Pat, why does the BoD make decisions, then a month later, announce half of the decision, let people debate it on the message board, and then decide if it was a good idea or not?
Thanks.

well, it apparently HAS resulted in a reevaluation of the names of the ratings ranges, so maybe some of that is a good thing :).

Would this be a better situation:
1) Propose change
2) Debate in public (MB)
3) Get input and data
4) Debate in private sessions
5) Decide if it is a good thing
6) Vote on it

It seems as if the current method is bass-ackwards.

That was exactly the plan for the competition changes planned for 2008. Hammer out a rough draft of the changes during the spring. Present it to the Board for approval to circulate by early summer. Get feedback and do tweaks for final approval at Fall Summit. Publish final guidelines for 2008 by now.

However, the Board approval got delayed which is common for getting anything approved from June thru August during the peak competition season with several major events and staff traveling to support them. In addition, our election cycle makes retiring Board members reluctant to approve something for the incoming Board during this time frame. So we ended up with very little time from late August to the Summit to get feedback on the proposed guidelines. It wasn't for lack of effort to finally try and get on top of this for the first time.

colin, a lot of things get debated here and other places before the BoD deliberates. it might seem like the online debate occurs afterwards, but that can also be because we dont turn off the threads even after an issue is voted. (not that i'd want to)

for example, the temp fee increase was debated at least indirectly before the BoD voted.

in an ideal world (at least my ideal world), almost every issue would be vetted to the members before a decision, using all available communications mediums. that doesnt mean giving a small subset of the membership veto rights... just encouraging more feedback and input during the discussion phase.

in all fairness, i think we are progressing towards that objective. hopefully it will continue after next August 30.

Pat, in your honest opinion, knowing what you know:
If the decision to raise the non-member fee were voted on by every member of the PDGA, what would you think the percentages would be? (**I understand that this is probably a dumb practical question but it will help us get an insight into your perception of the membership.)

Would this be a better situation:
1) Propose change
2) Debate in public (MB)
3) Get input and data
4) Debate in private sessions
5) Decide if it is a good thing
6) Vote on it

It seems as if the current method is bass-ackwards.



Oh my Carl Sagan! A logical progression through an issue. There is one problem, and that is managing public input. There can be a bias. Still, mikey thinks he likes it.

Would this be a better situation:
1) Propose change
2) Debate in public (MB)
3) Get input and data
4) Debate in private sessions
5) Decide if it is a good thing
6) Vote on it

It seems as if the current method is bass-ackwards.



Oh my Carl Sagan! A logical progression through an issue. There is one problem, and that is managing public input. There can be a bias. Still, mikey thinks he likes it.


That's why I threw in "get data". That would avoid, or at least point out, bias in opinionated discussions.

Pat, in your honest opinion, knowing what you know:
If the decision to raise the non-member fee were voted on by every member of the PDGA, what would you think the percentages would be? (**I understand that this is probably a dumb practical question but it will help us get an insight into your perception of the membership.)



What do think the opinion of the majority of the membership would be to raising a fee that they don't have to pay ?

What do you think the opinion of the majority of the membership would be to making non-members that play more events a year than many members to having them pay a more equitable price ?

Well, if player's are lost due to this decision, then payouts will be affected. And since we are talking about lower level players and most TDs get their added cash from merching these lower Ams, it affects pro payouts. Do you honestly believe the entire membership is united on the idea of raising the non-member fee, even if it has a negative effect on a large percentage of sanctioned events nationwide?

