As a candidate I promised that, if elected, I would communicate with the membership. My experience with the message board during the election was surprisingly pleasant and informative. I am comfortable with the format, and feel that both the Board and the membership can benefit from more open communication.

In a broad sense, I want to comment on the important issues that we all face. Because none of the truly important issues are simple ones, they are only fully illuminated by a light that includes a number of conflicting points of view. The worst problems on the message board occur when posters hammer on one point of view, ignoring all others. Attitudes then become entrenched and defensive, with unfortunate results.

More specifically, then, these are the things I intend to do:
1) I will answer important questions from the membership.
2) I will comment, sometimes extensively, about key issues.
3) I will usually identify my point of view so that, if I ever run for the Board again, you will know where I stood.
4) I will generally present other points of view, so you can get a feeling for the complexity of the issue.
5) I will note that these opinions are personal interpretations, not a rendering of official Board thinking or policy.

I am limited somewhat by considerations of confidentiality (mostly with regard to personnel, disciplinary and budgetary issues), time (I have a very active life beyond this message board), and my own temperament (I place a high value on brevity and courtesy). With this in mind, there are some things that I intend not to do:
1) I won't attribute other points of view by name, unless invited to do so.
2) I won't criticize anyone, except possibly myself.
3) I won't comment in detail on personnel, disciplinary or budgetary matters.
4) I won't keep doing this if it doesn't live up to my expectations.

OK. Any questions?

Yes.
Dr. Shive,
Now that you are a BM, and having seen a detailed/itemized version of the 2007 budget:
1. Do you think/feel that the individual budgeted items accurately reflect the wants/needs of a majority of the membership?
2. Do you think/feel that the value obtained from budgeted items are worth the price that the membership pays for them?

I am not asking you to go into detail on specific items, but feel free to reflect on and encompass broad categories of items that you feel answer (1) and (2). As always, Dr. Shive,
Thank You

to 28003:

The attributes that got me the PhD have little relevance in the world of disc golf, so in our world I much prefer to be called "Peter".

Now the two questions. At this point I would answer "yes" to both. I did not run on a platform of fiscal reform, and haven't yet encountered any examples of gross inequity.

Still, it is a relatively uninformed answer. I've been on the Board twelve days, and so far the important issues have not involved the budget. This will change at the Summit next week, because then we must begin hammering out the 2008 budget. That's when I will start to look at the budget hard, because I can't do anything about the 2007 budget, but I can affect 2008.

So in two weeks I could give a more informed and detailed answer. But not to such general questions. They say in effect "Justify the dues", and "Justify the budget". I could write 50 pages and still leave out elements that somebody cares about. And my answer would satisfy no one, because each member has different needs and resources, and would differently prioritize the services the PDGA provides. Narrow it down some, so it becomes manageable. There must be elements that you are particularly concerned about. What are they?

While the board is a kind of representative democracy, on what issues should you go beyond your collective wisdom and poll the membership? Recognizing, of course, that it's not easily done, and certainly the message board isn't the way to do it. Rules changes? Division structure changes?

And as for issues, the handling of non-members in sanctioned tournaments is something I'd like to see the board keep looking at. I'd personally like to see a dropping of the $5 fee, at least in the rec, er, enthusiast, divisions, in C-tiers, to bring in more players....but others have also-valid arguments for restrictions on their participation and sandbagging as unrated players.

to DavidSauls:

Polling the membership: It isn't that hard. Most of the work is in the interpretation. Still, I would only do it if I felt the Board had either no idea, or a distorted idea, of the membership's feeling on an important issue. That won't happen often. And you are right for sure that the DISCussion Board is no place to do it.

Non-member fees: I'm much more concerned than you about problems with non-member participation. It bothers me that there is no way to positively identify and track nonmembers, and so (for example) no effective method of enforcing discliplinary sanctions. I wouldn't be in favor of lowering or removing the fees.

However, in the current system the fees go to the PDGA, while the heavy lifting, and most of the risk, is borne by the TD's. I would be in favor of having all or part of the fee stay with the TD.

You are now in charge of this message board.

What are your plans for it?

to _MTL_:

At this point, no vision for it to be anything different from what it is. I'm Communications Director, and my main role will be to review recommendations made by the Monitors. I haven't had any "action" yet, so I don't even know what that feels like, but I suspect that my style will be on the strong side of regulation against abusive posts.

However, in the current system the fees go to the PDGA, while the heavy lifting, and most of the risk, is borne by the TD's. I would be in favor of having all or part of the fee stay with the TD.


Peter, I've TD'd or co TD'd my home event 7 of it's 17 years and staffed or played in it all the others and I've watched as the job of getting sponsors has gotten tougher and tougher. As a blue collar worker and just a plain old discdog, I don't have a lot of time to beat the streets and solicit help.
We have chosen to spend probably thousands each year to make ratings, which as far as I can tell do very little to help our growth. Knowing that the dues I've paid every year have continued to escalate and the fees I'm made to collect at each of our events are not going to help our efforts as efficently as they could makes the job less and less glamorous when the people you want to please can only critisize you for not being a better TD than you are.
The PGA, on a whole as an organization, is linked to charities which makes getting sponsors alot easier since the monies are tax deductable. I feel that we need to move in this direction with our resources to enable us to be able to get more outside funds to come in. What are your thoughts on my statement?
This is an element I am particularly concerned about. :)

to skip1:

The best thing about the message board is when I learn something, which looks like what will happen here. I don't know much about the PGA, and I'm not sure how being associated with a charity makes it easier for a TD to raise more money for an event. Are you talking about a split gift? Please give an example of how this works. Better still, also discuss your idea with John Duesler, who is the PDGA consultant who coordinates fundraising activities.

As for ratings, I believe they are, in an overall sense, very valuable to the membership.

As for ratings, I believe they are, in an overall sense, very valuable to the membership.


It would be nice to know the cost of ratings so that we, as MEMBERS, can determine their value.

As for ratings, I believe they are, in an overall sense, very valuable to the membership.


It would be nice to know the cost of ratings so that we, as MEMBERS, can determine their value.



You do not even play!!!!!!!! Ratings s/b mean nothing to you.

I don't play because I have had a torn ACL since Feb/March and I just had ACL surgery but plan on playing again in 5-6 months. But, regardless, ratings mean very little to me. However, if ratings end up costing $0.50 per member, then I would assert that they are very valuable (good value). If ratings cost $10.00 per member, then I would assert that they are not valuable (bad value). As it stands now, I can't assess their value as I don't know their cost.

to skip1:

The best thing about the message board is when I learn something, which looks like what will happen here. I don't know much about the PGA, and I'm not sure how being associated with a charity makes it easier for a TD to raise more money for an event. Are you talking about a split gift? Please give an example of how this works. Better still, also discuss your idea with John Duesler, who is the PDGA consultant who coordinates fundraising activities.

As for ratings, I believe they are, in an overall sense, very valuable to the membership.


Peter, by having a charity to benefit from the events we would enable outside interests to write off any monies they contribute towards their tax liability. This is why the PGA can offer purses in the millions. The biggest hurdle in duplicating their methods is that they are able to charge admittance to their gates which provides an undetermined amount of money that goes to the charity. The money contributed by sponsors is what guarantees the purse. Therefore the sponsors money is usually alot more than the money generated to go to the charity, but the sponsors money is written off in it's entireity.
For example:
Private club at course contributes to run event----------$1 million
Sponsorships generate-------------------------------------------$3 million
Total purse and total tax write off-----------------------------$4 million

Total gate receipts and contribution to charity---------$50 thous.

Because it is associated with a charity all monies are tax deductable. This is a simplictic explanation but still very much accurate in the methods used by the PGA.

I don't believe there's a tax benefit for charitable contributions any more than a normal deduction a company gets for advertising expense as a sponsor for the same amount of money. I don't get it? The company looks a little better as a good citizen for the charitable contribution but is it worth a few million?

Chuck, there is a difference. You get more for your money for charitable contributions. Advertising expense for large companies also gets maxed out way before the end of the year also. Maybe we should have a good accountant on our board.

We do. Bob Decker. There's no limit to advertising deductions. I really don't think there's any financial benefit for charitable versus regular advertising deductions. The benefit is intangible in terms of good vibe for being a good corp citizen.

Do I understand you correctly, Chuck, to say that companies outside of disc golf get as much bang for their buck spending it on advertising as they would contributing to a charity event?
If so, I don't think this is the case. Advertising is a neccessary expenditure of profit making and just another part of doing business. I'm pretty sure that charitable contributions are taken right off of tax bills in some cases. In other words, money to advertise comes off of total taxable income and money to certain charities comes directly off of the taxes owed. This means charity deductions are alot more valuable.

I'm doing my corporate taxes right now and charitable deductions are like regular expense deductions such as advertising and even have more restrictions such as getting a receipt from the tournament for the amount donated. The only way a charitable deduction might be more advantageous is when the company is donating equipment that they already depreciated. If the equipment like a car still has fair market value, they can donate it and get a deduction for that amount versus selling it to get the same amount of cash, in theory.

re player ratings, my only problem with it is that the ratings calculations use data from other players ratings/scores instead of just the course being played. I know this has been addressed, and as we get further data it will work itself out.

ex) I played 7 events recently, 3 as pro, 4 as advanced. My level of play and the scores I posted seemed equal, but when i do some math..... adv tourneys: 935 avg. pro: 952 avg. that's almost 2 strokes difference, but I played the same golf imho.

Peter, congratulations on the new post! As a man of sincere integrity, passion, honor and kindness I am sure you will do the PDGA a great service. :cool:

please email me as i have great photos from our recent tour.
[email protected]

cheers mate,
Brock

Chuck, you have got to be missing some information somewhere. If there were no benefit to charitable contributions there would be no charities.
It has been 18 years since I had my own business but I don't think things have changed that much. Money given to certain charities was considered to be a way of designating where your taxes were spent and as such they came directly off your tax liability not your income.

I agree that's true for individuals but it doesn't look like it for corps. That doesn't mean it's not worth it for corps to do charitable contributions but it doesn't look like there's financially any difference compared with advertising.

I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm just wondering it that's true then what keeps all those large corps. contributing to the PGA events? I don't think it's a loyalty to the sport or a desire to get on the good side of Tiger. There has to be a financial reason or their boards wouldn't allow them to spend the money.

I just checked the laws and charitable giving is a regular deduction for corps and it's limited to a max of 10% of their taxable income. The main reason for charitable giving, other than because the charity deals with a cause close to the heart of the CEO, is that depending on the event and charity, the corp might get more bang for their buck from good publicity than spending that money on advertising. That's why having TV coverage at a DG event would be more likely to get the amount of money you're proposing could be raised for a charitable event.

I believe you're right about the laws being what you say they are on the surface, but as you know the business world revolves around loopholes and I can't help feeling there is something more than meets the eye here. We all know that CEOs don't have hearts ( they'd be willing to send their mothers jobs overseas if it meant they could get it done cheaper ) , so it can't be for philanthropic reasons :D.

Pete
Hello from beautiful Louisville, Kentucky. Tons of disc golfers in this area but not a ton of PDGA disc golfers.

I have two questions.
1. Do you think the new member fees will discourage people from joining/renewing

2. Is the PDGA currently taking steps to solve the non-pdga players pdga sanctioned events. The sand bagging going on at local C tier tournaments is nationwide and a common complaint amongst players.

I personally talked to six of seven players this weekend and asked "why are you not a pdga member" All responses the same "to expensive", "why pay the pdga when I only play four tournaments a year"
On top of them getting by cheaper than members they bag the lower divisions and take prizes away from true beginners.

Let me say this to close. The pdga is the single best thing in disc golf. We are surely big enough to need a governing body. It just doesn't make sense to raise fees right now. With all the downturns in the economy the so called "recreation dollar" is always cut first.
Recreation dollar = us

Thanks for all you do.
Sammy Shaheen

The primary reason for having a charity associated with the PGA event is that there are several states where it is illegal for the players' entry fees to find their way back into the purse. At PGA events the players' entry fees are donated to the charity so that the law is satisfied. At PDGA events we just keep hoping no one notices. :o

I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm just wondering it that's true then what keeps all those large corps. contributing to the PGA events? I don't think it's a loyalty to the sport or a desire to get on the good side of Tiger. There has to be a financial reason or their boards wouldn't allow them to spend the money.



It might be clearer to say that corportions get the same TAX benefit from normal advertising and charitable donations. To a business, the charity is another type of advertising---it puts their name in a good light with the public, which the business hopes with have an economic benefit to them down the road.

to Captain Plastic:
1) I doubt it. Membership figures have been climbing steadily, as has tournament participation.
2) The matter is under discussion, but the consensus at present seems to be that the advantages of catering to non-members outweigh the disadvantages. These advantages include boosting tournament participation and reaching out to regions in which PDGA membership is unusually low. The idea is that experience with the PDGA will eventually make people want to join. I am more sensitive to the disadvantages, and would prefer to eliminate nonmember participation (except for juniors) or restrict it to a certain number of exemptions.

"would prefer to eliminate nonmember participation (except for juniors) or restrict it to a certain number of exemptions."

I like that.
Keep up the good work.

But when it was $30 to join as an Am, it was $5 to play as a non-member. That's 6 tourneys to break even.

Now that it is $50, it is still $5. Why?

I still like my proposal: $50 or a number and ratings only membership for $10 + $5 per tournament (and let the guy who pays the $10/year remain a certified official as well).

to reallybadputter:

It is $5 now because of the strength of the arguement that we should do everything we can to encourage nonmembers to participate in PDGA events. Other arguements are gaining strength. Members complain that nonmembers are getting too cheaply a substantial platform of services that members have paid for. These complaints inevitably peak when nonmembers win tournaments. TD's and the PDGA argue that $5 does not cover the paperwork and the risks attending nonmember participation. I suspect that the fee will go up, and I would support an increase to $10, or even more.

I wouldn't support your idea of a ratings-only membership. Not that it is a bad idea in itself, but because of where it leads. In 2008 we will have at least four levels of membership (pro and am, each with no-magazine option). We are creating a climate in which every member will want a membership level that supports only the services they care about. Sounds like a great idea, but it would be madness to implement. I would have voted against the membership without magazine option.

I hope we consider raising the fee, and also handing down more stringent guidelines to TD's regarding ratings and division assignments. If a player is known to compete locally with advanced players that player should be bumped to a higher division when no rating has been esablished and that player is attempting to enter a ratings protected division.

I'd rather just see member only tournaments, then raise the non member fee.

I also would argue that we need a lower intro fee to join the pdga, 50.00 for casual players to be members is very high. I would like to see divisional amerature memberships based on the divisions of play. And then people would also have to play that division for the year.

Why are we trying to get enthusiast into there own tournament division, but then not catering to try and get them to join the PDGA?

Do you know when a summary from the summit mtg will be available?

Hi Peter,

Do you think it's in the PDGA's best interest to try and cater to the recreational non-members to try and coerce them to join, or to focus on the professional side of the sport and trying to retain the value for professional members of the PDGA? I see a lot of folks who feel that the PDGA needs to cater to either one or the other. Do you have this feeling?

Thanks, and congrats on the win this weekend. ARrooooooooo!

Marsha

to MCOP:

I probably don't understand your first question. If our tournaments were member-only, we wouldn't need nonmember fees.

The arguements for many different classes of membership seem compelling, but they are impractical. Remember, I wasn't even in favor of mambership without magazine.

We are just as anxious that "enthusiasts" join the PDGA as any other players.

to krupicka:

I'm writing the minutes for the Summit right now. They will become available after I've finished and the Board has approved them, which will take some time. The most logical time for approval would be at our next teleconference on October 10.

It is $5 now because of the strength of the arguement that we should do everything we can to encourage nonmembers to participate in PDGA events. Other arguements are gaining strength. Members complain that nonmembers are getting too cheaply a substantial platform of services that members have paid for. These complaints inevitably peak when nonmembers win tournaments. TD's and the PDGA argue that $5 does not cover the paperwork and the risks attending nonmember participation. I suspect that the fee will go up, and I would support an increase to $10, or even more.


If your plan is to eliminate Non-PDGA members playing in PDGA tournaments, this will surely accomplish that. In some areas of the country (SN territory), very few sanctioned tournaments are held and even when they are, half the players are non-members. If you raise the non-member fee to $10, many TDs will just choose not to sanction their tournaments and start a slippery-slope. This is a sure-fire way to eliminate sanctioned tourneys in the south and other areas. I think this is a really bad idea unless you lower the cost of a membership, so that is enticing to join. But with memberships going up, and possibly non-member fees going up, the PDGA is not going to make any headway in geographical or membership growth.

Part of the problem is there are tons of non pdga local events (esp in Ohio and other areas also) that don't charge non member or non club fees, and still have very low entry fees.

Why should we not want more members by lowering fees to get them to join instead of saying.. It's ok not to join, just pay us 5.00 or more extra. This is so backwards. If there was a base level pdga membership for enthusiast or below members, or a tiered membership then we would gain more members, and this would be growing the sport, and competition (part of the PDGA mission statement).

Part of the reason I see for not having itemised membership is due to the fact that we can't even get the board to show us where our funds do go because they are scared of being questioned aout it, objections to improper spending, and the fact that maybe they don't want to be scutinized about it.

There is more then likely tons of wasted funding already in the PDGA, and to open up iteamized membership would prove that the BoD doesn't know what the members want.

