we have a BoD meeting tonight... anyone have anything pressing they need brought up or discussed?

we are emphasizing discussion between meetings nowadays (a good thing), so even if we cant work something into tonights meeting, we can keep conversations alive.

i've received two requests so far, which i will bring up in new business tonight:
1. breakout of how membership dues are spent (ie X% on magazine, Y% on ratings...)
2. financial recap of Pro and Am Worlds

When will the competition committees proposal be made public?

it was approved last meeting, so it should be viewable now. i thought it was out already, so i'll check into it.

Pat,

Hopefully someday I will see you and your lovely family at a mini in Cedar Hill again, but until then...

Thanks for soliciting topics for the BOD meeting. I still would like to push the idea of having a low-cost introductory membership, that would give someone a PDGA number, but not much else. That would increase the rate of membership, and would make us more attractive to potential sponsors. This membership would give them one (or more, TBD) exemptions from paying the $5 "non-member" fee at a tournament. Other stipulations can be added.

For renewals, we could offer more of a cafeteria-style menu, where, for an additional fee, of course, the renewing player could select such options as:

- Glossy DG Magazine Subscription
- Discount from tournament entry fees. Paying this fee is a way of collecting, in advance, the $X fee the PDGA gets per player per tournament. This discount could be noted on the player's card. Sure, players that play a lot of tournaments will save money, but I think that it will be a net revenue generating option, especially with the PDGA collecting the revenue up to a year in advance of when it would be received otherwise.
- Ace, Birdie, Eagle Club, etc.

Have fun with the meeting.

Oh, one more thing. Has the BOD selected new officers yet? I mean, I don't even know who the Commissioner is, for goodness sake! Does that selection happen tonight? If so, I will pray that the proper man is chosen.

Bob Decker is acting commissioner up to the election tonight just based on seniority.

I like Bills idea. But I also like the idea of making non-rated, non-members play in one of two divisions. Either they play in a special non-rated division that has a trophy only, or they play in an open division, ie advanced or pro. If they play open and choose to join, they can cash/merch. If they do not choose to become a member, then they can play for a trophy only.

I just can't understand how the PDGA allows non-classified players enter into protected divisions. You should have to prove your age, and your rating prior to being allowed to compete thru the membership registration process.

Thanks for asking.

I'd suggest further discussion on non-PDGA members playing in sanctioned events. With consideration for how the current rule and prosposed solutions affect (1) areas with few non-PDGA players, (2) areas with few PDGA members, and (3) areas with lots of non-PDGA players sandbagging.

My wish, in an area with relatively few non-PDGA players in sanctioned events, would be to drop the $5 temporary fee, perhaps in C tiers, perhaps in lower divisions (rec & intermediate), to encourage more rec players to try tournament play. Of course, I don't know what it would cost in lost fees to the PDGA, versus what we may gain with more players eventually joining.

Senior, and others in different areas, may wish a different resolution....and the introductory memberships may be part of the solution. No doubt people have better ideas than I. But it would be nice to see this discussion started at board level to see if there aren't better ways to handle this issue than what we've got now.

Pat, not sure if this is already in the TD's package or not, but I would like to see a push of information available to TD's and clubs on the website for how to market and get funding for tournaments better. Raising our sport with local donations, ad state or bigger is very important I feel to growing our sport. Not sure if the BoD has any marketing material available but we should strive to get bigger purses at all events.

Also I second that the non PDGA member issue needs to be brought up along with a lot of the ides in the thread. That would create a great starting point.

Most pressing, I think, is the election of officers. Hope that goes well. A lot of what follows will go better with the right people in the right places.