Pat, in your honest opinion, knowing what you know:
If the decision to raise the non-member fee were voted on by every member of the PDGA, what would you think the percentages would be? (**I understand that this is probably a dumb practical question but it will help us get an insight into your perception of the membership.)

wow, there's no way any guess i make (or anyone makes for that matter) would be based on any real numbers... ... a lot depends on how the wording goes also... ... you can jerk responses around by placing the position you favor as the first answer for example... ... i could probably construct a survey that wold get you whatever result you wanted, while appearing unbiased :)

since the BoD voted 5-2, if you wanted me to hazard a guess, i would probably guess that between 60% and 70% of the Membership would vote to increase the fee. based on nothing more than thats the same percentage of the BOD that voted it in and the Membership usually goes along with BoD decisions. but this is soooooo very hypothetical

gary's point is well taken also. why would Members care what non-Members need to pay? events are generally as full or more full than ever. the product (events) is being consumed as fast as it is produced. that condition creates pressure for price increases. not raising prices would be a highly strategic decision. its extremely difficult to achieve consensus on strategy decisions due to their nature. raising the fee is easier because it follows simple supply-demand economics

Thanks, Pat.

Mr. B,
Recently the PDGA put out a call for volunteers. I'd really like to help out, but I just can't seem to bring myself to volunteer for an organization that won't let members in good standing like myself see their books. Didn't you say you would get the PDGA books open to members, or was that another empty promise from a director? When did you sell your soul and how little did you get for it anyway?

If I volunteer, could I see the books? I think even Terry would go for that. Funny how next to Bush, Clinton looks like a good president, the same way Terry looks now :eek:

Oh yeah, thanks for protecting freedom of speech too

NOT

i said i would try, which i have. your argument is not with me individually, but with the larger group of association leadership. we will be introducing motions to open things up, but quite frankly they do not yet have enough support to get them past the BoD. you can beat me up for failing if you wish, but i am trying.

as far as freedom of speech goes, i recognize the value in having some rules here. if you think that means i am against FOS, then i'll have to be ok with that. there's bigger things to worry about than protecting a poster who links to porn.

[post deleted due to offensive content]

Ransom,

I take exception to your assertion that the PDGA's "bank accounts are being looted by the staff". You might want to read the following article on internet chatroom libel and the potential consequences for such actions before making unfounded posts like this in the future.

http://www.sgrlaw.com/resources/trust_the_leaders/leaders_issues/688/861/

I respectfully request that you please retract your defamatory statement.

FYI: The PDGA underwent an independent audit last year which showed that the organization is very healthy and that there was nothing out of line with the finances. We also have an audit budgeted for the 2007 finances.

Regards,
Brian Graham
PDGA Executive Director

Pat, not sure if this thought has ever been brought up, looked into or anything, but from a business and organization point it may be both advatageous and beneficial.

Since AM payouts are always for Merch, what if the PDGA supported the AM payouts more by opening a MERCH PAYOUT CENTER. Here's my thoughts:

The PDGA Sponsors ALL events with MERCH payouts. The TD's use a set %payout formula based on numbers and fees etc.

The PDGA opens a online gallery store, using code based coupons tied to each event and TD. And then the players go online to choose tere plastic, bags what not. Merch credit could be redemed as it was gotten or stored untill the players had ebough to get what they wanted to. The benefit would be that all money would stay within the PDGA and probably the PDGA would increase profit from this method. Not sure if this idea has enough merit, but I think it could be a huge benefit to TD's and PDGA.

the idea of centralized prize fulfillment via an online source is a great one. i do not fel the pdga shoud do it though. a better role for the long run would be to develop and encourage the use of data exchange standards so that events, tds, online dealers, and the pdga could keep their databases in synch and provide this type of service. this would allow -any- interested online dealer to play in the prize fulfillment game. in my opinion, the pdga serves the sport better by enabling more vendors to create more services than it does by competing for the profits from those services.

Mr. Graham:

When you post a link that you think proves that someone has committed libel, you might want to try reading the whole link before you conclude that someone is guilty of libel. About halfway down you'll read "A closely divided Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals with a decision that is extremely favorable for internet free speech"!!!! No wonder so many people get banned or disciplined around here, when our ED obviously doesn't have a clue about what free speech means!!! Please Mr. Graham, do a thorough read of that very link you just posted and then, make all your moderators read it in its entirety as well, then maybe we'll have something resembling a decent message board around these parts, when they realize the Supreme Court is still on the side of protected free speech despite the President's attempts to destroy our constitution. QUIT LIVING IN THE 50's...the 1750's that is!