I would like to see some real polls done on what the cost of iteams do cost us, and how many people would pay for those benefits.

Personally I am very happy that the magazine will be optional next year as I see it as a brag book and mostly worthless to myself, and I think the BoD are going to see this next year when less people sign up for it.

It is $5 now because of the strength of the arguement that we should do everything we can to encourage nonmembers to participate in PDGA events. Other arguements are gaining strength. Members complain that nonmembers are getting too cheaply a substantial platform of services that members have paid for. These complaints inevitably peak when nonmembers win tournaments. TD's and the PDGA argue that $5 does not cover the paperwork and the risks attending nonmember participation. I suspect that the fee will go up, and I would support an increase to $10, or even more.


If your plan is to eliminate Non-PDGA members playing in PDGA tournaments, this will surely accomplish that. In some areas of the country (SN territory), very few sanctioned tournaments are held and even when they are, half the players are non-members. If you raise the non-member fee to $10, many TDs will just choose not to sanction their tournaments and start a slippery-slope. This is a sure-fire way to eliminate sanctioned tourneys in the south and other areas. I think this is a really bad idea unless you lower the cost of a membership, so that is enticing to join. But with memberships going up, and possibly non-member fees going up, the PDGA is not going to make any headway in geographical or membership growth.



Agreed, I know at least 5 family members who won't be playing PDGA events if the non member fee goes up.:(

to marschief:

I'm pretty committed to the PDGA "family" concept, in which we provide services for a broad spectrum of interests. I feel that we can accomplish more together than we could with a bunch of little DGA's that would otherwise form and compete with each other for available resources. We compete with each other now, but at least it's under one roof, and the rules are the same for everybody, so it's fair. Still, there are signs that we may be approaching the limit of the amount we can expect one family member to pay for another's services.

Your question is tough because a true recreational player doesn't need the PDGA, and so we can't offer much to attract them. Should we try? I think not, because the family might then become too diverse.

I would favor an attempt to organize recreational players with a separate association that would have loose ties with the PDGA. Pete May proposed something like this a half dozen years ago, but it didn't fly.

to MCOP and others:

I'm so on the fence about releasing detailed itemized costs. I ran on a plank of openness (with certain qualifications), and for that reason I favor release. Then I think about the cans of worms that release would cause, and I lean the other way.

Here are the considerations:
1) Many important decisions, especially those involving money, are reached after long and agonizing debate that involves delicately working through a series of compromise positions. Every one of these decisions would be instantly questioned by members who would want the whole process repeated in public with themselves acting as arbiters. There might be some Board Members willing to do this, but I would not because it would take too much time and it would not be productive.
2) Other members would want a similar justification of even small insignificant items -- the nickels and dimes approach. Again, not worth my time.
3) Members who would press us most closely on these issues would want us to create a giant pile of membership levels, with fees adjusted so that they would pay only for the services they care about. "We have membership without magazine", they would say,"now we want membership without ratings, membership without juniors, membership without National Tour, and so on".

My practical objection is that the Board would be spending half of forever deciding on the proper pile of levels, and the rest of forever trying to set the fee that should go with each level. I would be unwilling to participate in such an exercise. Another practical objection is that a business that releases this sort of financial information is foolish, because potential competitors could profit from it.

My philosophical objection is that I am committed to the idea of the "PDGA family". I like a PDGA that provides services for a broad variety of clients. I can accept that I am paying for services I don't use and don't care about, because at the same time other members are helping to pay for services I do use. Most of us pay income tax under the same philosophy. We don't get to pay income tax without war, without welfare, without interstates and FBI's and UN's and other services that we might not want or agree with.

So what's the bottom line here? We're debating this issue now. I voted "no release" in the most recent straw poll, but I'm so close that I could go the other way after hearing the next round of opinions. It's that close.

Peter that is the problem, You ran on issues that people thought you would back for them. Running on an openness policy got you my vote, and I am sure many others. But now your on the fence.

There are issues with openness. People will question things. But if the BoD states. This information is for viewing only and not for debate to BoD members then they take a stand also.

Many companies are public and release very detailed financial records. In fact as many that are public record and can be found and downloaded online. They are not affraid of competition. I am not sure why the PDGA would be afraid of competition unless it's not living upto it's promises.

Now, on top of that. I am hoping we also see better and more information in our reports from Summit and Board mettings also. I find what is released to be lacking and non informative.

Stand up to your platform and those who supported what you had initially stood for.

BTW: I am not for an Alacarte membership, Just a cheaper on for low rating, newer members so that one day when I go to play Int, rec at competitions I don't have half a field thats non pdga members with no ratings.

Here are the considerations:
1) Many important decisions, especially those involving money, are reached after long and agonizing debate that involves delicately working through a series of compromise positions. Every one of these decisions would be instantly questioned by members who would want the whole process repeated in public with themselves acting as arbiters. There might be some Board Members willing to do this, but I would not because it would take too much time and it would not be productive.


And what is wrong with the people supplying the money for the budget acting as arbitrators over where their money goes?

2) Other members would want a similar justification of even small insignificant items -- the nickels and dimes approach. Again, not worth my time.


I think most members just want basic itemization, not fine details. However, almost anything is better than $170,000 block that includes 12 things of varying importance and cost.

3) Members who would press us most closely on these issues would want us to create a giant pile of membership levels, with fees adjusted so that they would pay only for the services they care about. "We have membership without magazine", they would say,"now we want membership without ratings, membership without juniors, membership without National Tour, and so on".


I don't think this represents a majority or even large minority. Plus, I don't think 3 levels of membership would be any more difficult than 2 levels of membership.
Pro & Am vs. Pro, Am & Rec (no ratings or magazine)

My practical objection is that the Board would be spending half of forever deciding on the proper pile of levels, and the rest of forever trying to set the fee that should go with each level. I would be unwilling to participate in such an exercise. Another practical objection is that a business that releases this sort of financial information is foolish, because potential competitors could profit from it.

My philosophical objection is that I am committed to the idea of the "PDGA family". I like a PDGA that provides services for a broad variety of clients. I can accept that I am paying for services I don't use and don't care about, because at the same time other members are helping to pay for services I do use. Most of us pay income tax under the same philosophy. We don't get to pay income tax without war, without welfare, without interstates and FBI's and UN's and other services that we might not want or agree with.

So what's the bottom line here? We're debating this issue now. I voted "no release" in the most recent straw poll, but I'm so close that I could go the other way after hearing the next round of opinions. It's that close.


Peter, just because you let people know where their money goes doesn't mean you have to itemize memberships. Most people, like myself, just want to know where their money is going to decide whether they want to continue being members. For example, if you invest via an investment firm, wouldn't you like to know where your money is going (mutual funds, stock, bonds, t-bills, etc.)? And, with that knowledge, you could decide whether or not that firm was investing in a manner that you agreed/aligned with? As it is right now, we, as members, say "here's $50, do something with it, I don't care what".
For $50, you'd think the membership could be polled about major changes in our competitive structure.....you'd think.

What is interesting is that for the past 8+ years, the UPA has been able to get away with a $10 fee for non-members playing in UPA sanctioned events. Their membership sits at $40/year.

Now the average ultimate tournament has a $150-$200 per team fee, so the players only pay $10-$15 each to play for a two day tournament.

Hey, wait, I can't believe I've gone to as many ultimate tournaments as I have when even the team that wins doesn't often get much more than a trophy! (Oh, that was a different thread)

Now perhaps the reason the UPA can get away with it is that UPA sanctioning is about the easiest way to get insurance for an event and most venues won't give you field space without insurance, but they've still managed to charge $10 per for non-members since at least 2000 or so...

You keep saying "their" money. Once a person has paid for their membership that money is no longer theirs. They have given it to the PDGA corporation. It's pretty clear in the PDGA organization documents (http://www.pdga.com/org/index.php) what the organizations business statement is and how they are organized to attempt to accomplish those missions. Unless that person isn't paying very good attention, they are not just throwing money to the PDGA and saying


here's $50, do something with it, I don't care what

Peter
I was wondering when the the dates for the Gentleman club, memorial and st patricks classic ams are next year. I know it is early but I need to get those weeks off.

to topdog:

They may not even be formally scheduled yet. Tour Manager David Gentry would have the most up-to-date information.

Technical Standards for Discs

No issue the Board will face while I am on it has the potential to transform the future of disc golf as much as the technical standards review we are now undertaking. As I filled out my preference survey form, I thought about the position I would likely take when we debate these matters later this year, and I want to explain that position to you. I hope you will also fill out your survey form, and join in the debate here.

I expect that there will be great pressure to change the standards in order to allow extremely innovative disc design. Some of the pressure will come from disc manufacturers and disc vendors, because they stand to gain a great deal if every disc in your bag became obsolete overnight. Other pressure will come from members who like the thought that they might be able to throw significantly farther or more accurately, or to avoid trouble, if they had access to strongly innovative discs.

I�m a traditionalist. I feel that the technological advances are already occuring fast enough. The discs I throw today are sufficiently better than the ones I threw when I started about fifteen years ago. If changes are made, I want them restricted to preserving the general similarity of our discs to Frisbees.

So much for generalities. Here, specifically, is some of what I don�t want, and why:

1) I don�t want square discs, toothed discs or discs with irregularities on the rim. Partly this is a safety issue. Any rim protrusion has enhanced cutting potential, because disc spin can give these irregularities a rim speed greater than the forward speed of the disc, and because the cutting forces would have a strong shearing component. My other concern is a personal aesthetic one � I want the discs we throw to be round. Sure, square discs would prevent rollaways. But many great holes have already been designed deliberately to make rollaway a legitimate hazard. Why negate this? Rollaway is certainly frustrating, but it is also not boring. Similarly, do ball golfers get to hit cubic balls on approaches to sloping greens?

2) I don�t want discs with double rims. These would have shapes like car wheels (without the tires). They would roll absolutely straight on flat ground and would stand up vertically all the way. The game would become dominated by rollers, and strong but unskilled players would be able to throw these things a thousand feet.

3) I don�t want discs with interior spaces or ones that allow reentrant features from the rim. These could easily morph into Aerobie-like discs that could go a thousand feet in the air.

The current language in the Technical Standards document requires that discs have a �saucer-like� configuration. This is ambiguous � hence the �Turbo-Putt� controversy. I was one who objected to the Turbo-Putt, and in subsequent discussions with the Technical Standards Committee I suggested the requirement that discs be �radially symmetric�. I expect I�ll lose that battle � too many players like the Epic and the idea of dimpling. But that at least will give you an idea of where I�m coming from.

Hear, hear. I hope your position prevails.

Thanks to the PDGA for undertaking the survey.

As a related aside, it troubles me to have the debate couched in terms of "stifling innovation" as it creates an uphill battle for those wishing to preserve the character of the game. I find it odd to label a disc like the Epic as "innovative" and even more so when applied to some of the other concepts you described.

Peter - thanks for sharing your thoughts on this! I admire your commitment to communicating with the members and giving a clear idea of your stance. I wish the rest of the board would do so.

peter and i are coming from opposite side of this discussion. in my view, his statement "My other concern is a personal aesthetic one � I want the discs we throw to be round." is the only one with any validity.

"Any rim protrusion has enhanced cutting potential, " - highly dependant, and where's the data to support that statement?

"because disc spin can give these irregularities a rim speed greater than the forward speed of the disc" - ummmm... round discs that are flying also have rims speeds greater than the forward speed of the disc. any spinning object that is moving in a direction will necessarily have that condition. actual rim speed = rotational speed + flight speed. round, square, triangle, flat, spherical, finger grip, rimmed doesnt matter.

"The game would become dominated by rollers, and strong but unskilled players would be able to throw these things a thousand feet." - conjecture. and a wild one at that. a single bump could just as easily set the wheel to wobbling and kill the roller. a "wheel" discs could neither air out as long nor land at the preferred rolling angle. how many holes are played so staight that a perfectly straight roller would matter - even if it really existed. this disc is good for escape shots, but highly undesirable for long shots. to hypothesize about 1000 foot rollers is to remove this discussion from any reality.

"they stand to gain a great deal if every disc in your bag became obsolete overnight." - this seems overstated a bit also. the turboputt did not obsolete anything even though a lot of people claimed it would ruin the sport. a wheel disc with upper and lower rims is not going to materially change the sport for the worse. and readers, dont forget that certain mfgs will lose a lot if a new mfg comes along with new ideas. i'd be more concerned about mfgs protecting their turf via legislating competitors prodcuts out of existance than i would be worried about mfgs trying to create a situation where "every disc in your bag became obsolete overnight". suggesting that is a result of allowing new disc designs is not very honest for the purposes of this discussion, imo.

banning disc designs that are aimed at more of the rec player will increase the desireability a Rec or Am oriented association apart from the PDGA. i could be persuaded to rein in the discs that can be used for top level competition, but only if a strong program for allowing these designs in lower competition was part of the plan.

hope its ok to jump on the thread peter... it is a vital topic this year.

Hear, hear. I hope your position prevails.

Thanks to the PDGA for undertaking the survey.

As a related aside, it troubles me to have the debate couched in terms of "stifling innovation" as it creates an uphill battle for those wishing to preserve the character of the game. I find it odd to label a disc like the Epic as "innovative" and even more so when applied to some of the other concepts you described.



I don't understand why it is odd to label the Epic as innovative.

Disc designers have known for quite some time that the wider the wing, the farther the disc will go.

The problem is that a wider disc is harder to grip.

Innovative step: Make a wide rim disc that is narrow enough to grip by making part of the rim narrow and part wide by making the rim eccentric.

Maybe not aesthetically pleasing to some, but certainly innovative. Kind of like making a rim with a triangular cross-section. Or should we go back to golfing with 100 molds?

Just because you don't like the solution doesn't mean its not innovative.

Personally from the standpoint of is it good for disc golf: Epic: :) Turbo Putt: :mad:

peter and i are coming from opposite side of this discussion. in my view, his statement "My other concern is a personal aesthetic one � I want the discs we throw to be round." is the only one with any validity.

"Any rim protrusion has enhanced cutting potential, " - highly dependant, and where's the data to support that statement?
<font color="red"> </font> Maybe greater potential?
"because disc spin can give these irregularities a rim speed greater than the forward speed of the disc" - ummmm... round discs that are flying also have rims speeds greater than the forward speed of the disc. any spinning object that is moving in a direction will necessarily have that condition. actual rim speed = rotational speed + flight speed. round, square, triangle, flat, spherical, finger grip, rimmed doesnt matter.
<font color="red"> </font> It does matter. Any spinning object that is not round has a greater potential for injury than a round one
"The game would become dominated by rollers, and strong but unskilled players would be able to throw these things a thousand feet." - conjecture. and a wild one at that. a single bump could just as easily set the wheel to wobbling and kill the roller. a "wheel" discs could neither air out as long nor land at the preferred rolling angle. how many holes are played so staight that a perfectly straight roller would matter - even if it really existed. this disc is good for escape shots, but highly undesirable for long shots. to hypothesize about 1000 foot rollers is to remove this discussion from any reality.
<font color="red"></font> OK
"they stand to gain a great deal if every disc in your bag became obsolete overnight." - this seems overstated a bit also. the turboputt did not obsolete anything even though a lot of people claimed it would ruin the sport. a wheel disc with upper and lower rims is not going to materially change the sport for the worse. and readers, dont forget that certain mfgs will lose a lot if a new mfg comes along with new ideas. i'd be more concerned about mfgs protecting their turf via legislating competitors prodcuts out of existance than i would be worried about mfgs trying to create a situation where "every disc in your bag became obsolete overnight". suggesting that is a result of allowing new disc designs is not very honest for the purposes of this discussion, imo.
<font color="red"> </font> I agree that new disc designs should be allowed. But if something comes out that allows everyone to throw "1000 ft" should not be allowed. IMO
banning disc designs that are aimed at more of the rec player will increase the desireability a Rec or Am oriented association apart from the PDGA. i could be persuaded to rein in the discs that can be used for top level competition, but only if a strong program for allowing these designs in lower competition was part of the plan.
<font color="red"> </font> And once these rec or am players improve their skill level to the point of wanting to play with the pros, will you then tell them that they can't use all-1/2-1/4... of their discs or that they have to stay ams. Or will you allow them to use these "1000 ft flying/rolling" discs as a pro? There's nothing wrong with new players using the same type of discs that everyone else is using.
hope its ok to jump on the thread peter... it is a vital topic this year.

It's not an innovation, imo; it's just different. Would allowing oddly weighted golf balls designed to help a guy execute a hook be good for golf? Does baseball need an oddly seamed and weighted ball to help out pitchers struggling to master pitching skills? Those aren't innovations, they are crutches.

The intent of most of Peter's examples are to make it easier for people who can't (or won't) commit the time and effort needed to master the skills of disc golf. Does the sport really need this? Innovation should be the realm of the player learning to perfrom shots that other's haven't, with the same equipment.

Pat, saying that it's OK for beginners, but not for top level competition makes little sense to me. It is either good for sport, or it is not. Standardization, and thus the identity of the sport, loses its meaning in your scenario.

Moderator, feel free to move this to another thread in order to not pollute Peter's thread.

How does the Epic make it easier for people who can't or won't commit to learn a shot?

Its a disc that goes a long way when thrown well, but is very difficult to control.

