging to try to stir up some explosive reaction that has little to do with the rest of the membership. Maybe a moderator can cut off such banter.

Let em speak, but also keep the usual suspects from bringing up old and possibly dead issues.

Brian,

To answer your question directly, I think that Mike's suspension should be upheld, that is, he cannot directly post from his account. We should not waive his suspension of posting privileges from this message board.

Having said that, if another member, in this case Terry Arrrrrrrrr Calhoun, posts for Mike, then Terry is taking the risk of being suspended, etc., for the content of what he is posting, not for passing on information from Mike. So if Terry posts unsuitable material, he could suffer the consequences, but I don't think unsuitable material should be passing on innocuous messages from a banned/suspended member. If he posted, "In reference to X's question, I have a strong feeling that Mike would respond something like this.....", would that be cause for sanctions against Terry?

Conclusion: If Terry is willing to take the consequences from the content of his posts, not the source, he can post whatever he wants, but I don't want any PDGA volunteers/staff to spend any of their valuable time on this, unless this is the most pressing issue on their plate.

Brian, i completely agree with your first paragraph, disagree with your second, and answer the questions in the thrid thusly: No. That's one way to find candidates :D. Of course they should.

re the second paragraph: it is posting privileges they lose when suspended, not communications privileges. think of the hairs you'll need to split to decide if the poster was quoting someone or if they were acting as a go between to circumvent the rules.

I respectfully disagree that what I propose in any way circumvents the rules or the terms of the suspension.

It absolutely and unquestionably does NOT break any of the rules.

Further, Brian, even though you call it that, this is not an "exception" to the rules.

And conflating "tour suspensions" with this just is illogical. Sorry.

Bill and Pat,

Please note that the portion of my post in regards to a member acting as a go between, was prefaced by "In my opinion..."

I believe in letting the staff, moderators and committee members do their jobs without interference. I would have preferred to not be involved as there are many more important issues needing my attention, but the volume of e-mails that I have received from members in the last couple of hours, made it an issue that I felt I needed to address.

Regards,
Brian Graham
PDGA Executive Director

Terry,

The second paragraph of my post was more of a general statement and not necessarily directed at you. I am in no way insinuating that what you are doing is against the rules. I merely stated that <u>in my opinion</u> , a person should not be allowed to act as a go between to intentionally circumvent the rules.

I will concede that conflating "tour suspensions" with this matter may have been a tad bit illogical, but my intended point was, where does it all stop? This could very well be the next issue we will be forced to face if we head down this rocky road.

Regards,
Brian Graham
PDGA Executive Director

I respectfully disagree that what I propose in any way circumvents the rules or the terms of the suspension.

It absolutely and unquestionably does NOT break any of the rules.

Further, Brian, even though you call it that, this is not an "exception" to the rules.




Terry,

You proposed the following:
Even though it is a pain in the butt for me, my acting as a pre-post moderator, editor, and poster (Not allowing him to post under my name, which is really what the existing rule forbids.) is a better solution.



I find it difficult to understand how anyone could not see this as serving as a go between for a member who has been suspended from message board use. Though the intentions may be honest (to present information about Mike's candidacy for PDGA Board Member and to respond to questions) the end result is that it becomes a circumvention of the rules, disciplinary process, and punishments that were established for this message board. Basically, Mike would type up something up and you would post his message word-for-word assuming there was no offensive content. Again, posting a quote or two is one thing; but managing a thread as an in-between for a suspended poster in essence circumvents the disciplinary policy and suspension terms and clearly presents a problem.

Well, even a suspended competitor can show up and talk to people at a tournament, we suspend them from competing not from being there, so I don't see that as a any potential restriction on campaign venue access.

I do think that what I proposed does not break any rules and it resolves a tension between the DISCussion suspension and a core part of the organization, the governance process. In my view, governance trumps DISCussion every time.

managing a thread as an in-between for a suspended poster in essence circumvents the disciplinary policy and suspension terms and clearly presents a problem.



Mike is suspended from posting. Period. I am not proposing that he get to post.

He is suspended due to inappropriate content. I am not proposing to post any inappropriate content.

And I really don't see the problem you refer to. Mikey still is on suspension, but this way his ideas as a board candidate are not kept from this communications venue. Sounds like a problem solution to me, which is the intent.

You could just as meaningfully say that posting his statement as a candidate on the PDGA website circumvents the rules and suspension.

Or, you could say "the rule" and "the terms of suspension" are inadequate and change them (which you sort of are doing, actually). But doing so after the fact violates due process.

Terry,

You're proposing to not only quote Mikey, but also to edit his statements?

If that's true, I'm against it. Either quote him verbatim or not at all. Once you start editing him, then you are enabling him and IMO giving the membership an incorrect picture of him. Let the membership see his poor communication skills and inability to discuss anything without slinging [censored] at the other members.

Terry,

You're proposing to not only quote Mikey, but also to edit his statements?

If that's true, I'm against it. Either quote him verbatim or not at all. Once you start editing him, then you are enabling him and IMO giving the membership an incorrect picture of him. Let the membership see his poor communication skills and inability to discuss anything without slinging [censored] at the other members.



Second.

Mike is suspended from posting. Period. I am not proposing that he get to post.



Indeed you are. By posting his messages word-for-word that he sends to you, he is, in essence, posting again. That should be blatantly obvious.

If you allow that, then why bother having any rules or suspensions at all? If any user can just violate the Rules and have their account suspended, but then have access to someone else's account or have someone else post their messages for them word-for-word, what use are rules and suspensions? They would be worthless.

This is about as blatantly obvious as it gets, imo. And until I am otherwise directed, posts that come from other accounts that are obviously go-betweens for a suspended user will be treated as sharing of accounts which is against PDGA DISCussion board rules.

What a conundrum.

Even if Mike weren't currently suspended, he likely would be once he started campaigning on DISCussion, based on what he would say?

I think this underscores the importance of somehow getting the candidates 2-3 more opportunities to make additional statements, sent out by email not just posted on the PDGA website, to all voting members.

what if i post something a non-Member writes or says? come on, you seem more focused on exacting full, and perhaps extra, punishment, rather than the simple goals of keeping the message board usable and friendly (and possibly helping someone learn to express themself more productively)

upm has got to be sitting around laughing at/about this as we type.

Terry,

You're proposing to not only quote Mikey, but also to edit his statements?

If that's true, I'm against it. Either quote him verbatim or not at all. Once you start editing him, then you are enabling him and IMO giving the membership an incorrect picture of him. Let the membership see his poor communication skills and inability to discuss anything without slinging [censored] at the other members.



I can see the post now:

"You're all a bunch of [strike through] Nazi's [un-strke through] [Terry edit] Teletubbies [un-Terry edit]."

what if i post something a non-Member writes or says? come on, you seem more focused on exacting full, and perhaps extra, punishment, rather than the simple goals of keeping the message board usable and friendly (and possibly helping someone learn to express themself more productively)



Again, some realization of common sense is called for here. Posting a quote from a non-Member or suspended poster is one thing; managing a thread as an in-between for a non-Member or suspended poster to circumvent our Rules is quite another. That's what we're talking about here.

Yes, our primary goal is to ensure a family friendly atmosphere here, but we have rules that must be upheld. I personally obtain no joy in extracting punishment to those who break them; in fact, I'd prefer if our disciplinary list has zero names on it because frankly, it means more work for us. Every time we have to deal with offensive content we must archive the post, go back and edit the original, send out probabtion and suspension e-mails, respond to the Communications Director, etc. It gets old real quick.

I can safely speak for the other moderators in that we'd prefer that absolutely no names are on that Message Board Disciplinary List.

PDGA message board is not the only way to campaign maybe just the cheapest. Make the guy do his leg work if he really wants to run for office, he can start a blog and Terry can post every hour, "hey go look at this". Web server space is not that expensive these days, and with a service provider you get a certain amount of free space anyways.

Why is this even an issue, he broke the rules he suffers the consequences even if he feels it restricts his ability to incluence those who use the boards. If he wants to win his election then he will be motivated to step up and get his ideas out there.

How many people in the past relied on the boards to get elected?

Where do we go from here?

Basically, we're in a Catch22.

All candidates deserve a forum from which they can interact with PDGA members over the issues of the PDGA and disc golf, discuss their philosophies, and discuss what they would do for the PDGA if elected to the BoD.

The most convenient method is the Message Board, which Peter Shive has already begun to successfully utilize. Mike Kernan's previous actions have him suspended from the Mb.

Terry has generously offered to get Mikey's word out to the PDGA board by posting on behalf of Mikey.

Jeff wants to keep the integrity of our Mb rules by not letting Terry undermine them and post on Mikey's behalf.

At this point, we need to look at what's in the *best* interest of the PDGA.

All candidates deserve a forum to interact and campaign with voters. With that in mind, I truly feel we owe Mike Kernan and all the candidates at the very least a thread to discuss PDGA topics.

I agree with Terry in saying that a substantial volume of votes are going to be submitted soon as the electronic ballot is issued. With that in mind, it's essential that we let Mikey speak prior to his unsuspension date of July 6th.

If he's banned from this Mb, then we need a new "Topic" or thread to let Mikey get his message out.

I hope that Jeff and Brian and anyone else who feels he should *not* be posting on this message board understands it's more than the priviledge of posting (which no doubt Mikey has abused in the past), it's about seriously considering someone for the BoD, who deserves as much exposure (as he's willing to volunteer) as all the other candidates.

I also hope that Mikey will be more thoughtful and tactful in his future posts. There's no doubt in my mind he's got the intelligence to make a positive impact for the PDGA, and us moderators know darn well he's got the ambition to spread his views...I just hope he can get his message out without offending and/or alienating more voters.

Let the record state that I have not been in any way coersed by Mikey or anyone else with my stance.

Respectfully,

Frederick Doot
#27259

All candidates deserve a forum to interact and campaign with voters.

<font color="blue">He has a forum...more than one actually. Check the SN board or the NEFA board.</font>

With that in mind, it's essential that we let Mikey speak prior to his unsuspension date of July 6th.

<font color="blue">Again, he has a forum. No one is hindering his speech there. On July 6, if he wishes, he could start his own thread on this forum. </font>

I also hope that Mikey will be more thoughtful and tactful in his future posts.

<font color="blue">Unlikely. He has repeatedly shown that he can not do that. Furthermore, I dont think he wants to do that. </font>



I'm with Jeff....I'm not sure whats so hard to understand about this?

PDGA message board is not the only way to campaign maybe just the cheapest. Make the guy do his leg work if he really wants to run for office, he can start a blog and Terry can post every hour, "hey go look at this". Web server space is not that expensive these days, and with a service provider you get a certain amount of free space anyways.

Why is this even an issue, he broke the rules he suffers the consequences even if he feels it restricts his ability to incluence those who use the boards. If he wants to win his election then he will be motivated to step up and get his ideas out there.

How many people in the past relied on the boards to get elected?



To answer the question, Pat Brenner did it last year, for one. :)

And to add, Blogger is free.

All candidates deserve a forum to interact and campaign with voters.

<font color="blue">He has a forum...more than one actually. Check the SN board or the NEFA board.</font>

With that in mind, it's essential that we let Mikey speak prior to his unsuspension date of July 6th.

<font color="blue">Again, he has a forum. No one is hindering his speech there. On July 6, if he wishes, he could start his own thread on this forum. </font>

I also hope that Mikey will be more thoughtful and tactful in his future posts.

<font color="blue">Unlikely. He has repeatedly shown that he can not do that. Furthermore, I dont think he wants to do that. </font>



I'm with Jeff....I'm not sure whats so hard to understand about this?



All candidates deserve a forum to campaign on the PDGA site, not regionaL message boards covering only a small percentage of PDGA members.

It's not up to us to speculate *if* he wants to "play nice." This is more than petty mb arguments..he *might* actually get serious on us. At least I'm willing to give him a chance.

I guess we have to agree to disagree and let the powers that be decide (or in my previous post, reconsider.)