Also, I didn't say the PDGA's bank accounts were being looted by the staff. I said "our" bank accounts. There is a difference, however, it's no surprise that it's lost on folks who are doing everything they can to kill even the mildest, comical disagreement with those who take trips overseas and then can't even tell us what the International PDGA program is all about. Say, how was Sweden by the way Mr. Graham? How did the PDGA benefit?

SEE YOU AT BUD HILL!!! NOPE IT AINT PDGA SANCTIONED!!!!

Mr. Graham:

When you post a link that you think proves that someone has committed libel, you might want to try reading the whole link before you conclude that someone is guilty of libel. About halfway down you'll read "A closely divided Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals with a decision that is extremely favorable for internet free speech"!!!! No wonder so many people get banned or disciplined around here, when our ED obviously doesn't have a clue about what free speech means!!! Please Mr. Graham, do a thorough read of that very link you just posted and then, make all your moderators read it in its entirety as well, then maybe we'll have something resembling a decent message board around these parts, when they realize the Supreme Court is still on the side of protected free speech despite the President's attempts to destroy our constitution. QUIT LIVING IN THE 50's...the 1750's that is!

Also, I didn't say the PDGA's bank accounts were being looted by the staff. I said "our" bank accounts. There is a difference, however, it's no surprise that it's lost on folks who are doing everything they can to kill even the mildest, comical disagreement with those who take trips overseas and then can't even tell us what the International PDGA program is all about. Say, how was Sweden by the way Mr. Graham? How did the PDGA benefit?

SEE YOU AT BUD HILL!!! NOPE IT AINT PDGA SANCTIONED!!!!



Oh Hi Mikey,

I thought you were suspended from posting on the discussion board. Please give Ransom Jones my best and tell him that he really should be more careful who he lets post on his account.

I have never been to Sweden, however I hear it is very nice and I would love to visit there one day. Maybe you are thinking of Finland, where I traveled this year on behalf of the PDGA. It was a very fruitful trip. I had the opportunity to meet with all of the PDGA representatives of the European countries as well as the directors of the PDGA Major events. Disc Golf is really growing fast over there. They experienced a 50% increase in PDGA members in 2007 and doubled the number of sanctioned events over last year. I was very impressed with the European Open and the Presidents Cup matches, both of which I had the honor of attending.

Sorry but I will not be able to make it to Bud Hill this year although I had hoped to attend. I do want to talk with the Southern Nationals players to see how we might be able to improve the relationship between the two organizations.

I heard you were getting married. Please tell the future Mrs. Kernan that I said congratulations!

Regards,
Brian Graham
PDGA Executive Director

It's called cut and paste from an e-mail. WOW what a concept. That's even legal in this communistic neck of the woods. It'll take more than some half-baked link to a post that defends the right of free speech for you to kill it Brian, although your determination is quite impressive. Too bad y'all can't work as hard at recruiting new members and retaining the old ones!!!

Mikey did say he would work for y'all for FREE if he could just know how much the PDGA paid to fly to you Finland. And Gentry to Japan, and Guru to Sweden, and Addie to wherever she's going with our $75 and rising membership dues...

Well i guess i better go before I get sued and the PDGA has to pay my attorney's fees when they lose.

Hey Pat, could you do something about Graham threatening me and calling me a dirty name? Maybe you could send him to teh same anger management class as the last ED
:)

how come you dont accept PMs?

Brian Graham said

This proposed system will be optional and tournament directors will have the choice to use any provider they wish to handle their registration.




That's true, but unless I read it wrong, it's optional to use their service, meaning that TDs are not required to use them to run a sanctioned event. But, if you want the link straight from the tournament schedule... then there's only one choice: the "preferred" vendor. Please correct me if I'm wrong, I hate to get upset over a misunderstanding :)

BTW, sandals... I tried to offer that very technology to the PDGA. I even had a few of my fellow DG web developers on board to help make it happen free of charge. The PDGA stopped responding to my emails.