Bob Decker is acting commissioner up to the election tonight just based on seniority.

it has nothing to do with seniority - article 4.6 of the bylaws states that in thje absence of the president, the vp will serve inthat role. seniority only enters the picture if there is more than one vp, which there isnt for now.

good topics, thanks! the intro membership and non-members topics are bigger than tonight will allow, i am sure. i requested a review of the new membership software the office is using, but it didnt make the schedule somehow, so we'll prolly do it via email and at the summit... we need to know if it can handle tiered memberships or not before we go too far down that road. (i sure hope it can).

the TDs guidelines and tipcs is a great idea also. something like that came up previously, and if iremember correctly, there was an action item to develop such a package. i'll dig thru the minutes...

i'll also put these out in a BoD email, so that we are sure to get them started

When will the competition committees proposal be made public?

we were told it should be soon. i'm not sure what the holdup is, since we approved the plan a while ago. on another thread john chapman suggested they are tweaking the division names, so maybe thats it. hopefully it will be soon, cuz TDs are starting to prepare their marketing materials for the 2008 season now.

if nothing is publsihed by the summit on september 20, i'll see what i can do about getting a synopsis released.

membership levels discussion did not make it onto the agenda. it definitely will be at the summit later this month.

officers are now in place. the full slate is posted on the PDGA announcement section. since you were praying, the answer to whether the right man was chosen is between you and your personal diety :)

mcop, your idea for TD support materials is a great one. i am not sure where to steer you for any existing materials, but the best choices for the moment are probably: State Coordinator, John Deusler, or David at the pdga office.

david, senior, and all who commented on the membership costs, events fees, etc... of course this is a complex discussion to complete. we touched very briefly on it at this meeting. i hope it gets a good hearing at the summit. the new skill level structure supports a strategy of growing the base of lower-skilled players. aligning our membership structure with the same goal makes a ton of sense. stay tuned... and please dont hesitate to throw out any additional ideas.

Thanks for passing along the info. I'm happy with a vigorous discussion, spanning several meetings, over a rushed decision. Let folks toss in a lot of good ideas....let people kick them around to test for flaws.....then select the best of the bunch.

we have a BoD meeting tonight... anyone have anything pressing they need brought up or discussed?

we are emphasizing discussion between meetings nowadays (a good thing), so even if we cant work something into tonights meeting, we can keep conversations alive.

i've received two requests so far, which i will bring up in new business tonight:
1. breakout of how membership dues are spent (ie X% on magazine, Y% on ratings...)
2. financial recap of Pro and Am Worlds


It's easy enough to understand that X% is spent on magazine, but what costs does ratings have? How could we be spending money to do ratings????

I would also like to ask about Brian G's post on the announcement thread.


"The BOD also appointed three directors to continue to serve members in roles <font color="red"> </font> that were abolished by the new by laws.<font color="black"> </font> <font color="black"> </font>

Does anyone else find this statement confusing? Just looking for an explanation. If the roles were abolished why do we need people to fill the roles?

the roles are no longer formally required by the ByLaws, but they are continued because we felt the roles are needed.

How could we be spending money to do ratings

we pay the ratings processors.

We may want to clarify that under the prior by-laws and voting procedures, people would run for a specific position, to be decided by election vote of all PDGA members.

The new by-laws and voting procedures stipulate that now the general election by PDGA members is to vote on who is to comprise the Board of Directors. Then the board themselves decide who is best suited for each individual position.

Correct, Pat?

How could we be spending money to do ratings

we pay the ratings processors.


Who is that? And how much do we pay "them"?

jeff, u r correct.

colin, at this time, members are not allowed to know.

colin, at this time, members are not allowed to know.


.....uh...........what?......... :confused:

why are dues paying members not allowed to know?

i know, it seems silly doesnt it. i've asked the bod to consider releasing the document that shows how memberships dues are allocated, or at least a piechart of the data. we'll see how it goes. maybe a Member could ask the office for the info and see what they say.

maybe a Member could ask the office for the info and see what they say.


who do i ask to speak with?

prolly Brian, the ED, or Addie, the memberships manager, would be best.

i know, it seems silly doesnt it. i've asked the bod to consider releasing the document that shows how memberships dues are allocated, or at least a piechart of the data. we'll see how it goes. maybe a Member could ask the office for the info and see what they say.



Pat, here's a reminder: You are "a Member." It's the "Member" part of "Board Member."

huh? i am missing your point

huh? i am missing your point



My Pet Goat, page 3, paragraph 2. Followed by crickets chirping.

thats supposed to clarify it? just say whats on youir mind. i cant read it.

i know, it seems silly doesnt it. i've asked the bod to consider releasing the document that shows how memberships dues are allocated, or at least a piechart of the data. we'll see how it goes. maybe a Member could ask the office for the info and see what they say.