- doot

In my opinion, quoting someone is normal and acceptable on the Discussion Board, however acting as a go between to purposely circumvent the rules and a suspension of one's posting priveleges, should not be allowed.

Regards,
Brian Graham
PDGA Executive Director



For the record, I agree 100% with Brian here (and I have communicated that already to Steve and the moderators). If Mikey Kernan's ongoing abuse of posting privileges has made it difficult for him to communicate with members through one of the PDGA's resources, it's his own fault and he's going to have to live with the consequences. There's no good reason to treat him specially and provide a mechanism for him to circumvent the suspension.

As President of the organization and the person with the final say in disciplinary issues, I respectfully request that Terry and others that are pushing this issue drop it.

Theo Pozzy
PDGA Commissioner

and yet we willingly provide free space to tournaments that are not sanctioned. we also have a huge section (Misc) devoted to stuff that is not dg-related.

if i quote George W. Bush do i get in trouble? oh wait, he's a Member and is not suspended, so he could presumably post if he so chooses. let's try Ron Paul, he's not yet a Member. the same reasoning that "forbids" Terry's posts of mikey's positions demands that Pizza_God not be allowed to reiterate or communicate Ron Paul's ideas on here. it is only a matter of time before this proposed policy is charged with selective enforcement.

btw, whoever made the argument that we have already allowed mikey to use the message board by posting his positions statement in the candidate package is dead on! excellant observation.

i appreciate the fact that our volunteers care enough to deal with this issue, and to do the things necessary to improve the discussion board. those actions are working and are appreciated very much!

And of your examples, which have been suspended for abusing the rules of the message board? How many of them have been suspended multiple times? Have any of your examples even been warned?

It's his behavior in here that most are against. He has many other avenues to get his platform out to the Disc Golfing public. He is responsible for the situation he is in, not the MB moderators. They should not have to defend their stance on this issue once the punishment is in effect.

john, fundamentally i agree with you. like i wrote previously, if someone had planned to use the message board as a campaign medium but was silly enough to get themself suspended, then too bad for them. the BoD desparately needs people with more foresight than that anyway.

however, there simply is no rule against posting the thoughts of a anyone - suspended, non-Member, or otherwise. if someone wants such a rule, then please discuss it with the DC and work to have it implemented through established channels instead of creating it out of nothing and then appealing to the "spirit of the suspension". making policy/rules on the fly is a recipe for yucky stuff.

the no posting punishment should not need to be defended, i could not agree with you more completely! but forbidding terry from posting something mikey allegedly thinks has nothing to do with the punishment. the way i read this discussion, i would be afraid to post a thought shared by a suspended Member. that feels draconian to me.

regardless, we probably agree more on this than may be apparent from this discussion. and besides, its friday afternoon and time to stop spinning wheels on the discussion board and start spinning plastic in the wind :) have a good one!

In my opinion, quoting someone is normal and acceptable on the Discussion Board, however acting as a go between to purposely circumvent the rules and a suspension of one's posting priveleges, should not be allowed.

Regards,
Brian Graham
PDGA Executive Director



For the record, I agree 100% with Brian here (and I have communicated that already to Steve and the moderators). If Mikey Kernan's ongoing abuse of posting privileges has made it difficult for him to communicate with members through one of the PDGA's resources, it's his own fault and he's going to have to live with the consequences. There's no good reason to treat him specially and provide a mechanism for him to circumvent the suspension.

As President of the organization and the person with the final say in disciplinary issues, I respectfully request that Terry and others that are pushing this issue drop it.

Theo Pozzy
PDGA Commissioner




That is the kind of comment that can make me switch sides real quick.

What is this a dictatorship. I am all for following rules and keeping them open for debate. But come one "Just drop it" I think my dad said that to me last when I was about 16.

For the record, I am not opposed to Terry (or anyone else for that matter) relaying Mike's message here. That should be accepted as a friend helping out his buddy who made some mistakes. As long as the poster realizes he is putting himself/herself in the position to accept the responsibility of what they relay, that's OK with me. If Mike would have had someone edit (or at least accept constructive critisism) his posts before he posted, we wouldn't have to have this discussion. Mike burned his temporary bridge to this MB and he needs to accept that fact and do what it takes to find other ways to get his message out there. I'm not extremely difficult to work with, but sometimes you have to put your foot down (hopefully on the line of play within 30cm :)).

Again, so as long as I announce my candidacy for the BoD, I can act as I wish and not be punished as stated in the MB rules?

I want to run for the PDGA BoD, so [censored] all of you.

Oh Theo, may I point out that the only legitimate disciplinary authority you are granted under our By Laws and Rules is the power to suspend a player from the Tour after a tournament director has disqualified him from a tournament? I realize you accumulate power like a magnet accumulates iron filings, but where do you get any final authority over all disciplinary matters? Under the August 2006 disciplinary procedure, doesn't the Board hear and decide disciplinary apeals? And how is this a disciplinary issue anyway? This is a message board issue. Message board punishments are appealable to Steve Dodge. You have no unilateral authority over any of this. Run along now.

yeah but how it works from a practical standpoint is that because the president ends up with final authority anyway sooner or later, going thru the process of the intermediate steps is actually unnecessary. this way is remarkably efficient, you see.

Why should anyone who has repeatedly proved himself to be incapable of conducting himself with the relatively small degree of civility required by the discussion board be "pre-edited" and "pre-moderated" just so he can speak to the disc golf community through this medium? Mike Kernan has repeatedly shown nothing but disdain for this forum ... and he's very deservingly had his posting privileges suspended ... he's pretty much cut himself off from the discussion board. That should be the end of it.

Furthermore, please note that "ask the candidate" was initiated by Peter Shive. While that has been a very interesting and informative thread, the ability to participate in "ask the candidate" is not a requirement for candidacy! In fact, the concept didn't even exist before Mr. Shive created it (and he probably rues the day, since underparmikey managed to thoroughly highjack that thread!)

And still more ... I don't see all the other candidates leaping onto the message board to invite questions! Or others stepping forward to help them (have they, gasp, been somehow unfairly limited in their access to this forum?!?) Why should Mike Kernan be the exception? Oh yeah, I've got it ... can it be because no other candidate is such a bountiful source of amusement?

I thought we were going to "drop it".

hey V, we did an extensive "asl the candidate" last year. here (http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Cat=0&amp;Board=OtherPDGATopics&amp;Number=51 8176&amp;page=5&amp;fpart=1) it was actually a good discussion overall. the message board may not reach all Members, but it certainly reaches a large enough percentage on a regular basis. it is good to see prospective BoD members continue to use the medium to discuss issues directly with other Members.

Yes, Pat, I remember that puffery from last year. Peter Shive's thread has been much more substantive, in my opinion. The MB would seem to offer a natural way to "campaign", but part of my point is that no other candidates seem to be interested in using it (and why, in that environment, anyone should think that UPM is being denied something essential, is beyond me!!).

However, as you saw yourself last year, the tendency is to devolve away from issues and into bombast, personality, and vague insinuations. Perhaps that's why other candidates haven't started similar threads. (BTW, also in my opinion, Peter Shive has done a terrific job of staying on topic and avoiding the shule.) Or perhaps the other candidates are among the majority of PDGA members who don't live and breathe the MB.

Why should anyone who has repeatedly proved himself to be incapable of conducting himself with the relatively small degree of civility required by the discussion board be "pre-edited" and "pre-moderated" just so he can speak to the disc golf community through this medium?



let the man present his views and tear them apart if they are destructive and have no constructive value. give Terry some credit in terms of his capacity to only forward views and not indecent attacks. and for god's sake lighten up a little people. Mikey may be a little over the top at times, but a sense of humor would go a long way in curtailing the reactiveness here that too often seems further out of place than the very comments that they seek to squelch...

what again is the harm done in letting Terry relay Mikey's comments regarding his interest in serving the membership as a member of the Board?

if his views are so counterproductive then let him air them so the voting membership can see what's in store for them if he is elected. banning his comments may only make him a more attractive candidate to many of the voters /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Besides, the last time I checked the poll, he was in 4th place, and would be taking the last open spot on the Board.

What's the margin for error on that poll ?

There is clearly disagreement on this issue, and that is perhaps one of Mikey's points. I was out working on the course most of the day yesterday and did not have a chance to post my response to the moderators when presented with this issue:

"I have posted quotes from other folks before. And those folks weren't even PDGA members, let alone running for BoD.

As long as Terry is not letting Mikey post on his account - and is simply posting Mikey's thoughts on his account himself, I do not see that this breaks the rules, unless the posts have a personal attack, etc.

I have not seen the post in question, but this is how I would view these if it came to me for an appeal.

Steve."

----------------

So there you have it. I acquiesced with Brian and Theo's decision to not allow Mikey to post with me previewing his posts. Brian is right that this would have been inconsistent and would have lessened the rules of the message board.

On this second point about Terry (or me, or anyone) posting Mike's thoughts and/or Mike's probable thoughts, in my opinion this should be allowed.

Terry, you can feel free to post Mikey's thoughts (and yes, you are responsible for the content). If a post is removed and no other rules were broken, I will uphold your appeal.

After that, if Theo would like to step in as the PDGA President and in charge of PDGA Discipline, he is free to do so. And unlike the MB, there are no rules to dictate what punishment he may enact.

Steve Dodge

PS. I think one thing Mikey would like to change is the disciplinary process of the PDGA, and I agree with him that it should be more clear and defined.

And I bet Mikey would make his argument something like this (typing as if I was Mikey):

I knew that the alleged "fair" moderators would say that I would have a "fair" chance to air my views before the election ended; however, let's look at
reality, shall we? The PDGA will be e-mailing ballots out approximately one month before I am allowed to post. By the time I am allowed to access Discussion, as any candidate should be, it's very likely that the majority of votes will have already been cast. I propose that in the interest of fairness I be allowed to serve the rest of my current posting suspension after July 31 when all the ballots will have been cast. Let's follow the tradition of great democracies throughout the world and allow equal access for all candidates to all media outlets. Not allowing dissenting opinions prevents real debate and prevents new ideas that could help the PDGA from reaching the membership.

Fairness would decree that the moderators also point out to the voters all the good that I have done for disc golf over the past decade, including serving on a PDGA committee, as a PDGA state rep, several times as a PDGA TD, and a private and public course designer and builder.

I'd like to thank Mr. Calhoun for risking his own posting privileges to bring my message to the voters. Despite our continued opposing views, it is very
refreshing to see Mr. Calhoun have respect for a fair election. Perhaps he's offering to post for me so that the conspiracy theorists won't have even more material should I lose while serving an extremely questionable suspension of my PDGA posting privileges. Whatever the reason Terry, I applaud your courage, shipmate.

Michael Kernan #14304
Candidate for the PDGA Board of Directors

--------------------------

You can always email Mikey at [email protected] and I'd bet he would respond within a few days.

PDGA Member Steve Dodge

PS. I am posting this as an individual and not as a BoD member. I am not posting these probable thoughts of Mikey's as an endorsement.

I don't plan to vote until mid-July anyway since I really don't know several of the candidates and hope to find out more about them if they post or other people step up to endorse them and why.

There is clearly disagreement on this issue, and that is perhaps one of Mikey's points. I was out working on the course most of the day yesterday and did not have a chance to post my response to the moderators when presented with this issue:

"I have posted quotes from other folks before. And those folks weren't even PDGA members, let alone running for BoD.

As long as Terry is not letting Mikey post on his account - and is simply posting Mikey's thoughts on his account himself, I do not see that this breaks the rules, unless the posts have a personal attack, etc.

I have not seen the post in question, but this is how I would view these if it came to me for an appeal.

Steve."

----------------

So there you have it. I acquiesced with Brian and Theo's decision to not allow Mikey to post with me previewing his posts. Brian is right that this would have been inconsistent and would have lessened the rules of the message board.

On this second point about Terry (or me, or anyone) posting Mike's thoughts and/or Mike's probable thoughts, in my opinion this should be allowed.