BoD member Pat Brenner:

since I can't get a response on my thread, what can you as a BoD member do to help me get resolution to my concern? I honestly believe the PDGA is making a decision that hurts one of the industries that has been supporting their events for years, simply to make a few easy bucks from an audience they have the singular privilege of holding captive. This is a serious issue affecting not only me but anyone who wants to compete in this industry. It's anti-competitive and downright dishonest... yet the PDGA has made this under-the-table deal without accepting bids or hearing the opinions of the people it affects. If anything deserves public discussion, I think this does.

Perhaps it's a bit self-serving and I can't deny that... but is there any chance of the PDGA actually giving a valid reason for this move?

Pat, not sure if this thought has ever been brought up, looked into or anything, but from a business and organization point it may be both advatageous and beneficial.

Since AM payouts are always for Merch, what if the PDGA supported the AM payouts more by opening a MERCH PAYOUT CENTER. Here's my thoughts:

The PDGA Sponsors ALL events with MERCH payouts. The TD's use a set %payout formula based on numbers and fees etc.

The PDGA opens a online gallery store, using code based coupons tied to each event and TD. And then the players go online to choose tere plastic, bags what not. Merch credit could be redemed as it was gotten or stored untill the players had ebough to get what they wanted to. The benefit would be that all money would stay within the PDGA and probably the PDGA would increase profit from this method. Not sure if this idea has enough merit, but I think it could be a huge benefit to TD's and PDGA.


This is something that I've had in the works for a couple of years now and will be implementing this coming year. Pat and I have even talked about it on a couple of occasions and we share a lot of the same ideas. Like Pat said though, having the PDGA do it themselves isn't a very good idea... just like having them pick one online registration source to be their official vendor is a terrible idea... but I digress.

josh,

the validity of a reason is highly subjective of course. the chance of the PDGA providing a valid reason is the same as the chance of finding one.

my wish is that the association would become an enabler, not a vendor. especially when there's already at least six qualified vendors in the space already (but even if theres not)

that is my wish as well... but should the PDGA not address the concerns of (at least a few of) its members that this choice is anti-competitive, thus hurting the industry as a whole?

address it how? as an organization, the PDGA believes its path is the better way. i'm not even sure this/our line of reasoning is even accepted as making sense.

how? I dunno... any attempt would be better than none, I suppose. Can you imagine the lawsuit that would arise if the PDGA suddenly decided to start manufacturing golf discs and only approving these new "Official PDGA discs" for use in their tournaments?

this reminds me a bit of Microsoft's struggles with the government... they ruled that Microsoft could not give away copies of Office on personal computers because it harmed the revenue-generating abilities of its competitors. The PDGA has essentially decided to become a competitor in the online registration market. As the world's biggest sanctioning body for this sport, it's not hard to draw a parallel between this and the Microsoft case. Recently in TX (okay, a few years ago), TXU Energy was required to split the energy producing piece of its business from the energy delivery piece. they had too much of a monopoly because they owned both ends of the business. Consumers technically had a choice... but it wasn't a valid choice.

If the PDGA moves forward with this idea, they are essentially becoming the source and the provider. they control which events get put on the list and therefore cannot control who profits from them, lest they be declared a monopoly and therefore anti-competitive.

Maybe you haven't noticed, but the PDGA is not a monopoly (think NEFA and SN). I think the PDGA is doing the right thing by providing this service. One of the things that the PDGA has been criticized for doing is not providing enough benefits for many tournaments to justify becoming sanctioned. The PDGA should provide basic benefits like this for those TDs that write a $500+ check to the PDGA each time they run a sanctioned tournament.

i think the point is that the pdga could broaden the offering and let all the vendors work to provide the service, rather than develop a proprietary service in partnership with a single vendor.

that is exactly the point. The pdga, as part of their services, should make their wealth of data and resources available to vendors that serve the sport. Not just online registration, but all sorts of web sites surrounding disc golf could make good use of the ratings and membership information that the PDGA keeps under wraps, at least in raw form. Not only would this benefit the players and the business owners, but it would benefit the PDGA as well. Any development effort put into integrating with pdga.com further ties that business to the pdga and strengthens their importance to the community. It would be a win-win... but instead they are closing the doors even harder and turning their backs on businesses like titleDISC that have promoted PDGA events (at no cost to the PDGA) for years.