It also flies in an interesting pattern when you throw a hammer with it, and goes a long way if you can get it to completely flip over.

If the Epic is not good for disc golf, then neither is the Destroyer. Or the Wraith. Or the Orc. Or the Valk. Or the... we could keep going back in time to when golf was "pure" and say that the original Eagle was bad for golf...

Does ball golf need metal woods and irons with perimeter weighting? Ball golf went downhill when they went to the gutta percha from the feathery...

Oh... and golf has perimeter weighted clubs and offset heads to help cure a slice and execute hooks...

Does tennis need carbon fiber rackets with huge sweet spots? Bjoern Borg rules...

And why did they add that stupid forward pass and make the football more aerodynamic?

I'm impressed that you can maintain a 984 rating with only a pluto platter... :D

No, Pat. Don't mind at all. We can have a preview of coming attractions, and I think that would be a good idea. So, to respond to some of your comments.

!) Yes, rim speed of any disc will be greater than its forward speed. The potential damaging effect of that, however, is greatly enhanced if the rim has teeth or other projections. That is exactly why, for example, a circular saw blade has teeth. It wouldn't work well at all if its rim were smooth.

2) You claim that it is "not very honest" for me to say that allowing innovative disc design would make current discs obsolete, and that disc manufacturers and vendors would profit from that. Not very honest? My gosh, Pat, the whole point of innovative disc design is to make current discs obsolete, and the manufacturers and vendors aren't going to give them away.

3) You argue that we shouldn't hypothesize about what an innovative disc might do, and if it turned out that it went 1000 feet we'd just disallow it at that point. I say no, bad strategy. Much better to control the standards so that we know, going in, what a disc is going to be capable of.

4) I think that our basic difference may lie in our focus of concern. You seem to be concerned with not limiting the commercial opportunities of disc manufacturers, particularly the smaller, newer ones. I don't care about the manufacturers as much as I do about the membership. I don't want PDGA members to get hurt or to be more able to hurt others. I don't want them to have to face a major ramp in spending for new discs. I want them to have a game that closely resembles the one they know, and that is playable on courses now in existence.

I have been wondering if, somewhere in here, is a space for compromise. At this point I suspect not. I will never vote to approve a "wheel", and I will never vote to approve a disc with projections on the rim. That doesn't leave us much room to maneuver.

you wont need to, you view will almost certainly prevail. just a prediction.

where's the numbers? what if the "teeth" were flexible and arced away from the rotation? they might become more of a crumple zone than a slicing disc. my point is we dont know for sure. bringing safety into the discussion and making claims about staistics is a risky business. after she gets hit, the local grandma's attorney is going to ask "if the pdga was approving for safety, then why did they set the standard at thev alue they did? look at my client's face after it was hit by a pdga approved disc - an approval that included safety considerations.". thecurrent standard is to not create unreasonable risk to players and spectators. saying (in writing as a tech standard) anything more than that could create incredible liability.

the whole point of innovation is not to make everything else obsolete. that is a very zero sum outlook isnt it? the point is to make incremental improvements, make the sport more enjoyable for players of a certain skill level, pursue some perceived niche.

the "not very honest" part was regarding your statement that some new design would make "every disc in your bag became obsolete overnight". every? overnight? are you serious or using message board overstatement? does that disc exist? if so, can i have one please, approved or not.

i am concerned with both members and mfgs. i am concerned about nipping creativity in the bud and the ramifcations it will have for the assoc and the sport.

i'm not arguing about hypothesizng. far from it, hypothesizing is my second favorite sport. i really dont care about 1000 feet ro not. todays discs go further than yesterdays. they last longer but they cost more. theres more different kinds and more specialization. what is so magical about this moment that we decide that disc innovation has progressed as far as it should?

Pat:

The potential cutting danger of non-round discs is only one of the safety issues that concerns me. Another big one is danger to eyes.

Most human eyes are set deeply enough in their sockets that the impact of today's discs is absorbed by the bony structures of the face before the soft structure of the eyball is seriously compromised. To my knowledge, no one has ever been blinded by a PDGA-approved disc.

That changes if you allow projections, teeth, or (for example) square discs. Projections could dig into the eyeball, as could the corner of a square disc.

As for teeth that were "flexible and arced away from the rotation", you'd need two versions (for righties and lefties, or for forehand and backhand). And you'd need a rule that no one could throw it the wrong way.

Also, please note that I didn't say that every disc in your bag would become obsolete overnight. I said that manufacturers and vendors stand to gain a great deal IF every disc in your bag became obsolete overnight. That should be obvious. Now, do I believe that it would happen overnight? Of course not. But one thing for sure, it would happen faster if more innovative changes are permitted. In a very permissive climate, it could be in a couple of months. For some poor sap whose next tournament is three months away, it might as well be overnight.

Discs, most especially drivers, become obsolete under the current standards. For me, it takes about three years. I like that because after three years most players are ready to replace their drivers anyway because they've worn out or disappeared into a river.

I think it is important to note that we are discussing PDGA standards for discs approved for PDGA play. I believe that there is a place for discs such as the Aerobie Ring, the Quest Turbo Putt and Wheel, but not in sanctioned PDGA play. Most rec players have no idea what "PDGA approved" means when it's stamped on their discs, and really couldn't care less what the PDGA thinks about their discs if they fly fine for them.

This is my favorite quote thus far from this discussion. I believe that this distinction should be the focus of these discussions.

The intent of most of Peter's examples are to make it easier for people who can't (or won't) commit the time and effort needed to master the skills of disc golf. Does the sport really need this? Innovation should be the realm of the player learning to perform shots that other's haven't, with the same equipment.



A group of people can play ultimate with any disc they find that will fly, but in tournament play it must be a 175g disc, and I believe in several cases must be an ultrastar. Do we not have room for this kind of set up in disc golf?

Hi Peter,

Is the non-member fee being increased from $5 to $10 for next year?

TIA

Hi Peter,

Is the non-member fee being increased from $5 to $10 for next year?

TIA



Nevermind, I found the answer. (http://www.pdga.com/documents/boardminutes/2007-09-21BODMeetingMinutesApproved.pdf)

If I read the minutes correctly, we don't have an answer yet, because the motion to increase the non-member fee was tabled. Is that the way you read it?

Looks like almost everything was put off until October.

Yes.

to abcd:

It was tabled in September, but at the October teleconference we raised it to $10, to take effect as of January 2008.

Get your hammer ready, cause you're about to put a nail in the coffin.

Get your hammer ready, cause you're about to put a nail in the coffin.





Please explain what this response means.

to abcd:

It was tabled in September, but at the October teleconference we raised it to $10, to take effect as of January 2008.



where are the minutes to this teleconference meeting??

Minutes aren't posted until approved. Thus what is posted is at least one meeting behind.

Was there a reason that a huge jump was chosen ($5-&gt;$10) rather than a smaller increment? I can see some TDs no longer sanctioning their lower divisions because of this.

Get your hammer ready, cause you're about to put a nail in the coffin.





Please explain what this response means.


This will be the death of the PDGA in developing areas (i.e. So. Nats. country). For instance, here in Arkansas, many tournaments are unsanctioned. The ones that are sanctioned draw about half non-members. Members and nonmembers already feel that entry fees for sanctioned events are too high and this will cause most of the tourneys to be unsanctioned.
I can see this causing a 1/3 drop in sanctioned tournaments and cause a 50% drop in total tournament participants next year.
It's already a hassle to run sanctioned events as it is and the BoD just made it a true P.I.T.A.
None of the newly elected board members said anything about this in their campaigns and I'm guessing, if they had, they would've gotten ALOT less votes.

Get your hammer ready, cause you're about to put a nail in the coffin.





Please explain what this response means.


This will be the death of the PDGA in developing areas (i.e. So. Nats. country). For instance, here in Arkansas, many tournaments are unsanctioned. The ones that are sanctioned draw about half non-members. Members and nonmembers already feel that entry fees for sanctioned events are too high and this will cause most of the tourneys to be unsanctioned.
I can see this causing a 1/3 drop in sanctioned tournaments and cause a 50% drop in total tournament participants next year.
It's already a hassle to run sanctioned events as it is and the BoD just made it a true P.I.T.A.
None of the newly elected board members said anything about this in their campaigns and I'm guessing, if they had, they would've gotten ALOT less votes.




hmmmmmmm


We have fewer unsanctioned tournaments here in Houston and locally. I wonder what the unsanctioned to sanctioned ratio really is?

In the past this move has been used to attempt to force players to join. I'm not saying that's what is being done here. 28003, How confident are you that those numbers you gave are reasonably accurate, i.e. did you work sign ups or did a TD tell you etc. I don't have any experience and am curious.

28003, How confident are you that those numbers you gave are reasonably accurate, i.e. did you work sign ups or did a TD tell you etc. I don't have any experience and am curious.


I used to play S.N. tourneys in MS, AL, and LA (even helped with a couple) and they rarely sanctioned their events, and had no reason to do so. Since I've been in AR, the number of sanctioned tournaments has gone from ZERO (2004) to 5 (2007). I played in many of those tournaments and, from glancing at the numbers, anywhere from 60-30% of the fields were non-members. (**Its hard to tell now because some of those that participated have joined the PDGA because of Worlds in Tulsa last year)

Minutes aren't posted until approved. Thus what is posted is at least one meeting behind.

Was there a reason that a huge jump was chosen ($5-&gt;$10) rather than a smaller increment? I can see some TDs no longer sanctioning their lower divisions because of this.



I am truly unaware that a TD may run certain divisions as non-sanctioned within/along the side at a PDGA sanctioned event........

can we really do this?? That's my biggest worry is the $10 to $15 trophy only and/or the novice and intermediate $20 to $30 entry divisions

It already seems very hard in this area (Arkansas) to attract new and recreational players to our sanctioned events, however when I ran an Ice Bowl and offered a $10 "beginners" entry that included an Ice Bowl disc, I had about half of a 50 person field being local and new tournament players.........When it came to our B tier we only had around 10 local players and 62 others from out of town and our course always has groups of local recreational players

I just don't want to see growth of the organized side of the sport slow in Arkansas, We're right in the middle of PDGA and the Southern National Series, dual sanctioning is becoming more of a common thing however with the increased prices I'm worried that we'll lose our attraction to the SN players and stifle the entry to the sport divisions which are our future, hopefully Junior Divisions non-member fees will still be waived

I'm really interested to see the new 08 Sanctioning Agreements to see what else has been changed and try to grasp the bigger picture

just dont sanction those divisions. thats all god as long as its clear from the get-go.

on anthoer note: "force players to join". key word: force. not encourage, convince, persuade... but force. lyle's choice of words is dead on

I am truly unaware that a TD may run certain divisions as non-sanctioned within/along the side at a PDGA sanctioned event........

can we really do this?? That's my biggest worry is the $10 to $15 trophy only and/or the novice and intermediate $20 to $30 entry divisions.



In a two day event the upper divisions will be sanctioned and the lower divisions are not sanctioned. Since there are a lot of newer players who are often not PDGA members, the TD's want to make it attractive for those players to show up. Here in Illinois we have been getting more and more of these events sanctioned. As a lower division player, I appreciate that. However, there are still scads of non-PDGA members playing. With this increase there may be a tendency for TD's who were on the fence about sanctioning the lower divisions to go back to non-sanctioned. I think this is an unwise move. My prediction: This change will achieve a modest gain in PDGA memberships that will be far outweighed by an immodest gain in non-sanctioned events. I strongly urge the Board to reconsider this move.

Here are three TD solutions for the coffin nail problem:

Run a non-member division with a full entry fee, a big player pack, little or no payout and a trophy if you do trophies. New players can find out tournaments are fun without paying $10 more for nothing.

Send the PDGA a loud angry e-mail. Use the Contact page with the link at the top of this page and send it to everyone, one by one.

Be a leader. Tell your players to quit crying and join the PDGA. Or pay the $10. Or stay home. Make your best choice and put a sock in it.

I think for the IOSeries we will advertise the "full price" and the discounts for pre-registering and being a PDGA member.

I think this decision is economically naive but I think most of the non-members are incredibly censored. So when economic naivete meets incredibly censored, who knows what happens.

Here are three TD solutions for the coffin nail problem:

Run a non-member division with a full entry fee, a big player pack, little or no payout and a trophy if you do trophies. New players can find out tournaments are fun without paying $10 more for nothing.


OK. Unsanctioned, obvious choice. More economically feasable and simpler in every way.

Send the PDGA a loud angry e-mail. Use the Contact page with the link at the top of this page and send it to everyone, one by one.


Has that ever worked? Even when I send the PDGA nice e-mails inquiring about information I get either no response, or a response 3 weeks later.

Be a leader. Tell your players to quit crying and join the PDGA. Or pay the $10. Or stay home. Make your best choice and put a sock in it.


And we will see our # of sanctioned events drop from 5 down to 1 or zero and Southern Nationals faithful will gladly offer a better alternative that will quickly gain traction.

I think for the IOSeries we will advertise the "full price" and the discounts for pre-registering and being a PDGA member.

I think this decision is economically naive but I think most of the non-members are incredibly censored. So when economic naivete meets incredibly censored, who knows what happens.


I think that is the same vision the BoD had. "Let's do it, who knows what will happen!?!"

"I think this decision is economically naive but I think most of the non-members are incredibly censored."

what does that mean? especially the first part.

Thanks for the replies, called the PDGA, response was that "a non-sanctioned division alongside a PDGA sanctioned event could be done but we don't encourage it"

I fully agree with e-mailing everyone in the PDGA about any concerns that these price increases may cause

Thanks for the replies, called the PDGA, response was that "a non-sanctioned division alongside a PDGA sanctioned event could be done but we don't encourage it"

I fully agree with e-mailing everyone in the PDGA about any concerns that these price increases may cause



So when someone in the sanctioned pro division gets hit by a disc thrown by someone in the unsanctioned Recthustiast division, does the liability coverage provided with sanctioning cover the lawsuit, did the TD arrange for alternative coverage, or is the TD in deep doo doo?

I've mentioned in a previous thread, for the last 10 years or so, the UPA has had a $10 nonmember fee. Hasn't killed them, and since most tournaments are about $10-20/player, its a much bigger percentage per player than most disc golf divisions...

I've mentioned in a previous thread, for the last 10 years or so, the UPA has had a $10 nonmember fee. Hasn't killed them, and since most tournaments are about $10-20/player, its a much bigger percentage per player than most disc golf divisions...



Exactly. And even more important is that UPA events don't have payouts, so all that money stays with the TD (for fees, food, etc.).

Thanks for the replies, called the PDGA, response was that "a non-sanctioned division alongside a PDGA sanctioned event could be done but we don't encourage it"





So when someone in the sanctioned pro division gets hit by a disc thrown by someone in the unsanctioned Recthustiast division, does the liability coverage provided with sanctioning cover the lawsuit, did the TD arrange for alternative coverage, or is the TD in deep doo doo?





Very true, that must be considered, that's why you have waivers with or without insurance, same situation exists in obviously non-sanctioned club minis, ice bowl, ect.

I'll hold off on any personal judgement until the entire structure for next year can be viewed.......

imo.......This will more than likely be a regional issue, some areas won't be affected as hard as others.

time will tell............. :)

Congrats everyone!!! A new record.

17 , now 18 straight posts without a question for Peter.

You must be new here. Click Back. Ok you aren't.

But in an attempt get this back on track. Was there a reason that a huge jump was chosen ($5-&gt;$10) rather than a smaller increment?

I think the increase is consistent with the original values when the $5 was put in place (and memberships were around $25 for an AM I think). 5 non-member fees = one membership fee.

The original ratio has merely been restored. :cool:

to krupicka:

This was a complex issue, as you can imagine from our inability to settle it at the Summit (where it was tabled). There were many differing opinions, and I was way out there, as I would prefer to not allow non-members to play in any sanctioned events.

There are many excellent counter arguements to my position, and there's no point in detailing them again because we've seen them all. I don't mind that we've extended the policy, but I do worry about the problems it creates.

Once I accepted the idea that we would continue to admit non-members, then the overriding consideration (to me) was fairness to those players who are members. I was swayed by members who argue that non-members are getting many benefits that are already paid for by members. I would have supported an even higher fee, but I felt that $10 was about the maximum that was passable at this time. I was to a lesser extent influenced by the idea that fee increases should keep rough pace with dues increases, and the arguement that we should make a large enough increase so that we don't have to keep doing it every year a little bit at a time.

To all:

At the October teleconference the Board passed a new program, the "Divisional Series", a points series competition for all age-protected professional divisions. The PDGA will announce the details of this, but it may take some time because it is more important right now to arrange the details of the 2008 Tour Schedule. I will just comment briefly on the most important aspects:
1) The Divisional Series events for 2008 will include all A-Tier tournaments plus the U.S. Masters and the Masters at Idlewild. Players' scores will accrue from their best eight performances at these events. In other words, you can play in more than eight, but only your best eight will count.
2) Prizes are cash awards. All cash will come from private donations, and will be allocated among the divisions according to the wishes of the benefactor. None will come from the PDGA.
3) The cash will be awarded to players in each division according to the PDGA payout schedule for A-Tier events.

Peter:

Due to your outstanding play in the 2007 AT&amp;T Bluegrass Series you have won firt place in the Senior Grand Masters Division. Please e-mail me at [email protected] an address to send your 1st place check.