Terry, you can feel free to post Mikey's thoughts (and yes, you are responsible for the content). If a post is removed and no other rules were broken, I will uphold your appeal.

After that, if Theo would like to step in as the PDGA President and in charge of PDGA Discipline, he is free to do so. And unlike the MB, there are no rules to dictate what punishment he may enact.

Steve Dodge

PS. I think one thing Mikey would like to change is the disciplinary process of the PDGA, and I agree with him that it should be more clear and defined.



I'll yield to my commanding authority on this one, but for the record, this is a crock of [deleted due to offensive content]. We made rules, Mike Kernan broke the rules, and now we're basically allowing him to post through another user's account.

Why do we bother making rules at all if we're going to bend them whenever we feel like it? Why should we ever suspend someone's account if he can just post through someone else's account? And so as long as someone announces candidacy for the BoD, he can act as he wishes and not be punished as stated in the MB rules?

If the tables were turned, Mikey would be jumping down our throats about not following established rules. This decision ruins all credibility in the message board disciplinary system we have all worked very diligently to establish in the last eight months. http://www.panthersplanet.net/style_emoticons/default/thumbsdown.gif

I agree, this is bull.

but for the record, this is a crock of [deleted due to offensive content]


Now we have a moderator using a poorly disguised "forbidden word" in a post. Now THAT's suspension-worthy (and, IMHO, loss of moderator privileges-worthy)!

We're all human. Everyone makes mistakes and everyone performs less than maximal, most of the time.

We all love disc golf and despite personal feuds or people who seem unable to post without adding needless words that offend others, it is one thing we all share.

I met a lot of new people today playing the new Holly Woods course in Holly, MI and then taking a turn at the Goldenrod course in Flint. Some of them would frighten me if I met them in a dark alley.

But we all had a good time and none of them were bad people.

[censored] Mikey.

Oh Theo, may I point out that the only legitimate disciplinary authority you are granted under our By Laws and Rules is the power to suspend a player from the Tour after a tournament director has disqualified him from a tournament? I realize you accumulate power like a magnet accumulates iron filings, but where do you get any final authority over all disciplinary matters? Under the August 2006 disciplinary procedure, doesn't the Board hear and decide disciplinary apeals? And how is this a disciplinary issue anyway? This is a message board issue. Message board punishments are appealable to Steve Dodge. You have no unilateral authority over any of this. Run along now.



Let me add Bruce that traditionally, the Commissioner had final say on Disciplinary Matters. Furthermore, right or wrong, the way that I structured the disciplinary process, was to make the Commissioner the final arbiter.

At one level, I disagree with Theo, I'm big on everyone, no matter how rude, having a voice. But I do agree with Theo's comment, Mike has put himself in the position he is in. Why should we as an organization feel any obligation to provide a voice for someone who has always, and will likely continue to abuse us?

Frankly, for me Mike raises some very interesting, maybe even important issues. Of those who have submitted their names, only he and Peter have stepped up in this most public of mediums, the internet, to express their views. I for one am tired of candidates who provide very insubstantial previews of what they represent and stand for. Just the fact that Mike is willing to talk gives him credibility.

I am confident that given access, Mike will do as he usually does; he will shoot himself in the donkey. Nonetheless, will he not bring forward a number of issues that should be addressed?

How then can we provide Mike with a forum while punishing him for his, more awkward moments... :D

There is a solution, simple enough. Provide an open forum for the candidates, a forum that is not on this MB. Submit a number of questions (perhaps issues expressed by the candidates as important) for the candidates to answer. Arrange for a time and place that is publicly accessible on the internet and invite the candidates. Inform the membership here and via e-mail, and have at it.

What better way to use the internet than a brief and open forum where we can actually have some real interaction with those who would represent us?

however, there simply is no rule against posting the thoughts of a anyone - suspended, non-Member, or otherwise. if someone wants such a rule, then please discuss it with the DC and work to have it implemented through established channels instead of creating it out of nothing and then appealing to the "spirit of the suspension". making policy/rules on the fly is a recipe for yucky stuff.




Relaying a message from anybody is not against the rules. Maybe it should be and maybe the vice president should be allowed to tap anyone's phone at any time for any reason without a warrant and then label that person an enemy combatent, take them to another country, imprison them without due process, and torture at will.

In the mean time I've volunteered (as well as more than one other person) to relay information for Mike. I think it's important for our democratic process to help our members have the most complete information they can to make their choices. This isn't about helping Mike, it's about helping our members make fully informed choices. Whether or not our members choose to vote for him is up to them.

I gave Mike two caveats for anything I'd post:
1) It had to be related to his campaign
2) I reserved the right to edit as necessary so that I wouldn't violate current message board rules.

IMO, the point of MB suspensions is to remove obscene and/or abusive words. I think the monitors do a terrific job following the many threads and promptly taking appropriate action when needed. I would not want to participate in an un-moderated forum.

So, where are we here? I read a moderator say that I could not post edited statements from Mike, then that was confirmed by the ED. Then the communications director said it was okay and moderator seemed to grudgingly agree.

Query to moderators: If I post it am I going to get my posting privileges suspended as a result?

i think steve said he would overturn any penalty, so only Theo could suspend you. if that happens, denny and myself in line behind you, so you will have company on the chain gang.

So, where are we here? I read a moderator say that I could not post edited statements from Mike, then that was confirmed by the ED. Then the communications director said it was okay and moderator seemed to grudgingly agree.

Query to moderators: If I post it am I going to get my posting privileges suspended as a result?



Terry, I will speak for myself in saying that as long as the content of the posts do not break any of the Mb rules (obscenity, offensive content, personal attacks), I will not issue you any probation or suspensions.

Speaking for myself and not a moderator, I would hope and expect that you will not edit the words of Mikey. I believe this will be very hard to do, as I do not know how you will handle any comments that could jeopardize your status as a Mb user.

If Mikey sends material that is forbidden on the Mb, will you just not post it, edit the text in question, or something else?

So, where are we here? I read a moderator say that I could not post edited statements from Mike, then that was confirmed by the ED. Then the communications director said it was okay and moderator seemed to grudgingly agree.

Query to moderators: If I post it am I going to get my posting privileges suspended as a result?



Terry,

Go back and read my posts. I didn't confirm or say anywhere that you could not post edited statements from Mikey. I stated that I believed in letting the staff, moderators and committee's do their job without interference. This is a matter for the Discussion Board moderators to decide and I can live with their decision whether I agree with it or not.

Regards,
Brian Graham
PDGA Executive Director

You are right. My apologies.

The email and PM I first got about it stated to me that you had denied a similar request and implied that your having done so was a precedent for me. So I was not correctly reading what you actually posted here, beyond that it expressed a similar opinion. But you did not post a ruling, just an opinion.

[I did do some editing on this, indicated by brackets.]


Terry,

You know, it's just so hilarious to read you say that you'll post my thoughts at pdga.com that I'll have to take you up on it . . . it's a comedic gold mine!


I'm curious to see how you'll edit this, so here goes:


I knew that the [] moderators would say that I would have a "fair" chance to air my views before the election ended; however, let's look at reality, shall we? The PDGA will be e-mailing ballots out approximately one month before I am allowed to post. By the time I am allowed to access Discussion, as any candidate should be, it's very likely that the majority of votes will have already been cast.


I propose that in the interest of fairness I be allowed to serve the rest of my current posting suspension after July 31 when all the ballots will have been cast. Let's follow the tradition of great democracies throughout the world and allow equal access for all candidates to all media outlets. Not allowing dissenting opinions prevents real debate and prevents new ideas that could help the PDGA from reaching the membership.


It is also disturbing that the [] moderators of PDGA.com [are] posting [] information about my past "indiscretions". Fairness would decree that the moderators also point out to the voters all the good that I have done for disc golf over the past decade, including serving on a PDGA committee, as a PDGA state rep, several times as a PDGA TD, and a private and public course designer and builder.


I'd like to thank [Terry] for risking his own posting privileges to bring my message to the voters. Despite our continued opposing views, it is very refreshing to see [Terry] have respect for a fair election. [I would say it feels refreshing to Mike more due to his actually being cognizant of that respect, rather than it being a new attitude on my part.] Perhaps he's offering to post for me so that the conspiracy theorists won't have even more material should I lose while serving an extremely questionable suspension of my PDGA posting privileges. [Nope, it�s just due to the unique situation of the board election; I actually support the suggestion Mike made above for a delayed suspension period.] Whatever the reason Terry, I applaud your courage, shipmate.


Michael Kernan #14304
Candidate for the PDGA Board of Directors

P.S. I apologize if anyone with questions does not get an answer from me promptly due to the delays caused by this proxy arrangement. You can always email me directly at [email protected] and I will respond within 72 hours. [I apologize, too, but I am a very busy person and may not always have the time to edit and post rapidly.]

So, where are we here? I read a moderator say that I could not post edited statements from Mike, then that was confirmed by the ED. Then the communications director said it was okay and moderator seemed to grudgingly agree.

Query to moderators: If I post it am I going to get my posting privileges suspended as a result?



Terry,

Go back and read my posts. I didn't confirm or say anywhere that you could not post edited statements from Mikey. I stated that I believed in letting the staff, moderators and committee's do their job without interference. This is a matter for the Discussion Board moderators to decide and I can live with their decision whether I agree with it or not.

Regards,
Brian Graham
PDGA Executive Director



The decision is not up to the board moderators - it is at the sole discretion of Communications Director, Steve Dodge, which all moderators will abide by.

Steve has ruled that other message board users are free to post content from suspended users.

While I disagree strongly that this does not violate our rule against users sharing accounts, and feel that this decision ruins all credibility in the message board disciplinary system we have all worked very diligently to establish in the last eight months, I will uphold the decision handed down to us by our commanding authority.

[No edits on this latest one.]


I can't thank you enough. I'm surprised at all the interest, frankly, and glad to see thoughtful debate on all sides of the issue(s) in regards to my controversial campaign.


I'm not sure what to do next except perhaps just let the voters decide. I'm the only candidate whose platform calls for a reduction in membership dues, and I sincerely wish every former member who left in protest of the 2007 dues hike was allowed to vote, as I'd be a shoe-in on that proposal alone.


Terry, thanks again for standing up for what we know is right. Who'd have thought it could be so entertaining?


Mike Kernan

Dear Mikey,
It seems to me that running on the notion of reducing membership fees/dues, is sort of like running for HS class President on a platform of reducing the amount of mystery meat in the cafeteria. It just doesn't have much to do with anything!

While I would appreciate my dues being lowered, I'd be more interested in hearing cogent plans for dealing with the divisional structure, or with learning what financial needs caused the increase in dues in the first place. Or with making all members either pay the same dues, or having services commensurate with membership level.
I asked Peter Shive about his opinion of the divisional structure. Sadly - his response was for the most part status quo. How bout you?? Any thoughts on how to eliminate the overlap and inequities in rewards in our competitive system, that are to the current BOD majority "not a problem"?

[removed potentially inappropriate material]

I can almost see Mikey falling backwards out of his chair as he finishes that post like in the old Saturday Night Live news editorial skit. :D

This is lame. I expected to see some MK ideas, instead I see something akin a UN translation, or a discussion about the legality of translating.

Terry, thanks for translating, or mediating, but those links did nothing for me, except send me to the Southern Nationals site....kind of ironic. Could you just summarize, or cut and paste his answers, rather than pointing me to a site.

If you click on the links above to SN, just click on the topics:

What got Mike Kernan banned from PDGA Discussion in April?

and/or

What got Mike Kernan banned from PDGA Discussion in January?

according to the list, personal attack

I assumed Terry was offering an answer to Craig's question about the competition structure.

I have not received anything from Mike about the competition structure.

according to the list, personal attack



Indeed they were, but it looks like Terry edited them out. As a reminder to message board users, links that go directly to offensive material that violates PDGA DISCussion Board rules (such as pornographic material, profanity, personal attacks) are not allowed. We have precedence for this - we previously had violations with users posting links to a site with nudity, a Youtube video with severe profanity, and a Myspace site dedicated to the hate of a PDGA member. The links Terry posted went directly to material that got a member suspended from this message board.