LOL...you're about as credible as flip-flop mitt romney

http://blamebush.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/mittler.jpg

must be great to be able to pass the buck like that while our bank accounts get looted by the staff!



That's cold! I would call my worst enemy Mitt R.

Personnel 2006: $224,746 2007: $319,934 - 5 full time office staff including Exec Director overlap 4-5/07, 4 consultants, employer taxes, health insurance, workmen's compensation,


Pat, what is the justification in an increase of ~$95,000 for personnel? Do we need 4 annual consultants for an organization of this size? What are the 4 consultants for?

do we need? we need those roles/duties filled, yes. to me the question is more of a "are we getting a reasonable return" for the money spent. i think in 2007 they would have been talking about Tour Consultant, International Director, MarketingDirector and Special Projects Director. the BoD does look at consultant/director expenses, and this BoD seems a bit more discerning than previous ones.

Personnel 2006: $224,746 2007: $319,934 - 5 full time office staff including Exec Director overlap 4-5/07, 4 consultants, employer taxes, health insurance, workmen's compensation,


Pat, what is the justification in an increase of ~$95,000 for personnel? Do we need 4 annual consultants for an organization of this size? What are the 4 consultants for?



Let's just take the 5 full time employees why don't we. 320/5 = $64,000 pay. Not bad. Oh but wait, that includes insurance, taxes, and whatever goes to the consultants. So just how much are we paying Brian G and his staff? Doodly relatively speaking.

I'm always amazed at how people can condemn others whom make relatively little compared to others in their field. Please don't come to me with the I don't make anything post, if you had the competence and experience, you'd be being criticized here instead of our staff. Remember that the jobs being done here are fairly complex and technical, and in a business environment would result in significantly higher pay. That is, these guys are taking it on the chin for this sport and they have to listen to this kind of garbage.

Gee, I wonder why Pat couldn't figure this out?

Lyle, I didn't criticize anyone. I just asked a question. I find it odd that we need 4 annual "consultants". Consultation, in my mind, should not be an annual, recurring cost. It should be short term and definative, with conclusive results (one way or another). If it is a salaried employee, that's one thing. If it's a consultant, that's another thing, and should be reviewed over what we are getting for our "consulting".
However, I have no real world business experience. I have done many case studies of successful and unsuccessful entrepreneurs, start-ups, and large corporations in technical fields.

Lyle, I didn't criticize anyone. I just asked a question. I find it odd that we need 4 annual "consultants". Consultation, in my mind, should not be an annual, recurring cost. It should be short term and definative, with conclusive results (one way or another). If it is a salaried employee, that's one thing. If it's a consultant, that's another thing, and should be reviewed over what we are getting for our "consulting".
However, I have no real world business experience. I have done many case studies of successful and unsuccessful entrepreneurs, start-ups, and
large corporations in technical fields.




Hmmmmmm, good point Colin. I don't admit to know what the consultants do, but your point seems good to me.

Pat, what's the pull on the consultants or is that confidential?

BTW - you're correct, you did not criticize, my bad.

consultants are used for some activities that would not consume the fulltime efforts of a staff member but that need some sort of specific skills and experience. they can also be used to handle short term ad hoc tasks. consultants can be a lot cheaper and offer us more flexibility than additional employees.

i dont know what lyle means by "whats the pull on the consultants"... but if you are asking about how much each one makes, yes thats confidential. or at least its supposed to be. i had two pro players come up to me at the VPO this weekend and tell me the precise numbers that we are discussing for next year's budget, so someone is talking.

consultants are used for some activities that would not consume the fulltime efforts of a staff member but that need some sort of specific skills and experience. they can also be used to handle short term ad hoc tasks. consultants can be a lot cheaper and offer us more flexibility than additional employees.

i dont know what lyle means by "whats the pull on the consultants"... but if you are asking about how much each one makes, yes thats confidential. or at least its supposed to be. i had two pro players come up to me at the VPO this weekend and tell me the precise numbers that we are discussing for next year's budget, so someone is talking.