Complete results can be found at bluegrassdiscgolf.org

HB #553

to hb0553:

HB, that's great. What a nice surprise. I had no idea that you guys did this.

I would like you to return the money to the Bluegrass Series organization. I thoroughly enjoyed my Kentucky swing this spring (Lexington Open and Disc n' Dat Bluegrass Open), and considered it to be a privilege to play there. I need no further incentive, so in this case I would prefer to "pay it forward".

Sincerely,
Peter

The 2008 Tour Standards will remove the added cash guarantees that used to exist for A, B and C-Tier events. This recommendation was passed by the previous Board, and I didn't realize its significance until it was too late (the Standards document has to go out this week) to call for a more complete discussion. The information was there all along for me to see, but I just missed it, and I apologize to the membership for this. It was a stupid mistake on my part.

The rationale, as I understand it, is to give TD's complete freedom to allocate added cash as they see fit. I am definitely in favor of that concept, but only if it is accompanied by some published indication of the TD's policy. As it stands, you may have no idea of how added cash is allocated in an event until the payout sheets are posted on the last day. You may even call the TD in advance, and find later that there is a big difference between the reality and what you thought the TD said. In any case, without any PDGA guarantee, you would have no recourse.

Of course, none of this matters if you don't care about added cash. And if you do, your best course is still to ask the TD in advance about the added cash policy, and make your questions very direct. It is better than nothing.

A more formal guarantee will be in place for players at A-Tier events that elect to be part of the Divisional Series. At those events, added cash will be distributed roughly proportional to the sizes of the different divisions. You can just ask the TD if it is "a Divisional Series event". At this time, however, we do not know which events will be part of that program.

Peter, I'm not sure I understand your concern? There never has been an added cash guarantee, just a total purse guarantee. TDs have always had the option allocate whatever added cash they generated however they wished, even though NTs and Major TDs had a little more guidance. That hasn't changed and wasn't even discussed to any extent in the Comp Com.

The huge benefit of the changed policy for required added cash is it takes the pressure off TDs to boost entry fees to make sure they meet minimum purse totals in case the weather is poor and turnout suffers. Now, TDs can focus more on putting on a great event with more reasonable entry fees versus trying to sell out to meet the old purse guidelines. It also means that TDs need to be pretty certain they have the minimum added cash in hand to sanction at that level and will make that effort versus relying only on am retail/wholesale differential to get there.

to be clear, the "more formal guarantee [that] will be in place for players at A-Tier events that elect to be part of the Divisional Series"... this is a requirement for A tier, or a requirement for the divisional series sidegame?

to Chuck Kennedy:

I wasn't crazy about the old system either, but the old guarantees (for example, 120% payout for A-Tiers), usually assured a somewhat equable distribution of added cash. Now a TD could decide to put all the added cash into one division (for example, MPS). I have no problem with that, because I agree that TD's and local clubs should have that choice.

However, if a TD is going to put all the added cash into the MPS division, that information should be made available to players beforehand, because distribution of added cash is an important factor in many players' decision of which tournaments to attend. My concern is that the new system does not insure that such information will be available.

I admire everything about the 2008 system except that it allows key information to be withheld, and thus increases the potential for unpleasant surprises when the payout sheets are posted.

Peter, that 120% was the guideline (not guarantee) for the total payout to all pro divisions with no guarantee that each individual pro division would get at least 120%. Perhaps you didn't realize that? If you think that TDs should be held to tighter payout guidelines more than they are now, recommend that to Gentry for the Competition Committee to address for future changes. I think you'll find though that more and more A-tiers will be moving toward the triple share guidelines for MPO &amp; FPO being recommended for NT events, with the exception for special added cash contributions targeted for a specific division like has happened for MPS, which is fine.

to sandleman:

The Divisional Series is like a "poor man's" NT (poor man's in the sense that it is funded externally, not by the PDGA) for age-protected professionals. It is a points-series competition with cash awards, contested (in 2008) at the US Masters, the Masters at Idlewild, and all A-Tier events that either distribute added cash equably across the pro divisions or have at least 120% payout in all pro divisions.

Any A-Tier event that meets either of the above criteria is part of the Divisional Series, and series points will be awarded to age-protected players at that event. But A-Tier events are free to decide whether or not to take part -- they are not required to do so.

So, the guarantees I noted in the above post will certainly not be in place in all A-Tier events, only in those that decide to be part of the Divisional Series.

Sounds fair. Are you using PDGA points or some other "to be determined" method? Will the US Masters be the Final event or will you wait until all events that qualify have been completed, usually by Thanksgiving?

to Chuck Kennedy:

The 2007 Tour Standards Document states that the payout for A-Tiers (for example) is 120%+ for MPO and FPO, and also 120%+ for "all other pro divisions". It does not say 120%+ total payout for all pro divisions.

None of that matters. We agree on your main point, that TD's/local clubs be free to allocate added cash as they see fit. I don't believe that TD's should be "held to tighter payout guidelines". If A-Tier TD's want to give triple shares to MPO and FPO, that should be their call.

Where we disagree, apparently, is on the issue of disclosure. I believe that, whatever policy the TD has about distribution of added cash, the membership should have some clear way of knowing about it before they sign up for the event. So, for example, in your "triple share" case, I would want the TD to state on the event circular, "This event gives triple shares of added cash to MPO and FPO players".

It is simple to do this, and I would think that TD's would want to do it. Every TD has a target player base they would like to attract, and disclosure would help them accomplish this.

As noted in the above post, the 2008 policy allows key information to be withheld and increases the potential for disappointment.

I agree 100% (as does the Comp Com to the best of my knowledge) that TDs should disclose their payout intentions. That's always been enocuraged to reduce misperceptions by players. This has been more of an issue with regard to am payouts than it has been the pro payouts but the more info the TD provides in advance, the better. I didn't see anything written or excluded in regard to this with the 2008 plan versus prior years though? That's all I was asking.

The 2007 Tour Standards Document states that the payout for A-Tiers (for example) is 120%+ for MPO and FPO, and also 120%+ for "all other pro divisions". That was, for all divisions, a reasonable disclosure of payout intentions. It wasn't exact, but it was a good first cut and it gave players a pretty good idea about what would happen. The 2008 Standards make no provisions whatsoever for disclosure. With regard to added cash, anything could happen.

If you and the Competition Committee believe that TD's should disclose their payout intentions in order to reduce misperceptions, then why do the 2008 Tour Standards make no provision for that disclosure, not even as a suggestion?

You can either specify the total purse and payout percentage guidelines OR you can specify a minimum amount of added cash as was done for 2008. Requiring both is unfair to TDs who can't be held to a minimum turnout of players. The current method has driven entry fees higher in order to meet purse requirements and has reduced the need for TDs to actually secure sponsorship. And, if they missed meeting the guidelines, all they had to do was indicate they had a poor turnout.

Under the 2008 guidelines, TDs must have the added cash required whether 10, 20, 40 or more players show up. No excuses based on low turnout. And, in the event the turnout is actually low at a 2008 event, the payout percentages may end up higher than they would have this year because that minimum added cash must be added. Under the old rules, they could maybe add just $300 instead of $500 to meet the B-tier percentage.

I can understand your concern that the TDs might not distribute the added cash appropriately among all pro divisions. I haven't seen the wording of the final Tour or Sanctioning docs yet, but I don't see that being an issue for Dave to add wording to that effect if it's missing.

to Chuck Kennedy:

We are finally on the same page. I agree that exact specification is an ideal that cannot be realized, given the uncertainties (weather, registration, sponsor "luck", etc) that TD's face. That was always true. I'm only arguing for some indication of the TD's inclination. It would be easy to say, for example, "triple shares to such and such divisions", or distribution "proportional to enrollments", or "no added cash to such and such divisions", etc. Even a statement indicating uncertainty is better than nothing.

I believe that it is too late to change the document at this point, but that is not the Committee's or David's fault. It is my fault for not noticing the problem earlier and pointing it out well before it needed to go to press. Anyhow, that is why I posted my initial warning -- because I was asleep at the switch.

Thanks for your willingness to ask the good questions and to consider and understand my concerns. It is always interesting when you and I chase each other around the barn, and I feel that this was well worth while.

[b][i] Am I allowed to say that I disagree with your new message board policy?

Haven't you ever thought of having your overzealous moderators delete the POSTS that offend your Victorian Era sensibilities, rather than the DUES PAYING POSTER?

Isn't disc golf supposed to be fun?

Are you just on a power trip?

Am I allowed to say that I was wrong when I said things couldn't possibly get worse?

Isn't disc golf supposed to be fun?



Disc golf IS fun! This is a message board. If you're upset at the board/moderators/PDGA etc. and want to have fun, drop the keyboard, get out on the course and enjoy yourself! Lousiana should have nice enough weather this time of year. Have fun!

MADMAX

to The_Disc_Golf_Rebel:

Of course you are allowed, even welcomed, to say that you disagree.

I think that you are suggesting that the moderators only remove or delete offensive posts, but never prohibit offenders from posting. That is an unworkable solution for two reasons. First, there would be no incentive for posters to moderate their own language. Second, those posters would generate so many offensive posts that the moderating load would be excessive. We need to maintain standards of decency, and we need to do it with a reasonable expense of effort. The only way to satisfy both missions is to give repeat offenders a "time out".

The new penalty schedule does represent, for potential offenders, more "time out". The interpretations, however, are not more "Victorian" because we have not changed the language of what constitutes an offense.

Still, you are right that a change has occurred, and I owe the membership some justification for the change. The posted changes go into effect on December 1. At about that time I will write an article for the PDGA front page addressing these and other message board concerns. The comments I receive between now and then, like the one from you, will help me to better focus that article.

Actually, I would have to say that I agree with UPM. I am against the restrictions now being used to measure posts by. I'd also point out that I well understand that the PDGA has the right to impose such restrictions even though I disagree with them.

I think we've gotten a little too restrictive. I think that people still say incredibly incorrect and rude things here. They just don't add in "Oh bugger you" when they do it. I know that makes me feel a lot better. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Are you proud that a paid PDGA consultant would insult an entire region of disc golfers with the following quote?


"Frankly, I understand this point of view completely and that was what I told Jim. It reflects classic development/ underdevelopment (or metropole/satellite) theory and the culture of the Deep South, which has a history of rebellion vs / mistrust of the �northeast/Washington� and thanks in not insignificant part to the Civil War, remains one of the poorest parts of the country.

Given people are somewhat poorer and resources somewhat harder to come by why wouldn�t you want to invest the earnings of the game in the South back into the South, rather than into a USA and wider system? And given 1861-65, not to mention the failed Am Worlds bid episode of way back, it should come as no surprise that the PDGA is the chosen enemy of some malcontents/extremists."

[b][i] Since this offensive post has been allowed to stand for weeks now, does that mean that you condone attacks on Southerners? Am I allowed to ridicule Canadians in the same way? Or, is it just your personal bias that PDGA consultants are holier than the average member? Do you ever feel embarassed at your staff or consultants?

Are you proud that a paid PDGA consultant would insult an entire region of disc golfers with the following quote?


"Frankly, I understand this point of view completely and that was what I told Jim. It reflects classic development/ underdevelopment (or metropole/satellite) theory and the culture of the Deep South, which has a history of rebellion vs / mistrust of the �northeast/Washington� and thanks in not insignificant part to the Civil War, remains one of the poorest parts of the country.

Given people are somewhat poorer and resources somewhat harder to come by why wouldn�t you want to invest the earnings of the game in the South back into the South, rather than into a USA and wider system? And given 1861-65, not to mention the failed Am Worlds bid episode of way back, it should come as no surprise that the PDGA is the chosen enemy of some malcontents/extremists."

[b][i] Since this offensive post has been allowed to stand for weeks now, does that mean that you condone attacks on Southerners? Am I allowed to ridicule Canadians in the same way? Or, is it just your personal bias that PDGA consultants are holier than the average member? Do you ever feel embarassed at your staff or consultants?



You're defeating your own case UPM. While what he posted is indeed egregious to the Southern ego, it is nonetheless factual, interesting, and well written. So, are you for free speech or not? This also begs the question, are we now moderating for egos? Is it the moderator's job to punish those who by pointing out the problems that still face the South, hurt the feelings of those from the South?

Let me begin by offering my condolences and apologies. I'm sorry that the North whipped you up in the war. I'm sorry that it has resulted in lower standards of living in the South. I'm sorry that some still haven't gotten over it.

That said. ARRRRGGGGGHHHHH how can the Rockets play so well one night and so pathetically the next?

BTW can we go back to normal text now?

[b][i] Factual? So we're just so poor in the South that we are demanding a handout from the PDGA? Maybe we've just discovered you can have FUN without FEES. Isn't that what disc golf is supposed to be? Is disc golf going to solve global warming or the fascist ways of W?

The American Civil War has about as much to do with disc golf as the the French and Indian War where we kicked Canada's butt back across the 49th parallel, so you won't see me posting tripe that fools people like you into thinking we're getting something useful for some of our PDGA $$$ from our insultants, I mean consultants. :)

[b][i] Factual? So we're just so poor in the South that we are demanding a handout from the PDGA? Maybe we've just discovered you can have FUN without FEES. Isn't that what disc golf is supposed to be? Is disc golf going to solve global warming or the fascist ways of W?

The American Civil War has about as much to do with disc golf as the the French and Indian War where we kicked Canada's butt back across the 49th parallel, so you won't see me posting tripe that fools people like you into thinking we're getting something useful for some of our PDGA $$$ from our insultants, I mean consultants. :)



What was that about blinders? Dude, I've lived down here for 10 years and came down here over several summers before that. I never heard a comment on the Civil War until I came down here. You'd have thought it was the only significant even in our history from the number of re-tellings I've heard, not to mention the we'd kick some serious Northern booty if we fought again comments I've heard.

That many issues that face the South are tied to events prior to and surrounding the Civil War is a given. The fact that you don't think so means nothing, the historians disagree and frankly, I'll go with them. The reality that all people are molded by the environment in which they live is also well documented. You do the math Mike.

BTW - is that a Crusade you're on Mr. Rebel? And if you don't get it, I assure you, Brian does.

[b][i]In all my years living in Dixie, I have yet to hear anyone say anything like that about the Civil War. Are you actually claiming that the historians say that PDGA membership is low in the South because of the Civil War?

I'm well aware that the Yankees continue to loot parts of the South. All the oil that we refine in Louisiana, where does all that profit go? New York, London, Amsterdam(or wherever Shell is HQ'ed these days). But, the people have the power to change their backward ways...we had a candidate for governor who would have taxed this oil and eliminated the state income tax, but he lost, and no one who voted in this election was born during the Civil War.

America had the power to get rid of Bush in 2004 but the majority of the country was too stupid at the time. The rest of the country these days is just as stupid as the South.

In all my years living in Dixie, I have yet to hear anyone say anything like that about the Civil War. Are you actually claiming that the historians say that PDGA membership is low in the South because of the Civil War?

<font color="red">PDGA membership is low in the South? Really? </font>


I'm well aware that the Yankees continue to loot parts of the South. All the oil that we refine in Louisiana, where does all that profit go? New York, London, Amsterdam(or wherever Shell is HQ'ed these days). But, the people have the power to change their backward ways...we had a candidate for governor who would have taxed this oil and eliminated the state income tax, but he lost, and no one who voted in this election was born during the Civil War.


<font color="red"> Don't let that Yankee kick you in the donkey on the way out the door Mr. Reb </font>


America had the power to get rid of Bush in 2004 but the majority of the country was too stupid at the time. The rest of the country these days is just as stupid as the South.

<font color="red">Darn it, I hate it when you're right. On the other hand, I might suggest you look at who voted for Bush. As I recall his base of support is the... South. </font>

We need to maintain standards of decency,



Hi Peter,

I have two related questions. And, although these may seem of little consequence in light of more important issues that the PDGA faces, I assure you that they important to me - a dues paying member.

1) Why do we have to maintain standards of decency?

2) Who decides what those standards are? For example, is it OK to use one of the forbidden words if I am having a message board discussion with several other amateur (or professional) etymologists about the origins of that particular word? Can I post links to academic articles discussing these words and their origins and usage through time? Is it OK to post links to paintings such as Michelangelo's "Fall and Expulsion of Adam and Eve" which, although it does adorn the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, clearly shows both male and female nudity? What if I'm debating art history with several message boarders and I'm trying to convince them that a large number of Arny Freytag's Playboy centerfold photos are merely paying homage to famous nude paintings by Pierre-Auguste Renoir. Can I link these images? If not, which images are the bad ones - the links to the photos or the links to the paintings or both?

Who decides what words are offensive? Who decides what is art and what is pornography?

I thank you in advance for your answer to these questions.

to Switzerdan:

These are very important questions, of considerable consequence to many PDGA members. I am going to write a more extensive article about the message board and its moderation for the PDGA "front page" around December 1, when the new policies go into effect, but I'll anticipate some of that here.

1) We don't "have" to maintain standards of decency, we have chosen to. Those standards were in place when I became Communications Director this September. Their intent, as I understand it, is to make the message board a more appealing forum for an audience that has great diversity in many areas (social, religious, political, ethical, etc).
2) The standards are already codified. The more important question is, "Who interprets the code?" There are four successive levels of interpretation. Any member may report a post for a violation, so at that level the interpretation is in the mind of the reader. Then a moderator decides whether or not to sanction that post. Whatever the decision, the poster or the person who reported the post may appeal the moderator's decision to the Communications Director (me), and I make a call. Finally, the Executive Director has the power to overrule the Communications Director, but to my knowledge this has never happened.