Before Terry edited the links it was reported through the system and we have a record of it. We will have to clarify with Communications Director Steve Dodge whether a message board user can be in violation even if the potentially offensive material is edited out. Personally, I feel that if it was up long enough for someone to see (and use the 'Notify Moderator' button to report it as offensive) then the user may still be in violation.

One of the most important character traits of a BOD member is his ability to get along with the other members. If not, nothing gets done. I was there for ten years. Lot's of back and forth and too much emotion. Level headed, clear , objective thinking is what we need. Know anyone like that?

I have no idea what was/is at the other end of those two links. I merely quoted from Mike's message to me, which contained links, without following the links and then removed them when someone whose opinion I value sent me a message that if I had seen the stuff there I would probably not have chosen to. If there is offensive stuff at the other end, then its existence there either reflects on the Southern Nationals or on the PDGA. Maybe both?

I am slowly and reluctantly heading to the conclusion that decision makers of various sorts may be allowing their personal frustration about and hostility toward Mike Kernan to interfere with proper governance and due process. That's unfortunate.

It could appear to some that people are scrambling around trying to find ways to ensure that a former, quite dedicated board member (that's me), unswervingly dedicated to the PDGA, can be silenced. DISCUssion is not that important in the overall scheme of things. Why don't we give the impression, instead, that people are scrambling around trying to ensure that this year's election is as fair as possible?

No matter how angry anyone is at Mike Kernan, it is my sincere hope that the current PDGA leadership will take a few deep breaths and realize that all of this fuss is likely symptomatic is *something* not working right about this year's electoral process.

There is still time to fix it, folks. If no one does, it becomes a permanent part of our history.

By the way, you've succeeded in silencing me on this issue. The chill has been effectively applied. It's clear that I am wasting my time and I refuse to continue to be a part of a process that is letting unsavory perceptions about the PDGA surface to public awareness.

No more posts from me to this thread. I'm gonna focus on trying to beat Peter Shive this weekend at the DGLO.

BTW to voters. In a field of this type (7 candidates for 4 positions) f you really, really, really want one person to be on the board - whether it's Peter Shive or Bob Decker, my two top recommendations - then your best best is to do what is called "bullet voting" and vote for only a single candidate, or maybe two.

Something like that is what I plan to do.

Re: Mikey

He stated that he wants to reduce the annual dues. This will already occur to a degree next year, thanks to the "no magazine" option we are supposed to have.

Re: Terry. I didn't see the post before it was edited. I'm sorry that UPM snuck a url link in there, and you didn't delete it before your initial post. You tried, and I don't blame you for abandoning your posting on this thread. Having my posts misunderstood, taken the wrong way, etc., led to my approx. 2 year hiatus from the message board.

ALL: I agree with what Terry said at the end. Don't feel like you have to vote for 4 people. Only vote for the ones you want to be on the board. The only exception would be if there were one or more that you know you DIDN'T want on the board, and in that case, vote for 4.

I haven't voted yet, but I doubt that I will be voting for 4 people, unless I am convinced that there is one person that I don't want on the BOD... :p

Terry,

A while back you were advocating "not" using this board as a governance tool. Now it seems like you are "in favor" of using this medium as such. Surely you can agree that Mike has other ways (tools) to get his message out to the PDGA voters, can't you? There has been a lot of progress made in the Disc Golf world that has nothing to do with this message board.

Mike has damaged his good standing with the users of this board by his incessant rantings and negativity that he bestows on the leaders of this association. Nobody made his current situation except himself. You now want the users of this board to grant him a free pass to continue with his tirades and worthless personal attacks that he seems to really enjoy. I hope the moderators take this into account when they review your actions (namely posting links to inappropriate material) and determine what steps to take against you. You do make some very good points about all candidates needing to be heard, but this is only one vehicle out of many on the information highway.

Personally, I have always thought the "rules" were a little strict for a message board, but that' my opinion. Strong opinions (offensive and otherwise) are part of any discssion. To simply delete them or ban those who express them is wrong, despite any well-meaning intent.

Personally, I have always thought the "rules" were a little strict for a message board, but that' my opinion. Strong opinions (offensive and otherwise) are part of any discssion. To simply delete them or ban those who express them is wrong, despite any well-meaning intent.



Compared to other message boards, I agree, 6Pack. However I'd be willing to bet that most, if not all of those other message boards are not part of member organizations who charge a fee. PDGA Members pay $40-$75 per year (with Birdie and Ace club members paying $50 and $100 more) and message board usage is a member privilege. As dues-paying members, message board users have a right to an atmosphere free of offensive content and personal attacks.

Strong opinions are absolutely encouraged in this forum, but such opinions must be made without offensive content and personal attacks. We only have a small number of very simple rules and disciplinary guidelines, and the very select few who broke them did so only after multiple warnings and second, third, fourth, etc. chances.

At first I thought Mike might be able to work well on the BoD. But, after his continued tirades and inability to answer questions about his platform at the NEFA thread, I have come to realize that there is little substance behind his style.

Oh well, another vote lost. Sorry Mikey.

At first I thought Mike might be able to work well on the BoD. But, after his continued tirades and inability to answer questions about his platform at the NEFA thread, I have come to realize that there is little substance behind his style.

Oh well, another vote lost. Sorry Mikey.



That's not surprising. I stopped visiting the NEFA message board several months ago because of the lack of civility there. I traded e-mails with NEFA executive officers &amp; moderators and, even as a dues-paying member organization, they weren't concerned with the personal attacks and offensive content there. (To be fair, one could argue that basically their tolerance level is much higher than mine. Although as a moderator of several disc golf message boards, fantasy football message boards, and the message board for a nationally touring jam band, I think my standards are not out of line with most of society...)

thanks to everyone whos helping me learn posting codes and such.

looks as though nobody's been suspended yet for posting mikey's e-mails so here's one.

The PDGA has an image problem. Many disc golfers
believe the growth of disc golf is suffering because
of the PDGA BOD's obvious bias towards some disc golf
promoters and PDGA members.

I realize it's hard to look objectively at my situation when most of the information you receive
comes from one side. While Steve and Theo continue to
allow my good name to be slandered at Discussion, I
can not respond to those misrepresentations there. If
you feel that is fair in the midst of an election for
others to put untrue words in my mouth when they claim
they speak for me, then continue your silence and you
will repeat the mistakes of the recent past which
continue to hinder the growth of the PDGA because of
its huge image problem. And I'm sure most of you will
agree that the PDGA has a huge image problem amongst
many disc golfers. How many have left the fold
recently?

I'd like to share what a current PDGA member,
Ray Parrish, posted over at PDGA.com in regards to how
Lagrassa handled the situation:

"Terry Calhoun offered to act as a PDGA message board
intermediary &amp;, while UPM serves his PDGA message
board suspension, post his answers to member's
questions concerning his BOD candidacy. PDGA message
board moderator Jeff LaGrassa freaked out &amp; threatened
Mr. Calhoun with probation/suspension for doing so,
even though there is no message board (or
common-sense) rule against anything of the sort. He
fumed &amp; fumed, but finally PDGA Board of Directors
member (and erstwhile Communications Director) Steve
Dodge reeled him in &amp; said that such posting was A-OK.


Mr. LaGrassa then posted a whining rant about his
having been vetoed &amp; broke message board rule #1,
calling the whole saga a "crock of [censored]". I
complained to the PDGA message board moderators about
the post on profanity grounds.

Well, a few hours (and a few evil PMs from Mr.
LaGrassa) later I get an email from moderator "Troy
Polamalu (ourownwaterfall_at_yahoo_dot_com)" saying
that the post was reviewed &amp; found to be innocuous. A
cursory Yahoo search revealed that "Troy Polamalu
(ourownwaterfall_at_yahoo_dot_com)" is, indeed, Jeff
LaGrassa, ruling on a complaint against HIMSELF. Can
you freakin' believe that?!?!?!"

I can't believe that Dodge and Theo continue to allow
Lagrassa to be associated in any way with the PDGA
message board after that! Ruling on a complaint
against yourself is the most blatant
conflict-of-interest possible, yet Theo &amp; Dodge
continue to defend this miscreant. Never admitting
mistakes is what has tarnished the PDGA's image more
than anything I have or ever could say.

Thank you all for your time, and thank you, Theo, for
getting out of our way.




i guess we'll see now if the pdga will selectively enforce it's own rules again LOL

I said I would not post on here again, and I won't about Mike or the thread topic. However the fortuitousness of a message to one of the more 50+ discussion lists and forums I run, sent to me today, needs to be shared.

This is a list which has a very high traffic volume. They don't pay any dues for it. It's grown from about 700 members since I took it over in 2000 to nearly 3,000 now:

"I feel like I'm a member of a little mini campus department called "uwebd". A department that never assigns projects, has no scheduled meetings but never goes away, doesn't care when its members take a vacation, has no boss (well, not really). A department whose only goal is for its members to talk to each other about their experiences and make suggestions; whose members are often quite passionate about their beliefs, but still respectful of others'; whose members know that their colleagues may or may not have the same skill set, but are still willing to help out and ask for help, and not judge each other."

That list has never had one single flame war in nearly seven (7) years.

All I'm going to say is if UPM would like to advertise his election, maybe he should have thought of that in May when he chose to issue a personal attack.

Sow.

Reap.




Any questions?

I said I would not post on here again, and I won't about Mike or the thread topic. However the fortuitousness of a message to one of the more 50+ discussion lists and forums I run, sent to me today, needs to be shared.

This is a list which has a very high traffic volume. They don't pay any dues for it. It's grown from about 700 members since I took it over in 2000 to nearly 3,000 now:

"I feel like I'm a member of a little mini campus department called "uwebd". A department that never assigns projects, has no scheduled meetings but never goes away, doesn't care when its members take a vacation, has no boss (well, not really). A department whose only goal is for its members to talk to each other about their experiences and make suggestions; whose members are often quite passionate about their beliefs, but still respectful of others'; whose members know that their colleagues may or may not have the same skill set, but are still willing to help out and ask for help, and not judge each other."

That list has never had one single flame war in nearly seven (7) years.



could you please point out what is it that makes this a "need to share"? or even what makes it relevant?

thanks...

With all the poopflinging and resentments going on, I think the most important elements of Terry's post we're overlooking is:

" whose members are often quite passionate about their beliefs, but still respectful of others'; whose members know that their colleagues may or may not have the same skill set, but are still willing to help out and ask for help, and not judge each other."

We seem to have lost that somewhere..

It's relevant because it's quite the opposite of what we have now, and we need to realize and try to change that.

I wonder what happens to this utopian faculty when one of its members voices an opinion over and over again ad is repeatedly ignored.

I'm sure these "group dialogues" are very civil and friendly when everyone already agrees on most major issues. That's the problem with the "communal" mentality. It tends to alienate those who have different views. Just ask Joe Leiberman.

As for this being a pay site, I would think that paying for use would hold an even higher standard of tolerance. After all, you can always delete the post rather than ban the poster.

i am sorry you feel that way. i do not believe the current situation is quite that dire overall, although sometimes it does seem like it is slipping.

There is a lot of finding fault with the poster instead of the idea on this board.

As far as one person repeatedly posting an opinion and being ignored, it would seem that everyone must agree with the idea and there is no need to discuss it.

Either that, or the idea must be repositioned so that it can may be seen in better light.

6pack, thank you for the suggestion. We do delete the post (or the portion that breaks the rules) and we do not ban the user. The rules are very clearly spelled out at the top of every page (click the word "Rules" - it is between FAQ and User List).

Anyone's first offense gets them a warning and a 3 month probation. Another offense during this time gets the poster a 3 day suspension and another 3 months probation. A third offense during probation and the user is suspended for 3 months.