Sorry Pat,

I should have been clearer.

What jobs are they doing? That is, if you have "full time consultants" what is that they are doing. Colin's view of consulting notwithstanding, some companies do essentially have full time consultants. My observation is that typically, that is a bad deal. However, given the relationship the PDGA has with their consultants, I doubt if it's a huge money outlay. Still, I'm curious to know what their functions for the org are.

the best list of these duties would probably come from the Staff. contracts specify the specifics, and are between the ED and the contractor. most of these activities have to do with day to day functioning and are not micromanaged by the BoD. (usually :) )

the best list of these duties would probably come from the Staff. contracts specify the specifics, and are between the ED and the contractor. most of these activities have to do with day to day functioning and are not micromanaged by the BoD. (usually :) )



Then of course, there are those board members that would rather just publish all of the financial details to all of the members, and let them micromanage the staff... :eek:

Theo,

In a situation like the one we have (a Board elected by the membership), is it not proper for that Board - now being fully vested with the power it has BECAUSE they have been voted in - to use that power for the good of the membership BUT be accountable to that membership IF they don't do a satisfactory job? As a member of the membership, how can I judge if a Board member is doing a good job without knowing - amongst other things - how they are spending MY money (because the PDGA is, at least in part, run by membership dues)? I would say that if a Board member votes for NOT divulging the financials - THAT would be grounds enough for NOT getting my vote come next election! YOU wouldn't write a blank check to someone you hardly know, would you?

Karl

The PDGA is a private organization. Private organizations have (usually) boards of directors that are elected or appointed, and are delegated the responsibility of managing the organization's finance and business. Most private organizations do not share financial details, other than summaries and tax reports, to their shareholders (or in the case of the PDGA, the members).

If I am an investor in, or a member of a private organization, I am delegating the authority and responsibility of the details of business and financial management to the Board and staff. I don't expect to be able to dig into the details if I decide I'm interested in it. I'm not entitled to that level of information.

There are those that believe that every transaction of the organization should be discoverable by any member/shareholder. I'm not one of them.

We're not a public entity. So we have to base our evaluation of performance on results, not analyzing the process and details of how we got those results. If you want that information, either get on the inside, or focus on public organizations that are required to share more details than the PDGA.

And yes, I regularly write checks or make investments in organizations where I am not privy to the details on how the money is spent. Sure, I get high-level financial reports and tax filings, but I can't get details about transactions, salaries, etc. The PDGA will likely offer a more detailed summary of financial spending, once the appropriate reporting tools are in place and operational, but I hope they never feel obligated to open up the books to any member that wants to review them.

-Theo

Theo,

Thanks for taking the time to respond. Although I don't agree with your stance (on this topic) I do understand it. In addition, your clarification of the PDGA being "private" (and all that goes along with private companies - having been in corporate business for 28+ years) is "eye opening"...and something I believe most people don't realize - and certainly don't expect / want.

As for the last half of your last paragraph...

"The PDGA will likely offer a more detailed summary of financial spending, once the appropriate reporting tools are in place and operational, but I hope they never feel obligated to open up the books to any member that wants to review them."

...wishfull thinking, but it's been my experience that as any organization grows, it is LESS likely that such will happen [offer a more detailed summary of financial spending]; it's much easier to "hide" amongst all the red tape. I personally HOPE they WOULD open up the books.

We have a chance to be BETTER than (the US) government - in all it's forms (state, local, federal)...which all seem to be so "secretive" and corrupt. If we TRULY want an establishment (the PDGA) that is FOR THE PLAYERS, and we are not trying to benefit (ourselves) from it, why not divulge all and "let our stance be judged by whom placed us in power"?