It's nuts to me to be spending good money on something that does nothing more than stroke egos. If we had a handicap system and encouraged tournaments to utilize it then and only then would ratings have value. In the meantime it's an unexcusable waste, IMO, if we're spending anything more than $25 a year.
Maybe the reason the BOD doesn't want to make it known is because it's such an obvious embarrassment.

[intelligence rating comparison estimate removed] Whew!

thats supposed to clarify it? just say whats on youir mind. i cant read it.



PDGA board member Pat Brenner: Shift over to English. That may help.

what is the purpose of suggesting i need help with english? or are you saying something about my wife not being native english-speaking?

you are a former communications director. why cant you just state what is on your mind? i dont have the book, so your reference is not working.

Since the PDGA is a non profit all records can be asked for and must be presented to not only members but to anyone asking for them.

http://smallbusiness.findlaw.com/busines...al-records.html (http://smallbusiness.findlaw.com/business-structures/non-profit/non-profit-disclosing-financial-records.html)

The BoD masking the issues can only go so far. I would like to see them published to there full detailed extent on the web page though. However, if we all just call and start asking for them, maybe they will get over hiding information that the members actually want to see and post it already.

My boss laid me off, I'm still a stock holder, I think I should ask how much he makes for making poor decisions.

the law requires that the IRS form 990 be available. we already have ours on this website in the information section, so anyone can get it.

i know, it seems silly doesnt it. i've asked the bod to consider releasing the document that shows how memberships dues are allocated, or at least a piechart of the data. we'll see how it goes. maybe a Member could ask the office for the info and see what they say.


It's nuts to me to be spending good money on something that does nothing more than stroke egos. If we had a handicap system and encouraged tournaments to utilize it then and only then would ratings have value. In the meantime it's an unexcusable waste, IMO, if we're spending anything more than $25 a year.
Maybe the reason the BOD doesn't want to make it known is because it's such an obvious embarrassment.



Agreed, but hey maybe if we had only 3 divisions Rec, Am and Open it would fix the need to have a rating system also.

On a side note, I think if it cost to much to have them do the ratings we have wasted time and money, when a program could have been written and paid fqr to do it all on the fly and update upon approval of the uploaded information. Heck even even the ratings people know that ratings aren't accurate.

Well contract labor is on the 990, but there is no way to know if that is all for the ratings group or if the PDGA is paying out multiple contract laborers. I overlooked that it was actually the 990 on the web sight also, It should at least have a (990) in the title.

what is the purpose of suggesting i need help with english? or are you saying something about my wife not being native english-speaking?

you are a former communications director. why cant you just state what is on your mind? i dont have the book, so your reference is not working.



PDGA board member Pat Brenner, I have no idea what languages your wife speaks, or was raised in. (We're all human, that's all that matters to me.)

In your ever-present effort to make the PDGA look bad, you referred to an instance where you asked the PDGA to do something and it, officially, did not do so.

You then suggested that there might be a different outcome if a "Member" asked it to do so.

I merely pointed out that you are, in fact, "a member"; although given your statements in various forums, it would be understandable if someone thought you were not only not a member, but an opponent of the PDGA.

the ratings are about the most liked service, from the surveys i've seen. we are getting a bargain.

Terry, Although PAT is a member and BoD, he already has the info. Calling the office and asking for it would be redundant.

Pat, keep up the great work, your really trying to help all members and get info out here.

In your ever-present effort to make the PDGA look bad, you referred to an instance where you asked the PDGA to do something and it, officially, did not do so.

You then suggested that there might be a different outcome if a "Member" asked it to do so.

not. i said i asked, which is true. i said we'd see, which is true. i only asked on friday. i did not suggest calling the office would get a different result - thats your spin.

the ratings are about the most liked service, from the surveys i've seen. we are getting a bargain.



Maybe if we all had the surveys to fill out, along with a pie chart of what each benefit cost us we would see a different result. Or maybe there is just a few of us that think the benefit of ratings should not be a paid for expense.

From some of what I've heard, there seems to be a contingent that feels the ratings are the only useful thing the PDGA provides.

the ratings are about the most liked service, from the surveys i've seen. we are getting a bargain.