If you have an issue with this system or the rules of this message board, please email, PM or call me with your thoughts. I have tried to PM you but you've got that feature blocked.

Sincerely,

Steven Dodge

could you please point out what is it that makes this a "need to share"? or even what makes it relevant?



Sorry, PDGA board member Pat Brenner, no more holding your hand and no more efforts at special education. You get it or you don't. (Others do.) Hint: Ignore who it's from and just read it.

i find your post condescending, belittling, derogatory, arrogant, inflammatory, pompous, divisive and antagonistic. i asked an honest question. perhaps you could possibly follow your own advice and forget who asked it?

Sow.

Reap.




Any questions?



Keepin' it real, Rhett!

thanks to everyone whos helping me learn posting codes and such.

looks as though nobody's been suspended yet for posting mikey's e-mails so here's one.




Hey there Mikey,
I think you're losing your opportunity to be heard. If you want to share your platform - go ahead. If your focus remains on being the injured outsider - I fear interest in your candidacy is doomed. Think flies/honey/vinegar. Right now you're vinegar.

thanks to everyone whos helping me learn posting codes and such.

looks as though nobody's been suspended yet for posting mikey's e-mails so here's one.

The PDGA has an image problem. Many disc golfers
believe the growth of disc golf is suffering because
of the PDGA BOD's obvious bias towards some disc golf
promoters and PDGA members.

I realize it's hard to look objectively at my situation when most of the information you receive
comes from one side. While Steve and Theo continue to
allow my good name to be slandered at Discussion, I
can not respond to those misrepresentations there. If
you feel that is fair in the midst of an election for
others to put untrue words in my mouth when they claim
they speak for me, then continue your silence and you
will repeat the mistakes of the recent past which
continue to hinder the growth of the PDGA because of
its huge image problem. And I'm sure most of you will
agree that the PDGA has a huge image problem amongst
many disc golfers. How many have left the fold
recently?

I'd like to share what a current PDGA member,
Ray Parrish, posted over at PDGA.com in regards to how
Lagrassa handled the situation:

"Terry Calhoun offered to act as a PDGA message board
intermediary &amp;, while UPM serves his PDGA message
board suspension, post his answers to member's
questions concerning his BOD candidacy. PDGA message
board moderator Jeff LaGrassa freaked out &amp; threatened
Mr. Calhoun with probation/suspension for doing so,
even though there is no message board (or
common-sense) rule against anything of the sort. He
fumed &amp; fumed, but finally PDGA Board of Directors
member (and erstwhile Communications Director) Steve
Dodge reeled him in &amp; said that such posting was A-OK.


Mr. LaGrassa then posted a whining rant about his
having been vetoed &amp; broke message board rule #1,
calling the whole saga a "crock of [censored]". I
complained to the PDGA message board moderators about
the post on profanity grounds.

Well, a few hours (and a few evil PMs from Mr.
LaGrassa) later I get an email from moderator "Troy
Polamalu (ourownwaterfall_at_yahoo_dot_com)" saying
that the post was reviewed &amp; found to be innocuous. A
cursory Yahoo search revealed that "Troy Polamalu
(ourownwaterfall_at_yahoo_dot_com)" is, indeed, Jeff
LaGrassa, ruling on a complaint against HIMSELF. Can
you freakin' believe that?!?!?!"

I can't believe that Dodge and Theo continue to allow
Lagrassa to be associated in any way with the PDGA
message board after that! Ruling on a complaint
against yourself is the most blatant
conflict-of-interest possible, yet Theo &amp; Dodge
continue to defend this miscreant. Never admitting
mistakes is what has tarnished the PDGA's image more
than anything I have or ever could say.

Thank you all for your time, and thank you, Theo, for
getting out of our way.




i guess we'll see now if the pdga will selectively enforce it's own rules again LOL



Don't go a changing Mikey, don't go a changing.

I can't believe there is so much backbending for someone who is consistently out-of-line. Beware of spinal injury!

Frankly, I don't see why any of us should be subjected to Kernan's dysfunctional, anti-social, and rude commentary ever again. He has proven time after time that he is not capable of discussing issues in an appropriate manner.

Flies like [censored] (I mean poo-poo), too.

I can't believe there is so much backbending for someone who is consistently out-of-line. Beware of spinal injury!

Frankly, I don't see why any of us should be subjected to Kernan's dysfunctional, anti-social, and rude commentary ever again. He has proven time after time that he is not capable of discussing issues in an appropriate manner.



The "backbending" is not for Mike. It is for the members that wish to gain a little more insight into MIke's candicacy before voting.

No one is being "subjected" to his commentary. The thread is clearly labelled and each person that clicks on the link has made a choice to do so.

I respectfully disagree. It is indeed backbending for Kernan because he is currently not allowed to post here. That being the case, he should be told to create his own website where he can answer questions. A quick post could be placed here that directs interested parties to such a site.

Being banned/suspended from this forum doesn't make one ineligible for candidacy, and I respect Kernan's right to participate in the process as a candidate. But his suspension should render him ineligible to use this forum as a tool for his candidacy. Instead, there is a lot of backbending going on in order to accommodate Kernan's request to use this forum for such, when in my opinion, that request should have been denied due to the suspension.

While I do see that point, the other point is that Mikey still is unable to post as he sees fit on this board. Anyone that posts offensive material, whether from Mike or not, is subject to being banned based on that content as well.

The members are still protected from seeing offensive material, and interested members are allowed to hear some of what Mike may have to say. I see this is a move to satisfy interested members, not a move to allow Mike to post at will on this board while suspended.

While I do see that point, the other point is that Mikey still is unable to post as he sees fit on this board. Anyone that posts offensive material, whether from Mike or not, is subject to being banned based on that content as well.

The members are still protected from seeing offensive material, and interested members are allowed to hear some of what Mike may have to say. I see this is a move to satisfy interested members, not a move to allow Mike to post at will on this board while suspended.



I don't see it as a "move" to do anything at all. UPM is suspended from posting, and he is not posting. Since there is no rule against posting the non-offensive thoughts/words of others (and think of the ramifications if there were), then what is going on is just business as usual, i.e., the message board running per its rules as usual. Wisely, no special dispensation has been given to UPM, but, also wisely, no special restrictions have been put onto those well-meaning enough to communicate his "message".

Mikeykernan.blogspot.com is available.

Oh fer cryin' out loud! If you want to ask Mikey a question, ask him on the Southern National board and stop wasting band width here!

Anything that results in a change is a move. :cool:

latest 2nd-hand message from Mike---

"I'm actually glad to see that my challenge to the other candidates to debate the issues at Discussion has gone unanswered save for the astute businessman and unflagging volunteer Steve Timm.

I believe my mandate will be even stronger once I am elected because of the unfair competitive situation in which I find myself placed. To overcome this disadvantage yet still win a spot on the BOD will hopefully demonstrate to all that the PDGA's problems are not imaginary.

I urge the voters to observe that there are three candidates who have made themselves available at Discussion (myself included) and have displayed the courage to take on all questions from these voters. The other candidates apparently believe this election is only a popularity contest, which it may be---but the lack of any real debate amongst the BOD candidates does not bode well for the PDGA in my opinion."

ZZZZZzzzzzzzz

Mikey,

incoming BoD members need to get up to speed on a wide variety of issues, activities and expectations.

what kinds of information and materials would you like to see as part of a "BoD Intro Kit"?

thanks,

pat

<font color="purple"> You may post the following answer for me at PDGA.com:

Hey Pat, do you think it's fair that my name keeps
getting slandered here when I can't rebut criticism
because your XXXXXXXXXXXXs have banned me over imaginary
infractions of the PDGA message board rules?

"what kinds of information and materials would
you like to see as part of a "BoD Intro Kit"?"

Since the PDGA refuses to disclose its actual
expenditures to "ordinary" members, I'd like to see
copies of every check stub written on the PDGA
operating account over the last 18 months. Also I'd
like to Balance Sheets and Income/Expense Statements
for the previous 18 months. Why I have to be elected
to see this is beyond me, but, I'll let you explain
it.

Next, I want an explanation how the PDGA spends around
200 thousand dollars and the salary of a full-time
memberships manager to keep track of only 10 thousand
members; or if that isn't the case, immediately cough
up the actual numbers or a valid explanation.

That's about all I'll need. I believe I'm up to speed
on the reasons the PDGA can't recruit as many new
members as they should: greed. </font>


for the balance sheets and income statements, most of that is available already online. high level budgets are also available. the tax return is available as well. now, should more be available? personally, i believe there are valid reasons for answering in the affirmative. if/when consensus is reached on that matter, greater detail will certainly follow. the reason you need to be elected to see it is because the Members voted in the new ByLaws. the old constitution required the Association to produce all the things you are asking for. the new By Laws do not. pretty much that simple.

re the management of memberships, i believe it is almost always good to look for increasing efficiencies. how would you propose we structure things to lower costs while maintaing service? its kinda easy to say we spend too much, but its a bit more difficult to offer productive solutions. before i tell you what i might do, how about you suggesting a few ideas for consideration.

please define "slander".

<font color="purple"> You may post the following answer for me at PDGA.com:

Hey Pat, do you think it's fair that my name keeps
getting slandered here when I can't rebut criticism
because your XXXXXXXXXXXXs have banned me over imaginary
infractions of the PDGA message board rules?</font>


I don't think the infractions were "imaginary".

Stay classy, Mikey.

<font color="purple"> i double-dare you to post this email:

pat, you must provide me a link to prove that the PDGA
is posting its monthly income/expense &amp; balance sheets
online. i searched for an hour and only came up with
the vague 2007 budget.

do we really have a sitting BoD member who doesn't
know the definition of slander? i'll define it for you
narrowly in regard to my case: for the PDGA to allow
other posters to claim that i was justly banned from
posting violates any semblance of fairness. i think
it's working against the PDGA however---disc golfers
aren't as stupid as Theo the Great XXXXXXXXXX XX XXX XXXXXXXXXX thinks. not surprising that the PDGA
would do anything unfairly at all though is it?

and again, without actually being allowed to peruse
the PDGA's books, i can not magically provide instant
answers to your question of what i would do about the
gross inefficiencies in the PDGA budget. after July 31
you'll be forced to allow me to view this information
(that any member should be allowed to see), so why
don't you just get me the documents and let me get
started, oh great hypocrite?

</font>

for the record, i do not feel attacked by mikey calling me a hypocrite. the fact is, i ran on getting the level of disclosure he wants. so far, i have failed to make it happen. while i do not necessarily believe that makes me a hypocrite, i do feel that a certain level of frustration on the part of Members who have been requesting this information for so many years is understandable. i continue my quest.

paragraph 1: well, i could find the 06/07 budget, but not the tax returns... i need to find that link again... if anyone has it please post it here. again, this is for the tax information that is public by law.

paragraph 2: no, actually i do have an understanding of what slander is. i would guess that your recent post you made at nefa.com about Mr Gentry and his expense report is closer to slander than anything to which you have been subjected.

paragrpah 3: frankly, i had expected more from you, Mikey. do you need to see a copy of every check to form initial ideas? i would hope not. you point to inefficiencies, but do not decsribe them. you suggest you need to see detailed numbers before being able to solve them. perhaps, but how about a birds-eye, strategic view? for example, a person interested in improving efficiencies of office processes might say something like "if we web-enabled our software it might create new efficiencies:, and then proceed to describe the general costs and gains that might be delivered from such an effort. you do not need everything spec'd down to the position of buttons on the screen, or process diagrams, or revised org charts, or anything like that. just a simple, high level vision would serve to start a discussion.

as far as your other email, sorry, i am NOT gonna tell Rhett to do that to himself. tell him yourself after your suspension is over :Dregarding your other assertions, those were handled by the proper people at the time. from what i have seen, message board disciplinary decisions are consistant, timely, and follow the published process. the last thing i am gonna do is micro-manage volunteers. they are doing a far better job in the current setup than they could ever accomplish were i to start meddling. i trust the system that Steve and his team have implemented, and i defer to it.