We do not make joint decisions, so I can't tell you how the moderators or the Executive Director might resolve the issues of "art" vs "pornography" you describe. I ask myself whether a certain portion of the membership might be offended by the post, regardless of your motives. So for example, if you posted child pornography or pictures of burning crosses and said, "This is just the sort of thing I abhor", I might agree with your intent but uphold the banning of the post.

to Switzerdan:

These are very important questions, of considerable consequence to many PDGA members. I am going to write a more extensive article about the message board and its moderation for the PDGA "front page" around December 1, when the new policies go into effect, but I'll anticipate some of that here.

1) We don't "have" to maintain standards of decency, we have chosen to. Those standards were in place when I became Communications Director this September. Their intent, as I understand it, is to make the message board a more appealing forum for an audience that has great diversity in many areas (social, religious, political, ethical, etc).
2) The standards are already codified. The more important question is, "Who interprets the code?" There are four successive levels of interpretation. Any member may report a post for a violation, so at that level the interpretation is in the mind of the reader. Then a moderator decides whether or not to sanction that post. Whatever the decision, the poster or the person who reported the post may appeal the moderator's decision to the Communications Director (me), and I make a call. Finally, the Executive Director has the power to overrule the Communications Director, but to my knowledge this has never happened.

We do not make joint decisions, so I can't tell you how the moderators or the Executive Director might resolve the issues of "art" vs "pornography" you describe. I ask myself whether a certain portion of the membership might be offended by the post, regardless of your motives. So for example, if you posted child pornography or pictures of burning crosses and said, "This is just the sort of thing I abhor", I might agree with your intent but uphold the banning of the post.



Peter,

While this is well thought out and well written it misses a point, IMO. You're mixing two worlds Peter, pornography and poor language, and speaking your mind. Go to You Tube and watch the FCC meetings that just took place in Seattle. The audience was unmerciful. They crucified the current director of the FCC, something I felt was appropriate. We don't have that ability here. If we feel poorly served and we point out that we feel someone is being misleading, even civilly, we can be banned. I have a problem with that. We have come to the conclusion that any critic must be using inappropriate language and therefore the criticized can go to the Moderator and complain.

I ask myself whether a certain portion of the membership might be offended by the post, regardless of your motives. ... I might agree with your intent but uphold the banning of the post.



Hi Peter,

Before I comment / question further, I want to make sure I understand this correctly. My interpretation of this quotation is that if <font color="red">any</font> post offends a "certain portion" of the membership, then that post can be banned. Is this correct?

If it is correct, what constitues a "certain portion"? 1 member? 5 members? 10% of the membership? If the number is higher than 1 member, how will you determine that the requisite portion has been offended? Will there be a poll where we get to vote as to whether or not we have been offended?

As always, thanks for your time.

Dan Sellers

to Switzerdan:

1) " If we feel poorly served and we point out that we feel someone is being misleading, even civilly, we can be banned."
Absolutely not. There is nothing in the rules that forbids criticism, and there is plenty of criticism on this board. It is true that the criticized could complain to the monitors, but if the criticism is civil the monitor would reject the complaint, and so would I if the case reached me on appeal.

2) What constitutes a "certain amount?" It depends on the offense. If it is a potential personal attack, my main concern would be for the person attacked. If it is potentially material unsuitable for a minor, I would think about the effect on minors and on their parents, etc.

Hi Peter,

Thanks for the answer to my second question. Although, in all honesty, I have to say I find it a bit vague. Are there no concrete rules concerning this?

Secondly, your first answer was not to my first question, but to Lyle's post before mine. Could you please answer my first question?

Thanks again.

to Switzerdan:

Sorry about the mixup. The answer to your first question is "yes". Of course, whether it will be banned depends on a) whether it is reported to the monitors, and b) whether the monitor finds that the offense constitutes a violation of the message board rules.

Hi again Peter,

Here is a select rule for posting on the message board:

3. Materials or links to materials which are not suitable for a minor and/or are offensive

Furthermore, it is stated that these are not objective, but rather subjective.

I have a couple of questions / comments:

As regards rule number 3. I find it offensive that a message board that I help fund allows people to run a thread promoting their god (through quotation of scripture and argumentation that such a diety exists, etc.). Although I am certain I am in the minority on this issue, I am offended. According to rule number 3, in order to keep me from being offended, certain threads need to be removed and people shouldn't be allowed to talk about religion at all on the board since I, as an atheist, am offended by belief in a god. Naturally, my atheism will offend some believers and so I shouldn't be allowed to talk about it as well. I therefore request that all religious talk be banned from the PDGA message board.

Furthermore, I have seen posts that encourage me to vote for one political candidate or another. I am offended that anyone would consider voting for some of these candidates and am doubly offended that they would try to convince me to cast my vote for them as well. Since this obviously goes in both directions, I therefore also request that all political talk be banned from the message board.

Is this possible?

I am sure as time goes on, I and other people will discover even more things that offend us and will inform you about threads related to them. With any luck, we'll have the message board cleaned up in no time.

As always, thanks for your help.

(edited to remove an early morning typo)

Switzerdan it's quotes like this
"I used to get high on life, but then I found out that life was cut with idiots. "
that make me think you need more political discussion and compassion in your life.

Hi Sammy,

First, comments about my character and/or what is going on in my life based on a sig line that is intended to be humorous are not only without merit, but are also totally unwarranted. I could construe this as an attack on my character and, if I had thinner skin, ask the mods to remove the post.

Secondly, your comments - in my opinion - don't contribute anything to the conversation I am trying to have with Peter. I am trying to establish that if the PDGA is going to censor their message board, they need to do it in a logical and objective manner - not a haphazard and subjective one.

I have no problem with censorship of this board - as long as it is done with the consent of the people paying for it. I recognize that as a private organization, the PDGA has the right to do what they want with their board. The PDGA merely has to accept my right to free expression, they don't have to fund it. However, as members of the PDGA, we certainly have a say in what our organization does and how they do it.

In the future, if you wish to question my character or the lack of political discussion in my life, please feel free to do so through a PM so you don't risk serving a probation or suspension.

Sammy,

I have to agree with SD. He makes excellent points. Specifically, what's offensive is subjective. I might argue that within the norms of society, political discussions, while taboo, are not offensive. Similarly for religious discussions. On the the other hand, I might point out that some of the harshest language and rhetoric occurs on those threads.

As for myself, I'm personally offended that anyone would use discraft products and morally opposed to their being propagated on this site. I'm pretty confident I can get several dozen other posters to support this position. Likewise, I feel the same about Innova and Gateway. I think we should have a full ban on any discussion of disc manufacturers and their products...

Switzerdan &amp; Lyle are going to extremes to try to prove thier points. If they report a post for being offensive for political talk, religious talk, or discussion about Discraft, Innova and Gateway products, I can almost guarantee that the moderators are not going to agree that these posts are offensive to a certain amount of our membership and break PDGA DISCussion Board rules. You would then feel free to appeal these decisions to Peter Shive, but I'm pretty sure he would uphold the decision.

As Peter indicated, what constitutes a "certain amount" depends on the offense. If it is a potential personal attack, the main concern would be for the person attacked. If it is potentially material unsuitable for a minor, one would think about the effect on minors and on their parents, etc.

Switzerdan &amp; Lyle are going to extremes to try to prove thier points. If they report a post for being offensive for political talk, religious talk, or discussion about Discraft, Innova and Gateway products, I can almost guarantee that the moderators are not going to agree that these posts are offensive to a certain amount of our membership and break PDGA DISCussion Board rules. You would then feel free to appeal these decisions to Peter Shive, but I'm pretty sure he would uphold the decision.

As Peter indicated, what constitutes a "certain amount" depends on the offense. If it is a potential personal attack, the main concern would be for the person attacked. If it is potentially material unsuitable for a minor, one would think about the effect on minors and on their parents, etc.



Ah, but you miss the point. The system as it exists can be abused. Some do. That leaves us in the position that not every member gets treated equally in this environment. That Sir, is a problem. BTW - I might argue that as superfluous as Dan's point seems, it is incredibly relevant. The political and religious commentary that occurs here is offensive; I can say that while admitting that I revel in it.

The political and religious commentary that occurs here is offensive; I can say that while admitting that I revel in it.



To my knowledge, in the past 14 months not a single post concerning political commentary was reported to the moderators. A few months ago, some posts made on the "Disc Golfers for Jesus?" thread were reported, but that was for personal attacks against message board users in the thread, and not actual religious commentary.

So the point is still 100% valid. First of all, there's been no posts reported for political or religious commentary, and even if they were, I can almost guarantee that the moderators are not going to agree that these posts are offensive to a certain amount of our membership and break PDGA DISCussion Board rules.

The political and religious commentary that occurs here is offensive; I can say that while admitting that I revel in it.



To my knowledge, in the past 14 months not a single post concerning political commentary was reported to the moderators. A few months ago, some posts made on the "Disc Golfers for Jesus?" thread were reported, but that was for personal attacks against message board users in the thread, and not actual religious commentary.

So the point is still 100% valid. First of all, there's been no posts reported for political or religious commentary, and even if they were, I can almost guarantee that the moderators are not going to agree that these posts are offensive to a certain amount of our membership and break PDGA DISCussion Board rules.



Come on! Some people run to the Mods if you wink at them. Others wouldn't go to the Mod if you told them you were thinking about them while you cleaned your Glock. Your notion that this proves everything is fair is wrong. It just shows that some people have a higher tolerance than others.

...there's been no posts reported for political or religious commentary, and even if they were, I can almost guarantee that the moderators are not going to agree that these posts are offensive to a certain amount of our membership and break PDGA DISCussion Board rules.



My interpretation of this is that as long as a post only offends a few members, then it's ok to post it.

Could someone please give me a clear, objective definition of "a certain amount"?

Hi Peter,

Could you please answer the questions in my post before Captain Plastic's? I had only planned to ask questions and get answers in order to post on another thread, but it seems that there was a slight disturbance in the Q&amp;A session.

Thanks.

The moderators and Shive have been appointed as the judges. If you run for the Board and get elected and appointed to oversee this D-Board, you can determine and interpret the guidelines as you wish unless the Board determines you're too conservative/liberal. There are no implied universal truths here, just what those charged with the task have determined to be the case for standards in our org.

Hi again Peter,

In addition, could you please give me your opinion about the following suggestion?

Why don't we simply have two layers of the discussion board?

There would be one layer that anyone could read but only members could post to. This area would strictly be for disc golf discussions - equipment, rules, ratings, tournaments, etc.

There would be a second layer that only members over the age of 18 could access. There could be a warning on the first page of this stating that members who enter this area face the risk of all the things we are trying to keep off the public board - inappropriate links, profanity, personal attacks, etc.

I'm not an IT expert, but it doesn't seem like it would be that difficult or costly to implement this. Plus, the way I see it, this has nothing but advantages for us.

1) We have a 'public' board that projects the image we are going for - wholesome, clean and family-friendly.

2) We appease the segment of the PDGA membership that wants a board that is a free for all.

3) The moderators would have a much easier job and could perhaps volunteer their efforts towards something more productive in the disc golf community.

Do you see this as a viable option?

Dan,

My view on this board is that you do not have the right to unfettered expression. You are asked to follow the rules on this semi-private message board. Just because you wish to debate issues in a contentious and likely inappropriate manner, does not mean you have the right to do so on a semi-private message board.

In addition, if the organization tries to appease every sub group of the organization, it will most certainly fail. It has been said that if you try to please everyone, you please no one.

I would say you have free expression within the framework of the rules of the message board. You also have the right to express yourself outside of those rules, but you will be subject to the enforcement of those rules (however seemingly arbitrary they may be). If I said you were a (very inappropriate noun), I would expect to be punished for that action.

If you disagree with the way the issues are adjudicated, you have appeals.

Lyle,

A few favorite lines on fairness.

<ul type="square"> It is certainly a four-lettter word
and As my father (and I am sure others have stated), life isn't. [/list] Sometimes, you just don't get what you think is fair or justified.

By the way, this is just my opinion. You can do what you wish with it. Heck, you can even attempt to sway me in another direction.

Thank you,

Steve

Hi Steve,

I absolutely agree with you in regards to the 'freedom of speech' issue. This is a private (semi-private) board and has the right to censor material. As I said before, supoorting the right to free speech does not mean funding it.

I just think there is a way to run the message board so that we can make everyone happy.

to Switzerdan:

1) I agree with "Moderator's" comments about the questions you refer to.
2) Viable? For starters, it would require Board approval, and I can't believe that the present Board would approve a discussion board with an "x-rated" tier. Certainly as a Board member I would argue and vote against it. I don't believe that the PDGA should support that kind of forum. I believe that the people who want one should set up a "disc golf uncensored" discussion board outside the PDGA. They could allow everyone to post and they could say anything they wanted.

Hi Peter,

What if the majority of the organization wanted such a feature? How would the Board vote then?

(I don't even know that the majority would want this; I'm just speaking hypothetically.)

to Switzerdan,

It's not clear. The Board might not go along on certain issues. For example, even if most members wanted the dues to be reduced to $10 per year, the Board probably would not agree.

Your best course of action would be to get the right Board for you. If a majority of the membership wanted an uncensored message board, they should be able to elect a Board that would vote for it. But the Executive Director would still have to agree.

My considered opinion is that it is a longshot. I don't understand why you wouldn't want to set up your own uncensored message board outside the PDGA. It would be so easy, and you would have your heart's desire with no intrusion from repressive officials like me.

Hi Peter,

To the best of my knowledge, I don't believe I've called you repressive.

I'm only playing devil's advocate here because it seems to me that there are certain areas of the PDGA that are no longer in the player's hands.

Personally, I have no desire to attack anyone's character or post links to pornography on the internet. I have better things to do with my time. Although, it would be nice to throw out the occasional 4-letter word to emphasize something! ;)

I just think there are some problems and they're being dealt with in typical American fashion (that's a topic for another thread!) and will ultimately do more harm than good for the sport.

to Switzerdan;

You haven't called me repressive. You have been great about targeting policies rather than people. You have been most courteous, and initiated an open exchange that I think has been very useful here. I don't often keep an exchange going so long with one person (time constraints mostly), but I do enjoy your style.

I called myself repressive, in the dictionary sense ("to keep under control, check or suppress"), because in that sense I am. On the message board, that is my job.

I called myself repressive, in the dictionary sense ("to keep under control, check or suppress"), because in that sense I am. On the message board, that is my job.



can you get 'in trouble' for personally attacking yourself? ;)

Do hairy palms count?

to everyone:

The new message board policies go into effect tomorrow (December 1). I have written an article (A Personal Look at the Message Board) for the PDGA front page, which should be posted today. I have also begun a new thread, "Message Board Myths", which discusses many misperceptions that members often have about the moderation process.

I invite all concerned to post comments and questions on that thread (rather than here). I will try to keep up as best I can.

Peter,

The new MB policy, which I found by clicking on "Rules" in the list at the top of this page, shows "December 1st, 200<font color="red">8</font>.

No biggie, just wanted you to know so it can be corrected.

Peter,

In your role as a Board Member, a portion of your job description is Communications Director if my reading comprehension is correct. What other duties reside in that category in addition to managing the content of this message board? I'm not asking for minute details, just a broad overview of what is expected of you by the other members of the board and the membership of the PDGA.

to johnrock:

There is to my knowledge no written document that specifies the duties of the Communications Director. One of my goals is to write one before I stop doing this in September.

Certainly my major effort has been with the message board, and that takes much time. In that role I see myself as like the Board liaison with a committee whose members are the moderators. It also involves consultation with David Gentry, who has the technical knowledge that keeps the message board running efficiently.

There are many other areas in which the PDGA "communicates" in an official way. These include:
Websites � PDGA.com &amp; PDGAtour.com (New website under development)
Magazine � Flying Disc Magazine (New magazine)
PDGA E-news � Karolyn will be sending out monthly beginning in 2008
Survey Monkey � Online survey tool for polling groups via e-mail
State Coordinators Yahoo Group � A good way to reach all of our state and province coordinators
I could become active in any of these areas, if my attention was needed.

Finally, I have a personal stake, which is the reason I sought the Communications Director (and Secretary) positions at our inaugural Board meeting last September. One of my platform planks involved more open communication with the membership, which is why I initiated the thread on which you and I are now communicating.

Thanks for the timely reply Peter. I appreciate your desire to be open to the members, that in itself might help other members communicate more openly. Knowing that those who are trying to steer the ship actually listen to members' concerns is a big bonus. And being responsive to members questions certainly heightens the respect that those members have for you.

You probably have had or will have questions asked of you that might not be easy to answer, either because you may not readily know the answer (or possibly the whole answer) or because the answer may cause some embarrasment. I get the impression from you that you will be the kind of man who will answer those though questions, to the best of your ability. To me, that's the kind of person I want in charge of our "ship". It's pretty plain to me that others in a position of responsibility within our organization have insisted that those tough questions need to be discussed privately. Do you believe it is a benefit to the membership to have our "front" people publicly answer questions from the members, or should members have to endure the private communication lines?