Oh I'm totally aware that there are people that like to have their egos stroked. " Hey look at me...I'm better than alot of people." This does nothing to make a player compete better or to help all the rest of us know who the better players are. Ratings are completely unproductive without handicaps and apparently they are an extravagance deemed neccessary only by people with no vision past their own nose.
If you think me wrong then please explain to me any benefit we get from ratings.

Skip, you seem to have a rather low opinion in general of PDGA members, most of whom seem to really like the ratings. This kind of language . . .

"people who like to have their egos stroked"
"extravagance deemed necessary"
"people with no vision past their own nose"
"completely unproductive"

. . . doesn't read like someone willing to give the opinions of others much credence. In fact, when you post things like that you are, in advance of anyone's counter-argument, categorizing them in quite a negative way.

Ratings do in fact help us understand who the better players are. Here's a benefit: I know, from your rating and from mine, that the odds are pretty good that I could beat you in a round of disc golf, no?

Boy, does that stroke my ego :cool:

From some of what I've heard, there seems to be a contingent that feels the ratings are the only useful thing the PDGA provides.


This contingent are the ones with limited vision that I speak of. As a member of the PDGA Regioal Directors I would not expect you to condone such a statement, Gary. The PDGA offers our sport a worldwide connection making promotions and sponsorships more accessible. It also offers the magazine and this website to help us stay informed with the results of worldwide tournaments and the efforts made by members everywhere to promote the sport.
Having been involved with running the VPO for 17 years I know that maintaining support from the business community is very difficult to do and knowing that we choose to waste resourses to do ratings when the PDGA, as I understand it, is struggling the cling to life is unacceptable. We continue to raise our fees on a yearly basis to counteract the difficulties asking the membership to keep things afloat ( something I've tried to avoid on a local level unsuccessfully ) and we can find nothing better to do with that money than stroke a few egos??? :confused:

'they are an extravagance deemed neccessary only by people with no vision past their own nose."

ok, stated that way you insult the majority of Members :)


ratings do far more than stroke egos.

1. ratings provide a general measure of skill against players you've never played.

2. ratings provide a baseline from which to measure personal improvement.

3. ratings provide data to support the competitive structure.


wouldnt a handicap system do just about the same? how is a low handicap less ego-stroking than a high rating?

Skip, you seem to have a rather low opinion of most PDGA members.

"people who like to have their egos stroked"
"extravagance deemed necessary"
"people with no vision pas their own nose"
"completely unproductive"

You postings don't read like someone willing to give the opinions of others much credence. In fact, when you post things like that you are, in advance of anyone's counter-argument, categorizing them in quite a negative way.

I do like my ego stroked, and I bet that sometimes you do, too.

Ratings do in fact help us understand who the better players are.

Here's a benefit: I know, from your rating and from mine, that the odds are pretty good that I could beat you in a round of disc golf, no?


Terry, I've not agreed with a need for ratings from the beginning. I don't need them to see who's finishing best at tournaments everywhere and to think that by rating a course and then the players on them gives you any better idea of reality is not an exact science. The degree of miscalculation is more than significant enough to make any assessment argueable. My complaint is that we are wasting money.

As for you beating me, Terry, you must be very proud that you can beat someone with a physical handicap. Go ahead and beat your chest, my friend. As a matter of fact feel free to put it on your tombstone.

when the PDGA, as I understand it, is struggling the cling to life

say what??? "cling-to-life"??? this is the first i've heard anyone paint such a grim picture. we may not be flying our course evaluators and event marshalls around in learjets, but we're on stable ground financially by every measure.

when the PDGA, as I understand it, is struggling the cling to life



I think you may have been paying too much attention to Pat, Skip, the PDGA is in incredibly good health.

Okay, I'm outta here for a while. When I find myself and Pat on the same side of something, it's just too weird. :)

'they are an extravagance deemed neccessary only by people with no vision past their own nose."

ok, stated that way you insult the majority of Members :)


ratings do far more than stroke egos.

1. ratings provide a general measure of skill against players you've never played.

2. ratings provide a baseline from which to measure personal improvement.

3. ratings provide data to support the competitive structure.


wouldnt a handicap system do just about the same? how is a low handicap less ego-stroking than a high rating?