Sandalman - Mikey: The tax return is one line above the budgets on the website. Following is the link.


http://www.pdga.com/org/documents/2006/05FinancialStatements990Website.pdf

thanks Bob. if it was a snake it'a bit me

Mike, is it ironic that you work for the post office and criticize the PDGA for inefficiencies? :)

Mike, is it ironic that you work for the post office and criticize the PDGA for inefficiencies? :)



Or increased fees...

I respectfully disagree. It is indeed backbending for Kernan because he is currently not allowed to post here. That being the case, he should be told to create his own website where he can answer questions. A quick post could be placed here that directs interested parties to such a site.

Being banned/suspended from this forum doesn't make one ineligible for candidacy, and I respect Kernan's right to participate in the process as a candidate. But his suspension should render him ineligible to use this forum as a tool for his candidacy. Instead, there is a lot of backbending going on in order to accommodate Kernan's request to use this forum for such, when in my opinion, that request should have been denied due to the suspension.




The one thing that this forum provides is an opportunity to observe Mike Kernan in the context of a Board Candidate. There is a tendancy, at least on my part, to assume that Mike posts the way he does because he enjoys the reaction he gets. One would expect a Board Member, or one who wishes to be a Board Member, to assume a different stance than that Mike typically displays - IMO. This forum allows those who think this might be true to examine Mike under those conditions.

One of the most important tools a leader posesses is an ability to work with others; even those they disagree with. Take Pat for example. It appears to me that Pat disagrees with some of what the Board does. Yet, I hear that Pat works professionally and politely with the rest of the Board. That is the mark of a good leader.

What then does this thread tell us about Mike's ability to set aside his grievences and work with others on the Board?

Mike, is it ironic that you work for the post office and criticize the PDGA for inefficiencies? :)



Or increased fees...



I don't see the increased fees as a problem. I get a certain satisfaction out of putting a 37 cent stamp on an envelope.... and 4 one cent stamps. :D

The one thing that this forum provides is an opportunity to observe Mike Kernan in the context of a Board Candidate. There is a tendancy, at least on my part, to assume that Mike posts the way he does because he enjoys the reaction he gets. One would expect a Board Member, or one who wishes to be a Board Member, to assume a different stance than that Mike typically displays - IMO. This forum allows those who think this might be true to examine Mike under those conditions.


How can this be considered a fair election when Mikey is not allowed to rebut slanderous attacks like the one above???

{/sarcasm}

The one thing that this forum provides is an opportunity to observe Mike Kernan in the context of a Board Candidate. There is a tendancy, at least on my part, to assume that Mike posts the way he does because he enjoys the reaction he gets. One would expect a Board Member, or one who wishes to be a Board Member, to assume a different stance than that Mike typically displays - IMO. This forum allows those who think this might be true to examine Mike under those conditions.


How can this be considered a fair election when Mikey is not allowed to rebut slanderous attacks like the one above???

{/sarcasm}



He can call me? :D

Actually, I was careful in how I wrote that. For example, one can not tell whether "the way he typically posts" means he posts harshly, sweetly, intelligently, comically, correctly, or flatulantly. I left it open to the reader. I'm simply saying that in the context of being a Board Candidate he might post differently.

Latest communication from Mike from exile---

"I still don't see a link to the MONTHLY Income/Expense and Balance sheets that Sandalman claims exist in their entirety on PDGA.com.

To answer Sandal's question, it would be a waste of our time for me to GUESS what the PDGA has implemented at Headquarters. Funny how Sandal, who claims to have demanded more open documentation of the PDGA books, neither will allow me to view any of his secret PDGA financial documents, NOR will he even answer my question of how the PDGA spends over $200,000 plus a FULL-TIME staff member's salary to keep track of only 10,000 members?

As for the irony of my employment at the US Postal Service, if you only knew how many times I've been persecuted by upper management for speaking out against their follies! Yes, it has cost me a promotion or two or ten, but as we all know, I'm no brown-nosing yes-man like XXXXXX or XXXXXX or XXXXXXXXXXXX or XXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX or XXXXXXXXXXXXXX.

Lastly, Mr. Gentry has every ability to defend his expense report from the Japan Open at PDGA.com or at Nefa.com, while again, I have to wait for someone with less free time than I to post and defend my stellar name at PDGA.com.

I'll be able to work with anyone...anyone that is who isn't on the dole, Sandalman! "

Yes, I also think Kernan posts the way he does because he enjoys the reaction he gets. But I also think that itself is indicative of a larger problem. I have myself laughed at how preposterous his statements have been in the past. Truth be told though, it is not really funny at all. Instead of laughing at him, someone should get the guy some help.

The following question is from Mikey:

"David Gentry is the PDGA Tour Manager. In 2006 the PDGA paid for him to fly all the way to Japan to learn first-hand about International PDGA competition. Yet recently he claimed in an e-mail to candidate Mike Kernan #14304 that he is "not up to the specifics on International events".

This was in response to a question Mike asked in regard to the PDGA charging different fees for events overseas versus events in the USA, such as $0 per player for non-members in Europe versus $5 per player for non-members in the USA. (I'm not sure if that is a fact, but could be true)

So, Board of Directors Candidate, do you feel that David Gentry is properly doing his job as PDGA Tour Manager? Don't you agree that the PDGA Tour Manager should know what the PDGA charges for overseas sanctioning? Finally, does this indicate that all the PDGA's finances are improperly centered in one person, the PDGA Executive Director?

Thank you for tackling this thorny issue."

Mike

I can hardly wait for his 'answer'.

. . . more from Mikey . . .

DID YOU KNOW?

PDGA membership for a USA pro costs $75, but for a
European pro it's only $20? (add $30 if they want the
magazine)

PDGA membership for a USA am costs $50, but for a
European am it's only $10? (add $30 if they want the
magazine)

The PDGA charges $5 for non-PDGA members to play at B
&amp; C tiers in the USA, but charges $0 (nothing) for
non-PDGA members at European Challenge Tour events?

At PDGA European Challenge Tour Events, the PDGA
charges only a flat 75, 50 or 25 Euro fee, and doesn't
charge $3 or $2 per-player fees like they do on every
event in the USA?

DID YOU KNOW?

That Mike Kernan is running for the PDGA Board of
Directors and will vote to implement the PDGA European
fee model for the entire world including the USA?

VOTE FOR MIKE

mikey, what programs and services do you plan on cutting to accomodate lowering the Membership rate by 2/3's?

why not just raise the rates in the eurozone to match the US's? (discussion question only, i am not stating a position here)

btw, it is healthy to have available the info denny posted available for discussion

E mail from BoD Candidate Mike Kernan


Dear Mr. Timm:

If you feel like risking your good name and posting
privileges, please post the following at PDGA.com:

Mr. Graham certainly has overstated the nature of my
response to Mr. Gentry. Readers who would like to the
actual text of my response to Mr. Gentry can read it
at [link to forum with personal attack]

[deleted due to personal attack] I was able to read the entire
PDGA Europe document and understand it in less than
two hours. Here it is in its entirety:

http://www.pdga.com/documents/2007/07GuidetoPDGAEurope.pdf

That Mr. Gentry was unable or unwilling to point me to
said document is indeed very disturbing to me. Perhaps
he has adopted the ancient PDGA tactic of "pass the
buck" so prevalent in past and present Headquarters
staff.

I wish I had read this document before I had adopted
my platform. If I had read this document, I would have
included the following in my platform:

"I will vote for the PDGA Europe membership fee and
sanctioning fee model to be instituted on a global
basis, including the United States of America."

Thank you. Please remember to vote for Steve Timm and
of course for Michael Kernan.

i need to contact Jerry The Psycho Hallman #17630 as soon as possible. can anyone can provide ocntact info, or ask him to call me at 682-225-1008.

mucho gracias amigos y amigas

Dear Mr Kernan

Whilst I am in undying admiration of your ability to read, I would question your 'understanding' of the realities of the European scene.

Had it occurred to you that the price difference may be directly related to differences in the service offered to US and European members?

Off the top of my head, the following services are not provided to European Pros/TDs - subsidised insurance, Marshalls Scheme, a 'Worlds' competition that exists anywhere other than the US, officials exams in the various European languages, funded initiatives to air DG on TV, a dedicated person actively seeking sponsorship angles...

There is undoubtedly more, but you should get the picture.

In addition, PDGA Europe is very much a developing scene, with different needs and goals to that of US-based PDGA. It is in acknowledgement of that fact that the long term strategy is for PDGA Europe to be a stand-alone entity, setting and collecting its own membership fees. To this end per-player fees are already paid into a European account.

The international committee which sets PDGA Europe policy does not include Mr Gentry, so it is highly unsurprising that he does not have the numbers to hand. Also, he almost certainly does not have 2 hours to spare to read the document, when instead he can pass you onto those who do have the numbers.
Alternatively, enquiring minds can read the published documentation themselves, which is what you eventually decided to do.

The PDGA is an extremely US-centric organisation, and it is to their credit that they are able to understand the varying stages of development of the many European countries, and set pricing and competition structures that both foster development and strengthen the PDGA brand worldwide.

It is clear that you do not believe that the PDGA (US) price is value for money with respect to the services received. Since you profess to 'understand' the European scene, and are now armed with the additional information I have provided, can I expect any campaign you run to reduce fees to support similarly reduced fees in PDGA Europe, as it is obvious we receive only a sub-set of the services offered?

Regards

Neil Webber

...the following services are not provided to European Pros/TDs - subsidised insurance, Marshalls Scheme, a 'Worlds' competition that exists anywhere other than the US, officials exams in the various European languages, funded initiatives to air DG on TV, a dedicated person actively seeking sponsorship angles...




Hi, Neil -

I appreciate your thoughtful remarks on this topic, although I find myself cringing at the thought of perpetuating any particular bit of dribble originating from Mr. K.

Just wanted to let you know that my DG on TV initiative, Disc Golf Live video magazine, remains available to folks anywhere who are interested in spreading the word about disc golf. Here's a link to some UK and other worldwide resources:

http://www.communitymedia.se/cat/links.htm#uk

Any station which will allow a local resident to submit material for broadcast should accept DGL, unless they mandate that the material be produced entirely locally (as is the case at some stations, but not too many). It may be that my DVD material has to be transferred to some other format, but I haven't really checked out too many of these stations myself. And some are pages I can't read, either.

Additionally, if you are underserved by community TV and would like to get some DGL DVDs into player's hands (player package items, CTPs etc) there is always the Home version which you can duplicate on your end and distrubute at a low cost locally.

Finally, remember that DGL remains available to help you publicize your events. As when we covered the BO a couple of years back, we are always happy to include material submitted by disc golfers to showcase their events, local courses and players. And I'm always happy to share stuff with my pals over at DGTV, so online viewers can enjoy the material as well.

Enjoy your summer.

Joe

Thanks for the heads up Joe. Unfortunately we have no community TV on mainland Britain, but I will certainly mention it to the other European representatives as they seem to be better served! I suspect language may prove a barrier in some places, but if you don't try...

According to the MB disciplinary list it appears that Mikey Kernan has been off suspension since 7/6.

Where's all that pent-up posting frustration that we've been expecting?

Or are you just like the countries that go around the world forcing "democracy" on others via military occupations but have millions and millions of people that don't participate in the process?

In the words of Judge Schmails, "wellllll . . . we're waiting!" /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

those would be the IMMORTAL words of Judge Smails...

still MIA??

Mike is out there, one thing to keep in mind, Mike is a whole lot smarter than some of his posts make him appear. His self imposed absence may have a purpose. There's no question he's gotten more media play than he might have.

I'd like to apologize for the PDGA moderating team who disallowed one of the candidates in our election (me) from speaking directly to the voters during the height of the election. I promise the voters that free speech and free thinking will be returned to this desolate, soul-less, and idea-devoid environment shortly after the election is over. It is difficult for me to even comprehend the reasoning behind the censorship of this forum; it is embarrassing that those who control this forum think that crushing free speech does anything to enhance the enjoyment of the membership. Thankfully the reign of terror we have all endured far too long is ending.