It's been posed here on this board that most of those in charge do not believe this is the place for discussions about touchy subjects. Since we're all members here, and many of us simply cannot attend public sumit meetings, why shouldn't this board be utilized for such discussions?

to johnrock:

I have had a lot of tough questions here, but never any that I would not answer. There are some limitations on how freely I might speak, however, and those are spelled out in my very first post on this thread. So far I haven't felt that my answers were seriously compromised by those limitations. If I did I would say so.

Both Pat Brenner and I have authored threads on which we post candidly about "touchy" topics. Some Board members do not, but I have never felt the slightest disappproval from any Board member about my activities here. Remember, it is much easier for me. I feel comfortable with the message board environment. I am retired, and I have much experience with written communication. It was in some sense the core of my career. Most other Board members have full-time jobs, and I am amazed that they can give as much time as they do. And they do many other things that I am not good at. I do believe that it is useful that Pat and I do this (especially because our opinions often differ), but I certainly don't believe that the membership should expect all Board members to participate here.

I must admit that, as I write this, I have a sense of suspense, as though I am setting myself up for you to ask me that ultimate tough question -- the one that I can't answer. But still, as you say, I would take my best shot.

.

:cool:Ha! Good call. Maybe not right away, though. :cool:

Like I mentioned, I appreciate your interaction. It helps me as a member "get to know you" better. Someone who is up front with how they feel/believe makes it easier to communicate with them. It seems like others in your position would welcome that interaction with the members who they represent. Maybe in time.

Thanks for the effort you (and Pat) are making to help move us (the PDGA) into a new era.

Hi Peter,

Kathy Hardyman and the other members of the women's committee developed a survey last year for women in disc golf. As I understand, this was distributed in hard copy to those at women's nationals and perhaps worlds, but I am not sure of the specifics. I do know, however, that no move was ever made to attempt to publish the survey online. Would this "survey monkey" that you mentioned in a previous post be a possibility? I believe the intent of hte survey was to poll the female members of the PDGA (and even those who are not PDGA members?) to see where they are in disc golf, and perhaps what the PDGA can do to help the women of disc golf.

Thanks!
Marsha

to marshief:

That would be a great idea, just the sort of thing the survey monkey was designed for. The Womens Committee should let me or the PDGA know what questions they want asked, and we can set it up.

Post deleted by sandalman

Peter,

do you believe Members should have input into what PDGA dues should be?

you seem to like the survey monkey tool. would you support putting together a survey to gather input from Members on this topic?

pat



Strange, this seems like the type of question that should be asked at a Board meeting. Of what purpose does it serve to ask it here besides political?

Perhaps you forgot to ask Pete and the rest of the Board at the last meeting and can't wait for the next one?

Post deleted by sandalman

I think common courtesy would demand that certain things should be discussed in person as opposed to splashed in front of a public forum. This smells of trying to paint someone in a corner because someone else didn't get his way at a meeting.

Post deleted by sandalman

I never said I was offended. It just seems to me that this is a rather strange and inconsiderate way of conducting business.

As for my vehicle for expressing the concern, I am of the opinion that it would be best done in the forum from which it derived, and that the concern may have merit for other viewers to consider. Nothing more, and I am not aware of any innuendos that could be construed. I think I pretty much stated what I meant to say.

Post deleted by Peter_Shive

Were any decisions made on the technical standards, or is it still under discussion?

Strange, but a whole lot of posts suddenly are no longer here. I guess by form I should be deleting the related posts now? Instead, how about this?


Never mind!

http://img.snlarc.jt.org/pics/char/GiRa-Emily%20Litella.jpg

to tkieffer:

Strange perhaps, but an elegant solution to a sticky problem. Pat Brenner had asked me a question. My position is that Board members should not ask each other leading questions on the message board, and I was stalling for time while trying to figure out how to deal with this particular case. Pat defused the issue by using the new 72-hour rule to delete his question and subsequent references to it, at which point I deleted my response.

Both Pat and I comment often on the message board, and it is tricky to get this right -- to post information that is useful to the membership and at the same time avoid compromising our ability to maintain trust with each other and with the rest of the Board. We aren't always going to get it exactly right, and we might spar from time to time about the ground rules for doing it. Still, it is worth doing because our participation here gives the membership some very useful insight about the issues that the Board is facing. In my opinion this benefit is worth the risks we take in trying to provide it.

I think elegant would have been, "Sorry, I guess this wasn't appropriate." Just whacking the posts like it never happened leaving behind a 'post deleted' trail would lean more towards the blunt or crude side of things, IMO.

But I do appreciate that you both provide feedback to the membership using this medium, and understand that things are not always perfect.

...My position is that Board members should not ask each other leading questions on the message board,,..



Yours is a common sense position that merely requires common courtesy. I think most members would agree with you.

Thank you.

to everyone:

I now have a second message board account in the name "pdgashive", which I will use when posting messages in my official capacity as a Board member. Personal opinion will still be posted under the account named "Peter_Shive".

This is the only post on this thread which is official.

to everyone:

I now have a second message board account in the name "pdgashive", which I will use when posting messages in my official capacity as a Board member. Personal opinion will still be posted under the account named "Peter_Shive".

This is the only post on this thread which is official.



Peter,

I think it makes more sense to switch the names on your accounts. Since your Peter_Shive message board account has moderator status, I think you should rename it as pdgashive and use it only in your official capacity as a Board member and Communications Director.

The brand new account which you just created could then be renamed as Peter_Shive and be used to post personal opinion.

Don't you agree this makes more sense?

No it doesn't as his prior posts should all be under his personal account.

btw You need to use your "official" account less and your personal more. The preceding post is a great example of something that should have been merely personal opinion.

Regardless of names, your official account should be the one with Moderator priviledges because Moderator accounts can't be put on "ignore". If you use a moderator account to post personal opinions no one can ignore your personal ramblings.

You can go to your Peter_Shive accound and give Admin priviledges to your other account, and then take them away from your Peter_Shive account. But you have to do it in that order. :)

to Rhett_in_SoCal:

I've already tried to do exactly that, but I don't have the authority to alter the privileges on my own account in that way. I have sent the request to PDGA Headquarters, and expect the changes will be made within the next few days,

...My position is that Board members should not ask each other leading questions on the message board,,..



Yours is a common sense position that merely requires common courtesy. I think most members would agree with you.

Thank you.


Many might agree that they <u>should not</u> do so, but few would agree that they should be <u>prohibited from</u> doing so.

No it doesn't as his prior posts should all be under his personal account.

btw You need to use your "official" account less and your personal more. The preceding post is a great example of something that should have been merely personal opinion.



Or even a private message.

to everyone:

Most of us agree that some kind of retesting program is needed to insure that discs that once met specs are still meeting them. One suggestion is that we retest discs at tournaments using mobile testing laboratories.

I see a variety of ethical, financial and logistic problems with this approach. I would be happy to list them if anyone is interested. I believe that it would result in a tournament experience that would be unpleasant for players and TD's alike. My position on the issue of retesting (and testing) is as follows:

1) All official testing and retesting of discs should be done under the same conditions by one laboratory. This lab should be under the direct supervision of the PDGA, who vouches for its integrity. All funds to support this lab and its personnel should be paid directly through one source only -- the PDGA.

2) Only new (unused) discs should be tested by this laboratory. A disc's properties can change with use, and it would be a mess if we were to disqualify discs that met specs when they were new.

3) Members buy PDGA-certified discs from manufacturers in good faith. The membership should not have to pay for any retesting of these discs, nor should any member suffer penalty should any such disc not be within specs. Costs and penalties should be borne by manufacturers.

4) The problem of out-of-spec discs is caused by PDGA policies that enable manufacturers to get away with producing them. It will never be solved until the PDGA enacts protocols that make it unprofitable for manufacturers to produce such discs.

I invite comments and questions from the membership.

to the membership:

I have resigned from the PDGA Board of Directors effective August 31, 2008. I intend to run for the Board in the upcoming election. If elected there would be no interruption of my service, because Board terms begin September 1, 2008.

I am taking this unusual step of resigning and running again to ask you whether you want to confirm your support of me as a PDGA Board member. There are two issues that concern me, developments which were not present during last summer's campaign, and which members might not approve of.

First, I intend to seek sponsorship, which would be effective this September 1. This is for purely selfish motives. I am first of all a player, and I miss sponsorship. I have some good credentials, but at the age of 66 and coming off my second ankle surgery in two years, I am somewhat of a "depreciating asset" and need to pursue my options soon. My main concern was to be unsponsored during the review of disc standards, and that is now complete.

My willingness to give up sponsorship to run for the Board may have been an important reason why you voted for me last year. Some of you may not approve of my action, and this will give you an opportunity to express that sentiment.

Secondly, as Communications Director I have been largely responsible for changes in the message board rules that would make the board less liberal (more polite). Most of the message board users who comment on these changes have been strongly critical, arguing that we should be more relaxed in our interpretation of what constitutes personal attack, pornography, profanity etc. I want to know if this disapproval is reflected in the membership as a whole.

I will not be Communications Director after September, even if I am still on the Board. It is too much concerned with the negative aspects of communication for me to want to do this for more than a year. Still, I stand behind my work in this job, and would use my influence as a continuing Board member to maintain a more polite message board.

Please feel free to ask any questions about this unusual situation. I especially welcome the hard ones, and will answer them candidly as long as they do not compromise anyone else's private communication or any confidential Board business.

I have 2 comments:

1st: You giving up your sponsorship told me that you were serious about the task that you were trying to accomplish. I would have voted for you even if you wouldnt have given up your sponsorship. I wouldnt have!!!!!!!!!


2cd: The Message Board

I dont want to argues about censorship. I have given your Message Board Policies a chance, &amp; I agree with some, and I also think we have been toooooo extreme with others. But I will say, that you and the moderaters have cleaned this MB up.

Thanks for the hard work!

Peter,

Your openness and staright forwardness are among the many reasons I will support you again in the coming election.

In my opinion...you're a class act and the PDGA board, and the players, are better off with you onboard.

Good luck rehabbing your ankle and I'll see you on the course.

If you do the resign and run again thing, are you running for the 1 year position you are giving up or a new 2 year position? Will other candidates have to specify which they want to run for?

Too bad Mikey isn't here to explain the conspiratorial implications of all of this. :D

I think this is an exceptionally and perhaps even excessively ethical way to deal with the situation. I did not recall that you promised to give up your sponsorship when you ran. If you did, this is a good way to keep your promise.

1. Your sponsorship didnt have any impact on my vote. Though I understand potential conflicts of interest, that was just not an issue for me. I voted for you based on your openness and your stance on the issues. I know exactly where you stand. I cant say the same thing about others...

2. I am pleased that you have continued the work that Steve Dodge started. Its so much easier to find good, intellegent, thought-out conversations about various subjects than it used to be...theres a lot less crap to wade through. I dont always agree with "the line" on whats permitted and whats not...but at least you try to define it! Generally, I like the direction the new message board policies are headed.

Looking forward to the re vote.

After reading Article III of the PDGA Bylaws, I have come to the following conclusions about Peter's interesting resign/run combo:

1) If the BOD does nothing, then Peter, if elected, will be elected for a 2 year term (3.2). After the election, the BOD has the option to have someone fill the unexpired term, presumably by a majority vote (3.11, 3.12)

2) If the BOD decides to have the electorate fill the unexpired, 1 year term, then the BOD could have a special election at anytime, or, if conducted coincidentally with what I call the normal yearly election cycle, would have a slate of candidates separate from the normal yearly election cycle candidates.

If the BOD does this, Peter could conceivably run for his own unexpired term of one year, or he could run for a two year position and let others run for his unexpired term.

IMO, the following should not happen, according to how I read the bylaws:

Let's say that, coming up this fall, there would have been 3 positions open up, without any resignations. So, due to Peter's resignation, there are 4. The BOD cannot release a ballot that allows the membership to vote for 4 candidates without regard to which one fills the unexpired one year term. That is, the BOD cannot select from four candidates to decide which one will fill the unexpired term, or say that whoever is the fourth highest vote getter will fill the unexpired one year term. And, they cannot designate that the electorate choose from a pool of candidates the three that will fill the expired positions, and then one that will fill the one year unexpired position.
The election of the person to the unexpired term must be separate from the election of three to the unexpired terms. They can occur at the same time, and on the same ballot, but they are separate elections, with separate candidates, with no candidate on both slates.

Here's a twist. The BOD could also appoint Peter to fill his own unexpired one year term if they want! But no doubt, Peter would decline, based on his reasoning that he only wants to serve as a BOD memeber with manufacturer sponsorship if the membership agrees by voting him back in.

It will be interesting to see how the BOD handles this situation, and, technically, Peter could vote on how they do so!

Re: resignation - I can see his point if he did indeed emphasize that he would relinquish his sponsorship if he was elected, it would be bad form to pick the sponsorship back up during his elected term. BUT, I am distressed to read that his decision was made up in part because of this MB, and his desire to no longer be Communications Director (or the equivalent, since there is no longer that position, according to Article IV - I am assuming that Peter was elected to a Vice-President position that encompasses Communication). He could resign from his Vice-President position, and yet remain a BOD member. If his wish is not to serve as the Vice-President in charge of Communications, I would hope that he would do that immediately, to give the BOD an option of voting another BOD member into that position, and then voting Peter into another Vice-President position that would take advantage of his enthusiasm for another aspect of the Association, but I understand if he would not, and I have no doubt that he will provide the PDGA with the same high standard of service in his current position that established since being voted on the BOD.

bill, you've done some homework!

my quick read suggests that since the BoD will replace Peter and the documents are silent as to how, the BoD could select his replacement however they wish. i have the same gut reaction as you do to changing the sequence so that we elect 4 this time around, but am not sure if it is disallowed. my gut also is concerned about running seperate elections (one for 3 one for 1) especially when one of them is for someone who has resigned. but we'll figure it out, no doubt.

to everyone:

I timed my resignation to coincide with the beginning of new Board terms because I did not want the membership to lose its choice of who is on the Board.

The Board does choose my replacement, but the only sensible way to do this is to wait for the results of this summer's election. The Board would then choose the person who comes in fourth in the election (even if it is me).

Furthermore, I would be perfectly willing to stipulate that, if I finished in the top three, I would serve the one year "replacement" term and the other three would serve two year terms.

Keep your eye on this! There is no need to rush this process, because I will still be on the Board for more than six months. The Board should use member sentiment, as expressed in the upcoming election, to choose the "replacement". In my opinion, not to do this would be to break faith with the membership.

Peter,

The membership would not lose choice. It would be your decision to run for a new 2-year position OR to run to fill the unexpired term of the directorship you are vacating, if the BOD chooses to elect that vacancy, instead of appointing.

The BOD is not required to fill the open director spot for the last year, but if it chooses to do so, it must either have an election for that one-year term only, or appoint someone to fill that one-year term. So I would respectfully submit that, according to the Bylaws, that there are two "sensible" ways to fill the vacancy.

I would also submit that, if the BOD did not choose to have an election for the open one-year term, the top 3 vote getters would automatically have a term of two years (unless one chooses to resign :) ). So if you were one of the top 3 vote getters, which I suspect you would be, you would be excluding someone from being elected who would have been if you had not been running again due to your resignation. Of course, the BOD can offer the unexpired one-year term to the fourth place finisher, but I don't believe you can volunteer to take that director position, since you were not elected to it.

Think of it like this. There are 7 director positions - Dir #1 through Dir #7. Let's say you were Dir #1, and the Directors due for a new election, the three that are expiring, are Dir #2, #4, and #6. If you were one of the top 3 vote getters, then you would become the new Director #2, #4, or #6; let's say you became the new #2.

You could not become #1, unless you resigned your new elected #2 position, and the BOD appointed you to fill out the unexpired term of Director #1. Then the BOD could, if they wished, appoint the fourth place vote getter to the unexpired #2 term, but they are under no obligation to do so.

My brain hurts... :p

we should be clear at this juncture that the ONLY language relevant to naming a replacement comes from the ByLaws.

3.12 excerpt: When one or more Directors shall resign
from the Board, effective at a future date, a majority of the Directors then in office, including those
who have so resigned, shall have power to fill such vacancy or vacancies, the results of the vote
thereon to take effect when such resignation or resignations shall become effective.

4.4 VACANCIES. A vacancy in any office because of death, resignation, removal,
disqualification or otherwise, may be filled by the Board of Directors for the unexpired portion of
the term.



how the Board makes this decision will conform to the ByLaws. there are MANY approaches that make sense, even several aproaches that rely entirely on member input - but are not necessarily as Peter describes.

this is the first time a Director has resigned under the new ByLaws. it will take some discussion to figure out the best way to proceed. setting up strawmen processes, and labelling some as anything other than sensitive, is unwarranted at this time.

Pat,

I also thought that this section was relevant:

"3.11 VACANCIES. Any vacancy occurring in the Board of Directors or in a directorship to be filled by reason of an increase in the number of Directors, may be filled by the Directors. A Director elected to fill a vacancy shall be elected for the unexpired term of his predecessor in office."

The Board does choose my replacement, but the only sensible way to do this is to wait for the results of this summer's election. The Board would then choose the person who comes in fourth in the election (even if it is me).



I'm not sure this is the only sensible way to choose a replacement. I suspect other sensible ideas will be presented.

Peter, check your email - I have sent another method of choosing a replacement.