I'm sorry that you and Terry think I'm trying to belittle people. That is not my reason for this post. I'm just addressing the real fact that most players are just that...players.

when the PDGA, as I understand it, is struggling the cling to life



I think you may have been paying too much attention to Pat, Skip, the PDGA is in incredibly good health.


Why do we continue to increase the fees each year and lose a few old members in protest each time?
Why is Rick Rothstein considering closing down the magazine? Give him the money. I enjoy the mag alot more than ratings.

when the PDGA, as I understand it, is struggling the cling to life



I think you may have been paying too much attention to Pat, Skip, the PDGA is in incredibly good health.



um, read the post above yours. then apologize. and then prepare for Probation 2.

in more than 25 years of business and volunteer board activity, i have never seen one individual have such a burr with one volunteer.

dont let being right wierd you out terry. stick with me and you'll get used to it. :cool:

skip, see ya in a few minutes. love ya bro. lets go scope out some new fairways.

btw, on ratings and any pdga services... not all Members value all services the same. the challenge is to put a package together that the vast majority of Members will feel is an overall good value.

I find it humorous that these surveys claim members really like the ratings when they have no idea how much they cost. How can you make an informed decision when you are not informed?
I'm sure most tax-payers like driving on nice roads. But I bet the wouldn't like them as much if they were to find out that, say, 80% (hypothetically) of their taxes were being spent on the nice roads.
I bet if the membership knew what it cost them for the ratings, they might have a different opinion about their "value".
When $171,000 is budgeted for 6 things, that is deceiving. And I am inclined to believe that there is a reason for this. Why can't the financial report be itemized?
Pat, for the next board meeting or whatever, would you please propose or at least discuss the possibility of an itemized budget for the membership?

'they are an extravagance deemed neccessary only by people with no vision past their own nose."

ok, stated that way you insult the majority of Members :)


ratings do far more than stroke egos.

1. ratings provide a general measure of skill against players you've never played.

2. ratings provide a baseline from which to measure personal improvement.

3. ratings provide data to support the competitive structure.




4. Ratings are directly tied in with course design so that courses are designed for players of different skill levels (Gold, Blue, White, Red, Green). Your rating and the course level let you know that if you've never played a course whether or not it will be appropriate for you (not too easy and not too difficult).

5. SSAs, a component of ratings, are a crucial element of measuring course difficulty.

'they are an extravagance deemed neccessary only by people with no vision past their own nose."

ok, stated that way you insult the majority of Members :)


ratings do far more than stroke egos.

1. ratings provide a general measure of skill against players you've never played.

2. ratings provide a baseline from which to measure personal improvement.

3. ratings provide data to support the competitive structure.




4. Ratings are directly tied in with course design so that courses are designed for players of different skill levels (Gold, Blue, White, Red, Green). Your rating and the course level let you know that if you've never played a course whether or not it will be appropriate for you (not too easy and not too difficult).

5. SSAs, a component of ratings, are a crucial element of measuring course difficulty.


Lowe, I am aware of the head games that are being played to try and make "ratings" work. The problem is it is subject to too much conjecture from differing conditions at a given course, differences in the levels of the games being played at said course, and differences in designs to be able to feel you have an appropriate conclusion as to what reality is. In the end you basically say what we all know....the best players are Climo, Shultz, Feldberg, Doss, Jenkins, etc. etc. etc., and on any given day any one of them can beat all the rest. I don't need to spend thousands of dollars to know this.
One reason that baseball bores me is all the head games. On a given swing half the baseball analyzers are proven geniouses and half are shown they're dumb, but make the same swing on a ball that's one inch higher and everything is reversed.
Moral of the story: ratings are not an exact science and not worth a whole lot, IMO, but we're paying for them and probably a whole lot.