I would also like to apologize for not being able to answer your questions directly while I served my completely unwarranted suspension of my posting privileges. With that in mind, I would like to take this opportunity to answer a couple questions now, and get people talking about what we can do to make the PDGA successful again.




Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Had it occurred to you that the price difference may be directly related to differences in the service offered to US and European members?

Off the top of my head, the following services are not provided to European Pros/TDs - subsidised insurance, Marshalls Scheme, a 'Worlds' competition that exists anywhere other than the US, officials exams in the various European languages, funded initiatives to air DG on TV, a dedicated person actively seeking sponsorship angles...

There is undoubtedly more, but you should get the picture.

In addition, PDGA Europe is very much a developing scene, with different needs and goals to that of US-based PDGA. It is in acknowledgement of that fact that the long term strategy is for PDGA Europe to be a stand-alone entity, setting and collecting its own membership fees. To this end per-player fees are already paid into a European account.

The international committee which sets PDGA Europe policy does not include Mr Gentry, so it is highly unsurprising that he does not have the numbers to hand. Also, he almost certainly does not have 2 hours to spare to read the document, when instead he can pass you onto those who do have the numbers.
Alternatively, enquiring minds can read the published documentation themselves, which is what you eventually decided to do.

The PDGA is an extremely US-centric organisation, and it is to their credit that they are able to understand the varying stages of development of the many European countries, and set pricing and competition structures that both foster development and strengthen the PDGA brand worldwide.

It is clear that you do not believe that the PDGA (US) price is value for money with respect to the services received. Since you profess to 'understand' the European scene, and are now armed with the additional information I have provided, can I expect any campaign you run to reduce fees to support similarly reduced fees in PDGA Europe, as it is obvious we receive only a sub-set of the services offered?

Regards

Neil Webber


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Mr. Webber:

Most of those services you speak of are not available at the majority of PDGA tournaments. The lack of support you feel in Europe is nearly the same as what we get here in the USA; the PDGA simply has lost touch with what the majority of disc golfers want---an affordable organization that doesn't hide its finances from anyone and promotes the sport fairly, and above all competently. I am confident, however, that all is not lost, and that once the old regime finally gets out of the way, you will see measurable progress in a short time.

The Marshal Program is a good place to begin ridding the PDGA of expenses that are keeping American membership costs too high. I have already proposed strengthening the Rules of Play by 1. testing all players who seek to compete in PDGA majors and 2. ridding the Rules Committee of anyone sponsored by any company. These are inexpensive alternatives to the Marshal Program.

I agree wholeheartedly with you that the PDGA is US-centric. I personally would love to see the Worlds played in Europe, and hope that we will see a European bid for the Worlds soon. Have there been any yet? I do not profess to be an expert on the European "scene" as I have played only once overseas. I can't imagine lowering the European membership price though...it's so affordable that the PDGA is probably losing money on every Euro member---but it's part of the PDGA's mission to globalize the sport and the sacrifice will definitely pay dividends in the long run. In fact, I list the success of PDGA Europe as one of the few bright spots of the past few years. So tell your friends across the pond that they'll have my support for that Worlds bid and I hope that bid arrives very soon!

How do you rationalise these two statements?


"I will vote for the PDGA Europe membership fee and sanctioning fee model to be instituted on a global basis, including the United States of America."




I can't imagine lowering the European membership price though...it's so affordable that the PDGA is probably losing money on every Euro member

I'd like to apologize for the PDGA moderating team who disallowed one of the candidates in our election (me) from speaking directly to the voters during the height of the election.



Here's the thing Mikey...the one time I met you, I really liked ya. You are a good guy.

I'm good friends with Schwebby and he has raved at what a great host you have been.

I agree with 98% of what you say.

However, comments like the one above are the reason I did not vote for you.

The PDGA moderators had NOTHING to do with you not being able to discuss your opinions and answer questions. You knew the rules and you decided to break them. You knew the consequences before you decided to break them.

Whether you agree with the rules on this message board or not doesn't matter. All that matters is by choosing to post on a PDGA ran message board, you have to follow by PDGA Message board rules.

If you want an uncensored area to discuss disc golf, I would suggest creating a website where you can do so.

Until then, stop complaining about stuff that YOU have controll over.

Word

I did not vote for mike, I read his comments in DGW....

How do you rationalise these two statements?


"I will vote for the PDGA Europe membership fee and sanctioning fee model to be instituted on a global basis, including the United States of America."




I can't imagine lowering the European membership price though...it's so affordable that the PDGA is probably losing money on every Euro member





Dear Mr. Webber:
I apologize for the belated response to your question. I have been unable to post for quite a while, but have discovered that if I ask you to buy some postage stamps, that I can actually put this down as a potentially revenue-generating activity that is a credible use of my boring job's time. So what do you say about purchasing some US stamps? I realize you can't use them in jolly England, but you could start a philatelic collection. I suggest you purchase this limited-edition Star Wars press sheet:

http://shop.usps.com/wcsstore/PostalStore/upload/images/600x600_570184.jpg

This is sure to be a collector's item in the future, as George Lucas did not allow the US Postal Service to print as many stamps as a usual run.

Anyway, to answer your question, it's quite easy to "rationalise" the two quoted statements. It is not necessary to lower the Euro pricing if the PDGA was going to match the Euro prices here in the USA.

Is this election over yet?

I work at the United States Postal Service. Anyone
want to buy a book of stamps? Why would I ask that?
Because, this post is official business now and it's
perfectly fine for me to talk about the post office
and try to sell stamps on line. It's a program we've
got called "Business Connect".

I've got all kinds of stamps I can sell you...or, I
can set up an account where you can mail catalogues
like Victoria's Secret does, with great pictures like
this on the cover:

http://www2.victoriassecret.com/images/tmblg/V260532_654.jpg

Yep, our great government has no problem at all with
pictures like that coursing through the mail system. I
wonder if the PDGA has a problem with that? Probably
so, I mean after all, the PDGA is about 50 years
behind the rest of the world. Got to love those
censors we have. Some of those censors go to
extraordinary lengths to keep me from posting here as
a matter of fact, even making up their own standards
for my posts and ignoring the PDGA's own posted
standards. Some even break their own rules to get
their point across about how offended they are by
seeing beautiful women's bare flesh. But the PDGA
Board of Directors doesn't seem to care that when they
let that stooge keep working "behind the scenes" on
the message board despite his demonstrated propensity
to break the PDGA's own rules, and his demonstrated
propensity to ban me from posting when others more
offensive than I are allowed to spew their drivel
daily, that the BoD engenders further disrespect for
any rules. It's rather sad that the PDGA can't even
match our own corrupt government's standards about
what constitutes free speech.

Here's another example of a catalogue cover that's
perfectly OK to mail if you were interested in
starting your own mail-order company, which I can help
you out with should you be interested. It's the back
cover of a Frederick's of Hollywood catalogue:

http://www.fredericks.com/images/9/91014_86_itm_a_6700.jpg

Did you know the US Postal Service has thousands of
lady mail carriers who have to read the address label
on the bottom of a big picture like this every day,
yet, the US Postal Service has yet to declare that
style of picture as inappropriate for mailing? Isn't
this a great country after all? I mean, something
that's perfectly legal and mailable yet titillating at
the same time? Some of you at the PDGA seem to have a
real problem with that sort of image, however.
Wouldn't want your kid seeing that sort of beautiful
woman, would you, even though all her naughty parts
are covered and our own government feels it's
perfectly OK.

Wow, that must really be offensive to some of you.
But, again, not offensive enough that our own US
Government would ban it from our
mailstream. Now if we could only get the PDGA to adopt
the US Government's standards, maybe this organization
might earn some respect from the adults who read this
site. And maybe, just maybe, this post will remind those who seek to censor everyone in the name of "protecting minors" that they shouldn't even let their kids on the internet AT ALL. It's up to you as parents to protect your kids, because the government can't.

Dear Mr. Webber:
I apologize for the belated response to your question. I have been unable to post for quite a while, but have discovered that if I ask you to buy some postage stamps, that I can actually put this down as a potentially revenue-generating activity that is a credible use of my boring job's time. So what do you say about purchasing some US stamps? I realize you can't use them in jolly England, but you could start a philatelic collection. I suggest you purchase this limited-edition Star Wars press sheet:

http://shop.usps.com/wcsstore/PostalStore/upload/images/600x600_570184.jpg

This is sure to be a collector's item in the future, as George Lucas did not allow the US Postal Service to print as many stamps as a usual run.

Hah! Kelsey's big motivation to play well at Brown Deer was that I'd give her my Star Wars stamp set instead of selling it to her. :D

those last couple posts were worth the wait! :D

He does make an interesting point. Should it be the job of the PDGA to protect disc golf's image? On the other hand, is the image presented by a handful who would put the kind of material Mike is referring to, really our image? Frankly, I'm not sure I want to be known as a Star Wars Geek... O.K. just kidding, I saw it 36 times in the theater...

Well, if we're referring potential sponsors to the legitimacy of the sport, do we want them hit with countless pictures of scantily clad women or guys sucking on huge bongs or other irrelevant and *potentially* offensive material? I know I have no problem with the women, but I can see why the moderating team has to make occasional judgement calls and remove some material that's very close to nudity.

There was an image that Hawk posted with big black women in thongs that served no real purpose so it was removed (albeit funny.) And Morgan's peace image (in thumbnail version) did not cross the line in our eyes, but the hostility that followed was waaaay over the line.

Dunno what other images you were specifically referring to. Personally, I have no problems with the ones the post office is distributing. I'm actually quite fond of the above pics. And the girl in black wants me..she just doesn't know it yet.

And the girl in black wants me..she just doesn't know it yet.



maybe she does now... :D

Doot, I think if you buy these Spider-Man stamps at usps.com you'll feel a lot better:

http://shop.usps.com/wcsstore/PostalStore/upload/images/200x200_461440.jpg

i've got some time to post right now, since the mail truck is well over an hour late for the 10th time this month. oh wait, i shouldn't have said that! the mail is NEVER late and it's also prefectly fine to invade countries after you make up stories about their WMDs. And of course it's OK to wiretap anyone and of course it's perfectly fine for our Attorney General to lie to Congress.

That being said, for the umpteempth time, get over this BS about the PDGA's image in the eyes of sponsors. SHEESH, Mike Vick just got indicted for electrocuting dogs, the NBA has a crooked referee, and Barry Bonds is about to roid rage past Hank Aaron, but you think a couple of harmless, blatantly comical pictures are going to hurt the PDGA's image? Give me ANOTHER break already. Sponsorship aint about image, it's about $$$$. So get off your duff and go get another 10,000 people signed up as members (I'll even vote to lower the membership price to help), and you'll see more sponsors interested.

Image means nothing

Increased sponsorship is about spectators, not membership.

Doot, I think if you buy these Spider-Man stamps at usps.com you'll feel a lot better:

http://shop.usps.com/wcsstore/PostalStore/upload/images/200x200_461440.jpg

i've got some time to post right now, since the mail truck is well over an hour late for the 10th time this month. oh wait, i shouldn't have said that! the mail is NEVER late and it's also prefectly fine to invade countries after you make up stories about their WMDs. And of course it's OK to wiretap anyone and of course it's perfectly fine for our Attorney General to lie to Congress.

That being said, for the umpteempth time, get over this BS about the PDGA's image in the eyes of sponsors. SHEESH, Mike Vick just got indicted for electrocuting dogs, the NBA has a crooked referee, and Barry Bonds is about to roid rage past Hank Aaron, but you think a couple of harmless, blatantly comical pictures are going to hurt the PDGA's image? Give me ANOTHER break already. Sponsorship aint about image, it's about $$$$. So get off your duff and go get another 10,000 people signed up as members (I'll even vote to lower the membership price to help), and you'll see more sponsors interested.