Bill, yeppers, at least as far as another example of the ByLaws stating that the Board decides. is that what you meant?

to Sandalman and StevenDodge:

The PDGA is a member-driven nonprofit. Its Board will have a vacancy to fill, not now but in September. Presumably the Board members would like some input on how best to do that. They have the opportunity to acquire this input from various interested groups. So, for example:
1) They could ask the Staff.
2) They could ask the manufacturers.
3) They could ask each other.
4) They could ask the membership.

Only #4 seems sensible to me. That is because I have heard no good reasons why the membership should not be fully consulted in this matter.

It would seem that the Board can't take action until after Aug 31, 2008 when the resignation actually takes place? To have a separate election at the time of the regualar election, I would think the resignation date might need to be earlier than Aug 31, such as May 31, and the Board perhaps appoints Peter to fulfill the remainder of his term until Sept 1.

chuck, the bylaws are clear that we pick the replacement after the resignation is submitted and before the effective date.

peter, after we consult the members, just how long should we follow their will as expressed in a vote? should it be for two years, or just for say the first 5 or 6 months following the "election?

to Chuck Kennedy and Sandalman:

Chuck, Pat is right. The Board could say next week, "We choose Joe Blow to fill the second year of Peter's term". I am saying that it should not, because that would deprive the membership of input in the choice.

Pat, in this case one should consider member opinion as near as possible to the time the vacancy occurs, especially as that will be readily available from election results. That is the best that can be done, because after that circumstances could change. If, for example, I was elected and then committed a felony in October, you wouldn't want to hold the members to their choice in August.

to exczar and bruce_brakel:

The sponsorship issue is by far the more important, and I would have resigned and run again even if that were the only issue. I don't remember exactly how I put it last year, but I think of it now as a campaign promise which I am proposing to break. I should be accountable to the membership for that.

The message board issue is much more complex. It is certainly reasonable to ask why I would not give up the CD position now. I'll give the short answer. It is an important job, and no matter what others may think, I believe that I am good at it. So I have the satisfaction of a job well done. I love new and different experiences, especially when they are not boring, and being CD is definitely not boring! Finally, both Gail (whose opinion is often key) and I are in full agreement that I should do this until September. Even with its negative aspects, if there were not so many competing interests and desires I could imagine myself as "CD for Life". Under the circumstances, "CD Until September" seems exactly right.

if you were elected in August and commit a felony in October, you are still on the Board. i suppose it would depend on the felony as to whether or not it would have anything to do with continuing as a director.

Peter

The membership made a choice, you were voted in.
The procedures call for the BOD to appoint your replacement.

I hope you are not counting on this watered down forum
to gather members' input.
To have a special election to reaffirm our love for
you, Peter, does not sit well with me.

Follow procedures and keep your promises.

steve timm

resigning and wanting to be re-elected screams i'm a child and i need approval. grow up. you are 66 apparently. serve the term you committed to. if you don't you shouldn't be allowed to be a candidate again. I don't particularly agree with all your decisions, especially concerning the MB, but that isn't unusual for me.
what i am more concerned with is quitting because:

a. you want sponsorship (you knew this going in)
b. you don't want to be message board czar anymore( i'm sure you guys could just change jobs or assign it to the new person. didn't you specifically say you wanted to do this?)
c. you want affirmation of support. (you were elected. what more do you want? will you be doing this all the time whenever you make an unpopular move or policy?)

i definitely would not be voting for you if you can't complete the term as promised.

Peter,

I respect the fact that you want to continue in the CD position until your resignation becomes final.

I have not commented, as some other have, as to your reasoning behind your resignation; I have primarily just tried to figure out how the position can be filled. I did comment that I thought you should ask for an immediate reassignment, but I stated that, even if you did not, I was confident that you would do a great job as CD, and I still am confident that you will.

That being said, I respectfully offer up the following suggestion:


Ask for your resignation back


Reasoning: You have been up front about your needing to resume sponsorship, and that is great. You feel that you need to resign because of this, and then run again as a sponsored player, and that is fine as well. But I submit that it will be easier on the Association and its membership if you stay on the BOD, ask for a new position, and then go ahead and accept sponsorship.

If the membership doesn't like what you did, they have recourse in two ways:

1) A petition can be submitted that has 10% or more of the active membership, and then it can be put to a vote of the general memebership;

2) If you run again after your current 2 year term expires, the members that did not agree with your action will probably not vote for you. They can evaluate your actions and votes, and make a judgment call accordingly.

After examining your voting record so far, I see no apparent bias in regards to manufacturers, and I don't expect to even after you get your sponsorship. But if some other people do, that is their right not to re-elect you.

Please consider hanging in there, and accepting the sponsorship. If you encounter a future problem, or if that 10% petition comes in, then you can consider resigning.

Thanks for reading,

I'm going to basically echo what Bill said above.

I think Peter resigning and then running for a different BoD position, when he already has one, causes a big problem. Basically, you would be letting the BoD choose it's new director rather than the membership, whatever method the BoD would use to choose the new director. It is much more desirable to let the membership choose the director.

I understand your desire not to go back on a campaign promise. However, the membership knew you were an Innova-sponsored player when you were elected, even if you did promise to forego your sponsorship, which you did for a time (and still have to date). Ron Convers is a Discraft-sponsored player, and did NOT forego his sponsorship, yet he remains on the BoD with no problems. I don't think the membership has an issue with you being a sponsored player, as long as you keep your conflict of interest statement up-to-date and recuse yourself as needed. If they do have a problem with it, they can attempt to recall you, but I think the chance of that even being attempted is infinitesimal.

I'd say, accept your sponsorship, and deal with the repercussions if a recall comes to pass.

As far as the "Communications Director" position, I think that is a designation assigned by the BoD, and could be changed at any BoD meeting/teleconference by vote. It's not a constitutional position, it's more of an assignment. In otherwords, it's not something you were elected for.

Chap

accept your stupid sponsorship and quit acting like it's such a big deal. nobody cares. you act like it's a big amount of money. that's ridiculous. stop acting like a diva and man up and fufill your commitment like a grown up. if people don't think you act impartially due to a sponsorship, then they would let you know by not electing you next time. i don't think it is a big issue, and i doubt anyone else thinks it is that important either.

the much bigger issue is the grandstanding and lack of commitment to fufilling your term in my opinion. oh, and the total lack of comon sense in the message board policies, but that is another thread. policies are a useful tool, but deadly in inexperienced hands.

enough said, carry on....

Nice to see standing on principle gets you ridiculed. Hasn't the USPS's best message board denizen actively howled about people in PDGA power positions being sponsored, thus creating a hole where the sponsors can control the organization?

That said, there is a point to it. I think if you polled the membership (and not just those on this board), you'd find that it matters little whether a BoD member is sponsored or not.

to exczar and John Chapman:

Bill and John,

What I am doing is no whim, nor is it a trial balloon to see how people on the message board feel about it. I will discuss it here, but I will not settle it here. I began to consider it seriously after the Technical Standards review was over in December. I spent much of last month exploring other possible ways to consult the membership. None other was feasible. I have given formal notice of resignation. I would not even try to rescind it because then I would have no way of learning what is important to me.

A simple, legal solution exists that would not deprive the membership of choice. If the Board does not adopt it and decides instead to name the replacement without full consultation of the membership, I will deeply regret it. Furthermore, as instigator of the situation I would be ultimately to blame. That would be one more thing for which I would be accountable, and it would become item #3 in the list of concerns when I write my campaign statement.

Hey Peter, What do you think about a new bylaw that prohibits a person who resigns in mid-term from ever serving on the BOD again? I think it is a great idea.

I had some respect for you until this latest grandstanding. In your campaign you said you would not have sponsorship so it would make you impartial and not influenced by the disc makers. Now you want to quit and be re-elected so you can BREAK YOUR CAMPAIGN PROMISE? WIll that ease your conscience? If you don't have enough moral fiber to at least complete your term and follow through on your promises, maybe having sponsorship will be a factor that we should consider. I for one will not only vote against you, but i make sure to call shenanigans on you at every opportunity.

SHENANIGANS!!!!!!

Nice to see standing on principle gets you ridiculed. Hasn't the USPS's best message board denizen actively howled about people in PDGA power positions being sponsored, thus creating a hole where the sponsors can control the organization?

That said, there is a point to it. I think if you polled the membership (and not just those on this board), you'd find that it matters little whether a BoD member is sponsored or not.



Ka-Ching!

Why are such things so difficult to understand? Look, in many ways I dislike what Peter has done on the MB. On the other hand, he has obvious integrity and cares passionately about the sport. I'd rather he not run again, simply because I think it will cloudy what I think is an important election. On the other hand, I'd let him take sponsorship any time he wants.

BTW - If there is anyone out there that thinks Innova can't or doesn't influence this organization please leave now, you're in denial.

BTW - If there is anyone out there that thinks Innova can't or doesn't influence this organization please leave now, you're in denial.



Lyle,

I would not deny that Innova influences the organization but I would go further and state that Innova does not influence the PDGA any more than any other manufacturer. I personally speak with representatives of most of the major manufacturers from time to time and we do ask for their input and suggestions sometimes. The recent Technical Standards review is a good example as we sought input from every disc manufacturer in this process. I have heard people say that Innova unduly influences the PDGA and I can tell you in no uncertain terms that this is absolutley not true. I wouldn't have it and the Board members wouldn't have it! I have actually had more conversations and been offered much more input from the owners of Gateway and Quest since I became Executive Director than any of the other manufacturers. I gladly listen and value input from all of the manufacturers because they are in the best position to have their hand on the pulse of the sport and their insight is sometimes very valuable. That being said, we do not take everything the manufacturers tell us as gospel. We use their input along with lots of other information we gather to make decisions which we feel are in the best interest of the sport.

Regards,
Brian Graham
PDGA Executive Director

BTW - If there is anyone out there that thinks Innova can't or doesn't influence this organization please leave now, you're in denial.



Lyle,

I would not deny that Innova influences the organization but I would go further and state that Innova does not influence the PDGA any more than any other manufacturer. I personally speak with representatives of most of the major manufacturers from time to time and we do ask for their input and suggestions sometimes. The recent Technical Standards review is a good example as we sought input from every disc manufacturer in this process. I have heard people say that Innova unduly influences the PDGA and I can tell you in no uncertain terms that this is absolutley not true. I wouldn't have it and the Board members wouldn't have it! I have actually had more conversations and been offered much more input from the owners of Gateway and Quest since I became Executive Director than any of the other manufacturers. I gladly listen and value input from all of the manufacturers because they are in the best position to have their hand on the pulse of the sport and their insight is sometimes very valuable. That being said, we do not take everything the manufacturers tell us as gospel. We use their input along with lots of other information we gather to make decisions which we feel are in the best interest of the sport.

Regards,
Brian Graham
PDGA Executive Director



I should have been clearer. Thank you Brian!

Everyone,

I posted this comment elsewhere, but it is important enough that I want it on record on my own thread.

I voted in favor of the motion that requires the full Board to vote on material that would be made public. Here's why:

Although I ran on a platform of openness, there is some information that I personally feel should be confidential. This includes:
1) E-mail communications between Board members.
2) Conversations of Board members at Board meetings.
3) Identities of PDGA members who call posts to the attention of the monitors.
4) Conversations between the members of the moderating team.
5) Details of Disciplinary Committee deliberations.
6) Etc, etc.

Suppose that an individual Board member disagreed, and felt that some or all of the above information should be made public. I would not want that Board member to be able to release the information unilaterally. I would want the Board to be fully involved in the decision.

The protection works both ways. Suppose that I was the Board member who wanted to publicize such information. I should not be allowed to do it without Board permission.

A Board cannot function effectively if any of its members unilaterally take upon themselves powers that should be vested in the Board as a whole.

exactly why were you voting if you have resigned?

Thanks Peter! Your position on this is greatly appreciated. I am looking forward to voting for you in the next election.

Lyle

exactly why were you voting if you have resigned?



He hasn't. The following post was made by Peter Shive on 2/10/08 at 07:04 PM:


to the membership:

I have resigned from the PDGA Board of Directors effective August 31, 2008. I intend to run for the Board in the upcoming election. If elected there would be no interruption of my service, because Board terms begin September 1, 2008.

A Board cannot function effectively if any of its members unilaterally take upon themselves powers that should be vested in the Board as a whole.



Amen to that.

IMO, same goes for committees, group projects, management teams and so on. As a member of such a structure, you can't expect to always get your way. But as a member, you are expected to help promote and support the decisions reached and promote the overall cause. Fight, kick, scream, bang you hands on the desk or whatever during the debates if you feel you have to, but once the majority decision is reached you become a team player (regardless on what side of the vote you fell on) and help out as needed and expected. To not do so disrepects the majority rule process and the rest of the team members.

Added to this, it is also my opinion that during the process you don't take it upon yourself to breach confidences by leaking out select tidbits, details of personal conversations and so on in attempts to garner support for your viewpoint. The resulting distrust will render the group ineffective as members will no longer feel comfortable presenting thoughts or issues for consideration.

Thanks for sticking your neck out on this, Pete. Especially knowing the negative comments that were sure to follow.

A Board cannot function effectively if any of its members unilaterally take upon themselves powers that should be vested in the Board as a whole.



Amen to that.

IMO, same goes for committees, group projects, management teams and so on. As a member of such a structure, you can't expect to always get your way. But as a member, you are expected to help promote and support the decisions reached and promote the overall cause. Fight, kick, scream, bang you hands on the desk or whatever during the debates if you feel you have to, but once the majority decision is reached you become a team player (regardless on what side of the vote you fell on) and help out as needed and expected. To not do so disrepects the majority rule process and the rest of the team members.

Added to this, it is also my opinion that during the process you don't take it upon yourself to breach confidences by leaking out select tidbits, details of personal conversations and so on in attempts to garner support for your viewpoint. The resulting distrust will render the group ineffective as members will no longer feel comfortable presenting thoughts or issues for consideration.

Thanks for sticking your neck out on this, Pete. Especially knowing the negative comments that were sure to follow.



This is why I will be voting for kief in the next election. You are running for the board this cycle, right kief?

That's not something I'm comfortable discussing right now. My main concern besides the obvious (that there has to be more qualified and experienced people out there than me that would be better candidates) would be whether I could devote the necessary time that such a responsibility requires and deserves.

Peter, curious where you would stand on regular drug testing for PDGA employees and officials such as ED and BOD?

Also I would think background checks of those people before they were allowed to take postions of such great responsibility would be prudent. What do you think?

to Dick:

I would only be for it if I believed that PDGA employees and officials were handicapped by drug problems or by ethical lapses likely to be uncovered by background checks. I do not believe that, so I feel that such programs would be a waste of time and money.

Perhaps I am naive. If you believe that there are such problems, you should come forward with your concerns. The best way to do this would be to bring them to the attention of Board President Bob Decker ([email protected]) or some other Board Member you trusted.

Mr. Shive:

Does your ego have any limit?

If you spent your time being a leader, rather than playing mind games with yourself and the membership, maybe disc golf could advance from the depths of stagnant North American growth.

Maybe you ought to consider trying to inspire the membership with communication encouraging the members to grow the sport, rather than wasting time resigning so you can get the hollow thrill of winning another election.

Your folly only chases more potential members away. Censorship unrivaled in the free world, hiring lawyers to hide the financial documents from the members, and now, making a mockery of the pDGA by resigning and then running for election...what a record of accomplishment! Ed Headrick is rolling in his grave. It's a shame you continue to destroy his organization.

Sincerely,
Mike Kernan
#14304

YAWN

so you are condoning drug use by pdga officials as long as they aren't "handicapped by drug problems?

drug testing is very inexpensive these days. i think if the pdga is to send a message that they want to clean up the negative image and enforce 804.11b, then they should start at the top. how can players take such issues seriously when the board doesn't?

I seriously feel this issue is a problem if we ever want people to take us seriously.

and if you don't think drug use and the image it is creating is not a problem, you certainly are being naive.

i will bet you any amount of money you wish that if we tested the board and officials of the pdga tomorrow, there would be more than one failure. at the bare minimum any paid pdga employee should be tested.

and if you don't think drug use and the image it is creating is not a problem, you certainly are being naive.

i will bet you any amount of money you wish that if we tested the board and officials of the pdga tomorrow, there would be more than one failure. at the bare minimum any paid pdga employee should be tested.



Did you hear that many of the anti-depressants that are so commonly used in America are now turning up in the water supply? It turns out that if people don't use them, they toss them in the toilet. I wonder what else ends up in the toilet?

my game has been there many times....

Everyone,
Yesterday I asked that my name be removed from the PDGA ballot. I will no longer be a Board member after August 31.

Peter,

That is unfortunate.

I appreciate you taking the time to do this this past year.

Pete

from another thread (http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Cat=0&Board=OtherPDGATopics&Number=827424)

Peter wrote:
to Pat Brenner:

A month ago you announced, on another thread, that you would investigate charges that I have acted improperly as Communications Diredtor. I eagerly accepted your offer. Such investigation would 1) give recourse to offended parties, 2) allow me the chance to defend myself, and 3) satisfy the membership that justice had been done. So far we have heard nothing from you about this.

When one Board Member publically announces an investigation of another, something should happen. Obviously, the first step is to bring the matter to the attention of the Board, but you have not even done this. Perhaps you are pursuing your investigation in private. If so, I would object (as it is clearly a Board matter), but it would be better than nothing. However, I have not even heard from any private investigators.