The real question is what else would we spend the money on if it wasnt ratings??? And in my opinion our ratings system is really lacking.........Its behind where your play is currently at..........One crappy person shooting out of his mind can totally JACK the ratings up...........One SUPER PRO playing like poop can jack them up just as bad.........And dont get me started on tournaments with TEE TIMES!!! The weather could change six times threwout the day and the wind could be helping on the easy holes and hurting on the hard and switch to just the opposite when the top guys play that set of holes........And lets face it wind affects our game alot more than it affects true ball golf............Atleast the handicap system in ball golf is the best ten of your last 20 rounds and it updates automatically............And in the end do the rating even really matter at all??? You come in after a round you look at the leaderboard and no matter what division your in or who you played with you know right then and there weather you shot hot or not...........You dont know to go to the computer hours later just to see that your HOT round was only rated 999...........Hell alot of the time im let down by the ratings..........I was second hot round I feel like I played really well but there were no 1000 rated pros at the C tier im playing and I get home and my hot round was 989 when it would have been 1025 had Fedlburg and Jenkins and Doss and Climo been playing the same course at the same time............I mean Id love to see my rating hit 1000 in the next year but if they got rid of the ratings I would still place where I placed in all the tournaments I have played!!! So untill the ratings are done on the fly and all the TDs are forced to get the info in THAT NIGHT and the ratings are real time I really see no benefit in having them.............oh and it would also help to have less divisions!!! Rec Advanced Open.........Rec plays for little to know payout and the payouts and entry fees get bigger and bigger as you move up.........Then there is no reason for sandbagging and everyone is better off!!!

Well, if the person(s) we are paying to do ratings are getting a weekly paycheck, then I see no reason to that we shouldn't have weekly updated ratings. I doubt it would take more than a week or two (AT MOST) to update the ratings for 10-20 events a weekend when it's basically using spreadsheet formulas, with tweaking (whatever that means). Hell, I'm having to do way more than that in my statistical analysis class in a week and I don't even get paid for it!

Sorry, I know plenty of disc golfers who like the ratings system, and it has nothing to do with "stroking their ego". Mine is a continuous blow to my ego, and I'd consider it slander if it didn't also appear to be pretty darn accurate. Message board proposals for an introductory, low-cost membership level almost always include ratings as a benefit. Far more inaccurate than the ratings system is the practice of mind-reading the motives of strangers as to why they like, or dislike, a service.

All of which is unrelated to how much it costs, or whether it's worth that cost, or whether ratings should be done differently.

We're a diverse group. Some members love ratings; some think they're a waste of resources. Some love the magazine, some think it's a waste of money. I support the efforts to get the PDGA to divulge, in more details, these expenditures.

But the real way to reduce the PDGA budget and membership fees is for the PDGA to only do things that everyone wants. That should get the costs down to about zero!

But the real way to reduce {any organizaiotn's} budget and membership fees is for {that organization} to only do things that everyone wants. That should get the costs down to about zero!

well-said! we're a community, and we pool resources for the greater good. (sorry about the edit, but i wanted to avoid any possible confusions)

i dont use bagtags, cuz i dont want all that crap dangling from my bag. but thats just me. a lot of players (most?) love that stuff, so i'm not gonna complain if small portion of my dues, a couple bucks or so, goes to pay for it. of course, if that service consumed a third of my dues, i might feel differently.

when the PDGA, as I understand it, is struggling the cling to life



I think you may have been paying too much attention to Pat, Skip, the PDGA is in incredibly good health.



um, read the post above yours. then apologize. and then prepare for Probation 2.

in more than 25 years of business and volunteer board activity, i have never seen one individual have such a burr with one volunteer.



I've often wonder this myself. But I didn't think you had that much of a burr. Don't be so hard on yourself.

In my more than 30 years of volunteer work (not that we're comparing or showing how good we are) I've never seen such obfuscation as I see from some people, some of the time. Huh?

BTW - was this a threat? It seems as if a conclusion was drawn and a threat was made outside the context of asking the moderators what their opinion was. I just thought I should ask.

BTW - was this a threat? It seems as if a conclusion was drawn and a threat was made outside the context of asking the moderators what their opinion was. I just thought I should ask.



That's kinda the way I read it too. Pat, I like ya bud, you know that, but I don't think that someone stating that your posts may have given someone the impression that the PDGA is not doing well is cause for probation.