Image means nothing



I think you make an important point Mike but you're wrong that image means nothing. Despite Sprite's protestations, in our culture, and many others, image means everything. However, my perception of image and what is important there, or for that matter, the PDGA's perception might be way off. As has been pointed out by numerous others, the bad boy image sells.

Now, I'm not advocating the bad boy image, and I'm not sure we should give over the family friendly image either, but I do see some room for a more open approach. One thing to really consider is a business approach. What is our market, where's the money? If it is in 18 to 30 year old males then go for it. I suspect however that most of our money is in more conservative 30 to 60 year old males. Then you have to ask what do they want and what are they willing to tolerate.

BTW - the hot babe in the red bandanna does not want me, I may be foolish, but I'm not dumb enough to believe that any babe wants me. :D

Increased sponsorship is about spectators, not membership.



I think I disagree with this.

Like ball golf, most of our spectators are going to be players. We just aren't exciting enough to really attract non-playing spectators. Now, I will admit, I get more looks when I make a great throw than most Bgers get when they make a drive. It's sort of the hockey thing, can't see the ball, can see the disc. But I'm still not convinced that translates well enough!

After watching the semis and finals at Pro worlds this weekend, I think the game could be more exciting if the players were given challenges that the average golfer could watch and be amazed. I watched these player on these courses make shots that to me were simply incredible. Shots I know that I could not make, ever. It's not like watching them on your home course with shots that you can hit on a good day.

It's like the Masters or the US Open. People that play golf know how tough those courses are set up for those events and that those players are consistently making shots that are nearly impossible for the average scratch golfer.

To watch disc golfers make perfectly shaped drives to park distant baskets or amazing recovery shots from back in the trees was very exciting and humbling. If there was more like this, it could generate more interest in watching them play.

I agree with you Gary. On the other hand, do you think that you have a greater appreciation for this because of your DG experience? How would a non-player relate to this?

One other thing to consider: what is going to happen to other sports in the next 20 years. I am looking for all the majors to take a hit in audience. We are being inundated with other entertainment options. Why should I watch disc golf when I can watch semi-nude men and women run around in Survivor. Not to mention the burgeoning of other professional sports.

If disc golf wants more money then we are going to have to move beyond the traditional business models that sports have always used. The world is changing and we had better figure out how to take advantage of those changes.

mikey, i have a question. first, thanks for running for office and stepping up to volunteer. second, how do you know you really lost? did you see the results? or are we the membership supposed to take their word for it? thanks again.

second, how do you know you really lost? did you see the results? or are we the membership supposed to take their word for it? thanks again.



Are you kidding me? Campus-Vote.com (http://www.campus-vote.com/), an independent third party organization, was utilized to run the election and ensure vote integrity, anonymity and privacy.

The PDGA is a professional organization, not some third-world country who would rig elections. Don't start this conspiracy crap again.

jeff, i take offense to your tone and you calling the u.s. a third-world country. additionally, your use of foul language sets a poor example as a moderator. have you seen the results from campus-vote or just the word on here?

Gimme a break, Kevin. What a shame that after all these years of being such a great supporter of disc golf on the local, regional and national scene and someone I always looked up to, you've decided to now spend your time making up ridiculous conspiracy theories and allegations of voter fraud. It's truly sad.

Where are the complete results. I want to verify that my friend was telling the truth when he said he lost to write-in candidate "can of beer".

if you think it's sad to have a fair, impartial election then you're right jeff, i'm a wingnut. there's nothing stopping the pdga organization from making this a legitimate election. can we see the actual vote count? i'll ask you again, have you seen the vote count from campus-vote?

call me what you want, i'd like to have someone besides someone affiliated with the pdga give me (the organization) the results. no conspiracy intended, just good, clean voting. painting me as sad and crazy doesn't help you; i am sad and crazy.

The results are posted on the front page of this website. While the actual number of votes for each candidate are not listed per se, a little math will reveal the results.

For Example, Peter Shive received 71.2% of 2594 votes which equals 1847 votes.

Election Results Here (http://www.pdga.com/documents/2007/2007PDGAElections.pdf)

only 2594 votes out of 11025 current members :confused: where is everybody?

The actual number of votes is listed in the first column. Interesting that the new Board is essentially in the western half of the U.S. plus Dodge. No one is from the traditional hotbeds of disc activity East of the Mississippi or the South with perhaps Brenner or Convers being the BOD members living closest to the IDGC?

After watching the semis and finals at Pro worlds this weekend, I think the game could be more exciting if the players were given challenges that the average golfer could watch and be amazed. I watched these player on these courses make shots that to me were simply incredible. Shots I know that I could not make, ever. It's not like watching them on your home course with shots that you can hit on a good day.

It's like the Masters or the US Open. People that play golf know how tough those courses are set up for those events and that those players are consistently making shots that are nearly impossible for the average scratch golfer.

To watch disc golfers make perfectly shaped drives to park distant baskets or amazing recovery shots from back in the trees was very exciting and humbling. If there was more like this, it could generate more interest in watching them play.



My sentiments exactly. Nate and Markus were especially good to watch, throwing long, accurate, well planned drives and with only a few exceptions, hitting nice putts. Ball golf leaped onto TV on the backs of player personalities like Arnold Palmer and Jack Nicklaus. Both great sportsmen.

I am not sure this model has as much appeal today though.

thanks discette!

is that it? just a document?

when it comes to "conspiracy" stuff, let me copy and paste from 2 of Kirk Yoo's, a former member of the BOD, said in another thread when Mikey brought up the same info....

"As a former Board member and a very critical individual I could not find anything wrong with the PDGA's spending habits while I was on the Board.

Obviously you don't know me. If you did you would know that I would be all over the PDGA like white on rice if I even suspected there was something untoward going on with our funds.

From your perspective you can consider me a former "insider" since I was on the Board. Your conspiracy theories are completely unfounded."

Gimme a break, Kevin. What a shame that after all these years of being such a great supporter of disc golf on the local, regional and national scene and someone I always looked up to, you've decided to now spend your time making up ridiculous conspiracy theories and allegations of voter fraud. It's truly sad.



While I agree with your sentiment Jeff, Kevin is correct in that all the numbers and results should be made available. You think there are no hacks that play disc golf that could fix this election, just for kicks? I don't think it happened, but from what I see on a national and international level, I know it's possible. Personally, I like the paper ballot and would go back to it if it isn't cost prohibitive.

Of course all the numbers and results should be made available. But in the meantime, I'm going to take their word for it. Does any sane person think that a professional organization who hired an independant third party to run thier election is going to rig the election? No, it's just the bored muckracking of people who seek to start nonsense conspiracy theories for their own amusement and cast the PDGA in the negative light. And I say shame on them.

Of course all the numbers and results should be made available. But in the meantime, I'm going to take their word for it. Does any sane person think that a professional organization who hired an independant third party to run thier election is going to rig the election? No, it's just the bored muckracking of people who seek to start nonsense conspiracy theories for their own amusement and cast the PDGA in the negative light. And I say shame on them.



I completely agree with you.

BTW - Has the PDGA sold their black helicopter yet? :D

"how do you know you really lost? did you see the results? or are we the membership supposed to take their word for it? "

jeff, with all due respect, the above quote hardly seems like a conspiracy theory or a negative comment.

the answers should be simple:
because i saw the full list of results as supplied by the vendor;
yes;
no, because i saw the full list of results as supplied by the vendor.

the answers currently are:
because they told me;
no;
i guess so.

this is neither complaint nor conspiracy theory, just an observation relevant to the expressed concern, and based on the latest information available. if i am mis- or under-informed in any way, please advise.

thanks sandalman for your reading comprehension ability. jeff seems to have it out for me here on the message board.

While it would be nice to have a link to the third-party's independent vote tally, it's not necessary in this case.

There was no reason to buy the election this time, when the conspiracy was right before all of your eyes all along. This election was not fair, and produced the result that the shameful hypocrites Brenner and Dodge wished.

Steve Dodge did not allow me to post here during the first 5 weeks of the election. <font color="blue"> personal attack deleted </font> Pat Brenner and Bob Decker, who now want to be the new Theo, supported this blatantly unfair tactic. The PDGA is stained by this election and the actions of its pathetic leadership to prevent any real debate.

There is only one person moderating this message board with any modicum of credibility and sense of fairness---Frederick Doot. Doot knows that I was unfairly banned by Steve Dodge from this forum...unfortunately Doot has yet to muster the courage to stand against his master Dodge, but I think one day he will. One day, Doot will admit the truth, and then maybe Dodge and Brenner will as well. But I'm not counting on it.

It is a shame that we will have to work around the PDGA leadership for another year or two to move this sport forward. Not allowing a candidate equal access to the voters is a mark of complete incompetence, or corruption. The conspiracy lives and breathes in the open---not behind closed doors this time.

"Those who do not stand for something will fall for anything"

I don't have it out for anybody, Kevin. And FYI, a summary document containing the results of the 2007 PDGA elections, as certified by Campus-Vote.com, is now available at PDGA.com.

http://pdga.com/documents/2007/07ElectionResultsSummary.pdf

The entire 17 page document, detailing all write-in votes, is also available to any member who phones the PDGA office to request it.

Steve Dodge did not allow me to post here during the first 5 weeks of the election.



NO!

You choose to break the rules, knowing the penalties. If you were so concerned about responding to questions from PDGA members, maybe you should have thought about this before you CHOOSE to break the rules.

Thanks for the link to the voting results document.

As a point of curiosity, I noticed there were 59 votes cast for the Alabama state rep. The website shows only 22 current PDGA members in Alabama ... can members outside the state vote for Alabama state rep?

There are more than 22. There are only 22 Male Pros in Alabama.

jeff seems to have it out for me here on the message board.




<font color="blue">WELCOME </font>

Steve Dodge did not allow me to post here during the first 5 weeks of the election. He is a coward of the worst kind, who should resign in disgrace. Pat Brenner and Bob Decker, who now want to be the new Theo, supported this blatantly unfair tactic. The PDGA is stained by this election and the actions of its pathetic leadership to prevent any real debate.


Hey Mikey, you ever think the real reason you didn't win, again, is that <font color="blue">[offensive material deleted]</font> and that people didn't vote for you because of that?

I would report your post to the moderation team, but you apparently have Mr. Doot in your hip pocket and he refuses to act on your pathetic attacks on this board, so go ahead and make your usual blatant personal attacks on me in response to this post without addressing my points. You won't be "moderated" for it, although I'm sure I'll get 3 months of suspension for calling you <font color="blue">[offensive material deleted]</font> in this post.

Mikeyspeak



Wow, you really don't get it, do you?

i saw the document jeff. as far as my assertion i offer "upthread" as exhibit A. :D

The ban may have kept him out of last place. It seems like only a tiny percentage of the membership lurks around this section of the discussion board, but if a few more disc golfers had a chance to read his posts, no telling how many more votes he'd have lost. After all, he finished behind candidates who didn't use the message boards to get their message out, but stood on their platforms and reputations.

The ban may also have been deliberate---a pre-meditatated, ready-made excuse for what was sure to be a losing bid for a board spot. Well, it was almost certainly deliberate, if you read his posts leading up to the ban; perhaps this was the real reason?

I would report your post to the moderation team, but you apparently have Mr. Doot in your hip pocket and he refuses to act on your pathetic attacks on this board, so go ahead and make your usual blatant personal attacks on me in response to this post without addressing my points. You won't be "moderated" for it, although I'm sure I'll get 3 months of suspension for calling you a [edited] in this post.



In response to this allegation, let it be known that I occasionally open up discussions with both the poster and/or target of an "attack" and the moderating team to discuss whether or not a post is a personal attack. In the instance I believe Rhett is referring to, emails were exchanged regarding the content of the post but to date I was still waiting for another response before proceeding with the decision.

As a representative of the PDGA, I want it to be known that in no way do I act under favoritism to anyone.

Regards,

Frederick Doot
PDGA # 27259