Follow through on this, Pat. You would not have made the offer if you did not consider it a serious matter.


my reply was:


follow through on what Peter?

you mean stay on through my elected term?
or keep my name on the ballot after announcing my candidacy and submitting my paperwork for the election?

i'm not sure what kind of position you are in to demand that i follow through on something. however, if you can show me that post, i will be happy to do whatever it is i said i would do. following through is important, like you noted.

btw, i have not yet received the info from you about how to properly appeal your recent moderation decision to the next level. i'll look again in my email this evening. thanks in advance.


i am still waiting for your answers Peter. to the questions about what makes you think you can speak about "follow through", and also to the request for your help as CD in appealling the MB decision. i know you are not running for re-election anymore, so i am hoping you can carve some time out to address these.

many thanks

Peter,

you resigned because you felt the Members should reaffirm your Director-ship since you had sdecided to remain a sponsored player.

having sponsored players on the Board is something you spoke out against, or at least expressed a great deal of concern about.

having resigned because of the sponsorship reason and wishing to give the Members a voice on the issue, how do you feel that a sponsored player was selected by four Directors to replace you? it seems that not only were neither of your objectives met, but that the Board also completely rejected your wishes for Member input into the topic of sponsored players as directors.

do you still feel that sponsored players should not be Directors? if not, what convinced you to change your mind?

Pat - Come on, it is entirely obvious what Peter is saying. You made unsubstantiated charges and Peter Shive invited you to back them up. The fact that you haven't done so indicates that you aren't able to do so. Then you answer his legitimate request with bloviation about "follow through" !!!

I absolutely hate responding to the smear campaign(s) that you are waging because I'm afraid that any reply gives credence to your claims. But I can't read this any longer without commenting. I support Peter, Suzette, T Keiffer, Lyle, Chuck, Neil Webber, and all the others who have repeatedly spoken up about your badgering. Pat, ever since you announced that you were running for the board again, you've been at it with the nebulous charges, the smears, the veiled and not so veiled hypotheticals ...

Your comments stick "with the letter of the law" for the message and avoid obscenity and direct name-calling. Unfortunately for you, those comments also reveal a lot about you. It is difficult for me to imagine that you can function effectively as a member of our board of directors, given your public behavior here.

Post deleted by sandalman

It's also not ethical to carry on smear campaigns, Pat.

i know. thats one reason i object to being the target of them.

you resigned because you felt the Members should reaffirm your Director-ship since you had sdecided to remain a sponsored player. <font color="red"> No, I resigned because I planned to break what I considered to be an important campaign promise. It was a coincidence that it had to do with sponsorship. </font>

having sponsored players on the Board is something you spoke out against, or at least expressed a great deal of concern about. <font color="red"> I never spoke against it, or even expressed serious concern. I considered it to be a potential "secondary" COI, less important than that of people who sell discs directly. </font>

having resigned because of the sponsorship reason and wishing to give the Members a voice on the issue, how do you feel that a sponsored player was selected by four Directors to replace you? it seems that not only were neither of your objectives met, but that the Board also completely rejected your wishes for Member input into the topic of sponsored players as directors. <font color="red"> I fought hard and lost. It was a good fight and it was close. I was disappointed, just like I always am when I lose. But I don't live in the past and I don't have any hard feelings about it. The sun will still rise tomorrow. My gosh, Pat, it's high time to stop beating this dead horse. </font>

do you still feel that sponsored players should not be Directors? if not, what convinced you to change your mind? <font color="red"> I never felt that sponsored players should not be Directors. Remember, at one time I was planning to become a sponsored Director myself. </font>

Post deleted by sandalman

to Pat Brenner:

I took your request for information as a committment to collect data about my misdeeds as Communications Director, especially as you have so often before expressed concerns about my performance. I naturally expected that it would form the basis of an investigation. It was (and is) hard for me to imagine that you would just collect the information and sit on it. What a waste, and what a disappointment to your sources and to me. I fervently hoped you would investigate, because my best chance for exoneration would be to defend myself against you.

Alas, wishing cannot make it so. If you meant no promise, or even some slight intent to investigate, then I do sincerely apologize for assuming too much.

Post deleted by sandalman

Peter, you once wrote "My position is that Board members should not ask each other leading questions on the message board"

if you still feel that way, would you please refrain from doing so on the Pat Brenner thread? thank you in advance.

To Everyone:

I want to comment on my decision to withdraw from the current election, thus making my August 31 resignation irrevocable. I need to discount erroneous speculation, and also to reassure you that I made the correct decision.

The decision had nothing to do with my current challenge of Pat Brenner. At the time I withdrew I did not anticipate the need for the challenge. I regret having to do it, because it violates my own standards for the way in which Board Members should post on the discussion board. Also, the decision has nothing to do with any concerns about sponsorship, or conflicts of interest in the larger sense.

It was a very difficult decision. I submitted a platform statement and other campaign documents, and literally withdrew them at the last minute. There were several small reasons, and one large one. The large one was sufficient in itself.

My earlier decision to resign and run again caused consternation and dismay on the Board. I sacrificed a great deal of trust and credibility with fellow Board Members, and created a distraction that absorbed considerable Board time and energy. If I had followed through with a campaign, it would be very easy to impute cynical motives to my actions. As much as I might protest, I could never escape the cynicism, because the facts do bear that interpretation. I judged it unlikely that I could recover enough trust and credibility to be an effective Board Member.

There is a simpler way to put this. If I do something, I want to do it well. I do not believe that I am a good enough team player to make the kind of Board Member I wanted to be.

I still believe that I can contribute much to the sport and to the PDGA, and I hope to have the chance to do so. But I also believe that there are more effective ways for me to contribute than as a Board Member.

Yeah Peter Shive I know you have your detractors but you rule. Sometimes you CAN do more where you want to go. Commit yourself, and stay committed, and you definitely do that. Working outside but WITH the general good of the sport in mind is all that counts.

What's the best thing anyone can do for the sport? Start, maintain or improve a course, run a league, create and/or organize tags, run a store -- so I think capitalism helps, too, shoot me for being so obviously right -- show someone how to throw. Take a moment or a half hour even to show someone the right way to throw.

That person may go out and show others, who in turn may create a course near their houses, and the cycle accelerates. Way back when in New England there were very few of us disc golfers, and none of us had a clue.

Now so many people have a clue. The momentum will continue to grow the sport whatever our fearless leaders decide to do.

If they want my half of the Leicester vote, and maybe both halves though Stepford Steve is such a bad alcoholic he hasn't drunk for 20 years. He probably would have no problem with beer during rounds at C Tiers, as long as it wasn't in a bottle.

Aside from all that, the PDGA, with all its collective intelligence, compassion, and tolerance for weirdos, should grant my next year's Pyramids XX a special beer exemption. The last five Pyramids NEFA Points, the last two of which were Southern National Qualifiers, would have been PDGA if the PDGA had never been infiltrated with total goofballs.

I'm asking for a special goofball beer during rounds C Tier exemption, and I'm asking nicely. What can I say I like good phone manners and customer service. How else could I have gotten on this discussion page?

There may be a way on the way...

I have just finished reading this entire thread and all I can say is WOW!!!

This and many other threads only prove my belief that the "Disgusting Board" should be shut down.

Pete, I'm sorry that you have resigned.

For those of you that wish to flame me for my opinion about the "Disgusting Board" please feel free. However, if you argue with me it only means that you are wrong!!!

Kirk

^^^^^^^Thinks he knows more than everyone^^^^^^^

I know enough to realize that the vast majority of posts (including this one and the previous one) are a waste of bandwidth.

I'm sorry that your intelect failed to recognize the joke in the last sentence of my last post.

Kirk

I know enough to realize that the vast majority of posts (including this one and the previous one) are a waste of bandwidth.

I'm sorry that your intelect failed to recognize the joke in the last sentence of my last post.

Kirk



Joke taken joke given :D

Early this month the PDGA posted the new standards for the 2009 National Tour on this site. The big changes are 1) that the NT will be Open-only (men and women), 2) that the local clubs must add at least $8000 to the purse, and 3) that the PDGA stipend to the clubs will be determined by the Board of Directors. That last provision is quite surprising, given the fact that the Board of Directors was not even asked to approve these new and sweeping changes in the NT protocols.

One attitude is that changes like this are required to help the NT fulfill its destiny. There is a counterview, however, given the fact that Open players make up about one eighth of the PDGA membership. It is that the National Tour is a program in which the PDGA bribes local clubs to screw the majority of its own club members plus seven-eighths of the PDGA membership.

Even before this, Open players enjoyed an enormous financial advantage over the rest of us. Look at the detailed budget for 2008, which is posted on this site. After meeting its administrative obligations, the PDGA has on the order of $100K of discretionary funds (direct costs). Look at how this is allocated toward the three main member groups -- Open pros, age-protected pros and amateurs. My accounting shows that about $90,000 of this goes to programs exclusively or primarily for Open players. The other $10,000 is split fairly evenly between the other seven-eighths of the membership. There is a time disparity as well. PDGA staff members spend a considerable amount of time (plus travel costs) on-site, helping disc golf companies run tournaments for Open players in the US, Japan and Europe.

I would not mind such great prosperity for Open players if it was accompanied by some significant advances for amateur and age-protected players. I argued consistently for this as a Board member, and proposed one such modest program. I utterly failed. And so the one-eighth of us continues to gain, while the seven-eighths loses.

Given the current PDGA structure, no other result is possible. This spring the PDGA formed the NT Committee, which directly argues for the interests of the Open players. None of the other groups has this kind of representation. The NT Committee has the kind of power that all committees dream of. The Board of Directors never approved the NT agreement that is posted on the PDGA website. Some of the provisions in that agreement had never even been seen by the Board. The NT Committee creates policy, and then enacts it on its own.

And so the PDGA has become a goose that lays golden eggs for Open players.

Given the status quo - that allows players that by all accounts should be playing in the open division (and by that I mean more than 1/2 of the MPM division, and every MA1 player rated over about 930) to enjoy a protected status - and to continually reap rewards inequitably in relation to MPO players who shoot the exact same scores (week in and week out) - I find your evaluation to grossly misrepresent reality and to be incredibly biased towards your own personal favor. Put all the players that should already be playing together that are not IN A PROPERLY STRUCTURED DIVISION - and I would venture to guess that it would be significantly greater than 1/8 the membership.

As a Board member who advocated age protection, ratings protection, etc - you are part of the group who would relegate the top 1/8 of the membership to a division of isolation - and now you have the nerve to say that supporting that group is screwing the rest of the membership? It is attitudes like that which are part and parcel of the current environment of "us and them" thinking - that ultimately are a detriment to the entire organization. Get over yourself.

If the PDGA is indeed intent on promoting "COMPETITION" - it should do so for the most skilled players first, and PROTECTED players second.

There is a counterview, however, given the fact that Open players make up about one eighth of the PDGA membership. It is that the National Tour is a program in which the PDGA bribes local clubs to screw the majority of its own club members plus seven-eighths of the PDGA membership.




Huh? A local club makes their own decisions, using their own processes. If any demographic within the club gets "screwed," then it would reflect on the club's decision-making process. It is no reflection on the PDGA.

Additionally, it appears to me at least, that by requiring the club to put up more money, with a discretionary add on by the PDGA, that the PDGA is saying "we are reducing our role is subsidizing NTs." I may be wrong, but if not, it sounds like the PDGA is moving away from serving the 1/8th, as you suggest.

At any rate, kudos to the committee for trying to promote our sport's best. They deserve it, as the system works against them rather than laying golden eggs for them as you state.

Think about this for a second: if the system really did badly sway towards the open player's favor, why are there so few open players?

Given the status quo - that allows players that by all accounts should be playing in the open division (and by that I mean more than 1/2 of the MPM division, and every MA1 player rated over about 930) to enjoy a protected status - and to continually reap rewards inequitably in relation to MPO players who shoot the exact same scores (week in and week out) - I find your evaluation to grossly misrepresent reality and to be incredibly biased towards your own personal favor. Put all the players that should already be playing together that are not IN A PROPERLY STRUCTURED DIVISION - and I would venture to guess that it would be significantly greater than 1/8 the membership.

As a Board member who advocated age protection, ratings protection, etc - you are part of the group who would relegate the top 1/8 of the membership to a division of isolation - and now you have the nerve to say that supporting that group is screwing the rest of the membership? It is attitudes like that which are part and parcel of the current environment of "us and them" thinking - that ultimately are a detriment to the entire organization. Get over yourself.

If the PDGA is indeed intent on promoting "COMPETITION" - it should do so for the most skilled players first, and PROTECTED players second.



Ah yes! The "they should be playing there, therefore let's push them there or act like they're there" argument.

What about majority rule is it that we don't get? I've written about the same point Peter is making here on a number of occasions, that the PDGA isn't serving everyone equally. Now, in defense of the PDGA, they have a mandate. The membership was polled some years ago and the membership voted that the PDGA should grow the Pro aspect of the game. Until the question gets re-asked of the membership, the Board is doing what they've been told. On the other hand, the question was last asked before 2000...

I suspect that if this question is re-asked we will get the same answer. Here's why. For a TD, there is little value in running a Pro event. It's hard work, the TD has to bring money in, and a strictly am event would be a money making venture (see Bruce B's take on this). Yet TDs insist on throwing Pro events. Whether it is ego, altruism, divine intervention, or insanity, there is a huge grass roots drive to support the Pro event. This can't be ignored.

Peter, I understand what you are saying, but I cannot agree with you.
And until some organizational break (e.g., PDGA v. RDGA) occurs, Amateurs will always be supporting Pro players and NT events to some extent.

The NT needs to be elevated if this sport will ever break out of all the existing negative stereotypes and be considered truly PROfessional.

Lower divisions can still be a part of the NT excitement, as Article 3.01(b) states:
"TDs may run concurrent A-Tiers with Am and other Pro divisions."
In theory, everyone can benefit from this scenario.

However, Article 4.4.10 makes me laugh out loud:
"Players packages should be provided to each of the players."

So, we need to give Pros more exposure, more opportunity, more money, AND A FRICKIN' PLAYERS' PACK?!?!?!? That is just too silly to actually be included in official NT Standards.

[Ah yes! The "they should be playing there, therefore let's push them there or act like they're there" argument.





No Lyle - this is the argument that says don't use a flawed system as the basis for an argument. Bad math in, bad math out - simple as that.

alternatively, you could view all of the fundage generated by the tour's event fees as coming from the pro side. even if you take the salaries of those involved in running the tour, you'll see a 100K surplus generated from the tour. that 100K goes back into serving all of those interest groups that you say are not served, or underserved, now. and you want to punish the Open side - ultimately the group that makes event fees possible. i know that some of those fees are from "ams", but we need to understand that those fees are voluntary. the players seem to agree that those fees represent a fair value - therwise they would have revolted by now. the bottom line is you are criticizing a structure that is critical for keeping the organization alive. it is making an incredible contribution at the moment.

Steve Dodge and the NT Committee have crafted a plan that advances the NT Tour towards the ideal of a top level, top quality event series. having seen what Steve has helped pull off with the MSDGC and The Vibram, i am thrilled he is leading the way on the NT. his successes are well documented at the event level - and now we have asked him to move the NT series to the next level. i say based on the track record and the Commmittee recommendation we should provide the leeway they need.

besides all that.......... WHAT CRAIG SAID!



edit note: Brain emailed me to say that he had nothing to do with this plan and ask that i not attribute it to him. this post is edited to comply.

Peter,

Can you please fill us in on what your experiences are in trying to promote and deliver a high level tournament for your local club/course or town?

One attitude is that changes like this are required to help the NT fulfill its destiny.



Exactly. The National Tour was designed to showcase the very best players in our sport at about a dozen events each year.

There are literally hundreds of SuperTour 'A' tier, 'B' tier, and 'C' tier events year round for age-protected players and amateurs.

Did anybody forget that this is the
" PROFESSIONAL disc golf association "

sit back , relax , let that concept come to a boil, reduce heat , and simmer for half an hour .....


Threads like this remind me why I stopped wasting so much time on the MB....

Remember boys and girls , nobody ever said life was fair.

Poor Easy Money Shive is not getting his cut by hiding in a super-protected division. I, for one, feel so sorry for you. I mean, why shouldn't you get your cut by hiding from the "top" players. Last time I checked, the PDGA was not a federal welfare program.
Easy Money,
If you want the top money, play against the top players. If you hide from them, prepare to be paid less. I don't see 80 year old pro ball-golfers complain that the top money goes to the PDGA tour and not the senior or amateur tours. The PDGA should put more money into the Open divisions, not less. You are lucky that any added cash goes to protected divisions. Don't look a gift-horse in the mouth, Easy Money.

Poor Easy Money Shive is not getting his cut by hiding in a super-protected division. I, for one, feel so sorry for you. I mean, why shouldn't you get your cut by hiding from the "top" players. Last time I checked, the PDGA was not a federal welfare program.
Easy Money,
If you want the top money, play against the top players. If you hide from them, prepare to be paid less. I don't see 80 year old pro ball-golfers complain that the top money goes to the PDGA tour and not the senior or amateur tours. The PDGA should put more money into the Open divisions, not less. You are lucky that any added cash goes to protected divisions. Don't look a gift-horse in the mouth, Easy Money.



beautiful post.