No slam intented, so correct Lyle and I if we are mistaken.

skip commented that he understood the pdga was "clinging to life". terry commented that skip must be listening to me. this is a direct accusation that i told skip that the pdga is in difficult financial times (which i didnt, because imo its not true). the repeated misrepresentation of what i said is what i object to. in fact, i said the association in fine shape financially, by every measure. how this message could be interpreted as "the pdga is clinging to life" escapes me, quite frankly.

ps - was what a threat? i missed something along the way i think

I also read it as a threat, and given your position as a board member, also an abuse of power.

"prepare for probabtion 2?" What gives you the right?

i dont have any powers to put someone on prob2, or hand out any MB disciplinary action for that matter. i can report a post, thats all. "prepare for probation 2" is a statement that i believe that terry's post was over the line and since he is currently on probation, if the moderators agree, he will move into prob2 status. its in the hands of the moderators, as it always is.

Pat -

Please try to realize that EVERYTHING you type on here is a reflection of the PDGA Board of Directors as you have made it part of your agenda to use the message board as your official board pulpit.

At the same time you continue to post as if you were "Joe Member". You are no longer "Joe Member": you are a public persona of the PDGA BOD.


It is disturbing to see my elected representative have immature public spats on this message board with current PDGA members.





"I know you are but what am I?"

I agree... Lets stick to the topics at hand... As you may have heard before:

If it dosen't have legs it can't run...

So please Pat, don't give it any legs and stick to the topic and you probably won't find yourself having to defend yourself all the time...

But the real way to reduce {any organizaiotn's} budget and membership fees is for {that organization} to only do things that everyone wants. That should get the costs down to about zero!

well-said! we're a community, and we pool resources for the greater good. (sorry about the edit, but i wanted to avoid any possible confusions)

i dont use bagtags, cuz i dont want all that crap dangling from my bag. but thats just me. a lot of players (most?) love that stuff, so i'm not gonna complain if small portion of my dues, a couple bucks or so, goes to pay for it. of course, if that service consumed a third of my dues, i might feel differently.



Agreed. Which is why I applaud efforts to get a little more detailed accounting of expenses from the PDGA.

Terry -

I am not too happy that a former BoD member is fanning these flames. You two need to take the high road and resist the urge to press the "OK, submit" button. I've heard these type of arguments before and all I can say is....










Don't make me pull the car over!!!

the ratings are about the most liked service, from the surveys i've seen. we are getting a bargain.


Oh I'm totally aware that there are people that like to have their egos stroked. " Hey look at me...I'm better than alot of people." This does nothing to make a player compete better or to help all the rest of us know who the better players are. Ratings are completely unproductive without handicaps and apparently they are an extravagance deemed neccessary only by people with no vision past their own nose.
If you think me wrong then please explain to me any benefit we get from ratings.



I didn't say I agreed with those contingents, but I do see several good reasons to determine and track ratings. They mean more to the Ams than the Pros. They are of use to course designers. I watch mine and those of the players I am up against in tournaments. It doesn't predict the winners, but it does give you a good idea of who to watch. I don't know how much it is worth, but it is worth something.

Going back and reading my posts a couple of days later has shown me I was a little too expressive trying to make my point. I'm truly sorry for implying anyone liking ratings was shortsighted. I can understand that they help you confirm what you probably already know, but it does irk me that we are probably using thousands of dollars a year to have them done.
I would also like to say that I know Pat and, even though we have disagreed a couple of times, I know he is taking his postion seriously and wants to be a good influence on the sport. He respects the fact that TC is a former BOD member and was a little taken aback at his posts. His response was not intended as a threat I'm sure. He was just asking for TC to "go a little easier" on him. :D
Now I'm sure that he's reading this and cringing that the radical antagonist is on his side and he'll never get any respect now. :D
Keep your chin up, Pat, you're doing a good job and, since you're the one in a thousand that's willing to make the sacrifices to spend time and effort on it, more kudos to you.

Don't make me pull the car over!!!



LOL :D

"He started it"

"No, he did"

"Uh Uh"

"Uh Huh"

"Don't touch me!"

"MOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooom!"

[sound of screeching brakes]

Not that I'm advocating this, but my mom's approach to kids fighting over something was to take it and toss it out the window. Yes, Interstate 5 is littered with hot wheels, Barbie dolls, and various other children's toys from the Ross family. Now when I see my mom I point out that a 1960s vintage Barbie doll is worth about $500. :D