Karl

Theo,

there once was a rule that Admin accounts would not be used for posting anything other than admin stuff.

please conform by using a non-Admin account for future posts.

if you need help creating a second account, contact me by email and i will guide you through it.

best regards,

pat

Karl, being BETTER is the only way to go, you hit the nail on the head. it is baffling to hear so many who claim the leadership mantle arguing so strenuously in favor of mediocrity.

There are many public and private companies that strive to be better. You rarely hear full public financial disclosure as one of those items, even by those business experts who study and advise on those matters. If the PDGA were a true monopoly such that no other competing organization could possibly start up or expand to rival the PDGA, it might make sense. But that's not the case as evidenced by alternative local, regional and international orgs who perform some of the functions handled by the PDGA.

The PDGA does have some "trade secrets" in terms of how cost effectively certain tasks are handled and has just basic personnel issues that involve personal privacy. When I worked in a corporate world, I might have wanted to know what my coworkers make but agree that it probably wasn't in the best interests of all of us in terms of human nature and jealousies. No one except competitors would be lobbying Innova, DGA or Discraft for full public disclosure, so I don't understand the drive by some for the PDGA to do the same.

I certainly would have no problem with it and might want to know more than I do out of natural curiosity. But things like Brian's trip to Finland and Dave's to Japan obviously cost money and it's not like these activities can be hidden. They need to be explained as Brian has done on a benefits basis. And the org is fully audited by outsiders every so often so that can uncover any inappropriate financial activities.

Theo,

Thanks for taking the time to respond. Although I don't agree with your stance (on this topic) I do understand it. In addition, your clarification of the PDGA being "private" (and all that goes along with private companies - having been in corporate business for 28+ years) is "eye opening"...and something I believe most people don't realize - and certainly don't expect / want.

As for the last half of your last paragraph...

"The PDGA will likely offer a more detailed summary of financial spending, once the appropriate reporting tools are in place and operational, but I hope they never feel obligated to open up the books to any member that wants to review them."

...wishfull thinking, but it's been my experience that as any organization grows, it is LESS likely that such will happen [offer a more detailed summary of financial spending]; it's much easier to "hide" amongst all the red tape. I personally HOPE they WOULD open up the books.

We have a chance to be BETTER than (the US) government - in all it's forms (state, local, federal)...which all seem to be so "secretive" and corrupt. If we TRULY want an establishment (the PDGA) that is FOR THE PLAYERS, and we are not trying to benefit (ourselves) from it, why not divulge all and "let our stance be judged by whom placed us in power"?

Karl



Your assumption of corruptness is interesting. I've worked for a small private company for years and deal with many small private companies. In general, I see a whole lot less corruptness in those companies than in the supposedly more open public companies. Even those companies don't publish the level of detail you're discussing.

BTW - the secretive and corrupt mantle in government is one of public perception and has only really born fruit during the Bush Administration. In general, our government is incredibly open. I work in the insurance industry and I promise you that on the State and Federal level they are almost too open thus slowing down the process. Each decision is openly discussed allowing public input and commentary and is published openly.

Most public perception that the government is secretive is based on the clear fact that the public is lazy and more interested in T.V. than what the government is doing. This is true even for the Bush Administration.

It is also true for the PDGA. The assertion of some that the PDGA is secretive and hiding things is based more on their need for power and the use of that tactic to throw other Board member's actions into doubt. Rather than tell the truth, that the PDGA is rather open and that their actions are normal and descriptions of them are quite readily available in more than one venue, they hint around that we're being misled or lied to. It's a little political power game they play.

So Karl, before judging and commenting, start by taking the time to peruse both this web site and past copies of DGWN (and hopefully future copies of the Flying Disc Dog Magazine that is now going to represent us) to get good descriptions of the Board and ED's actions.

Karl, being BETTER is the only way to go, you hit the nail on the head. it is baffling to hear so many who claim the leadership mantle arguing so strenuously in favor of mediocrity.



Well the answer is simple, don't do it if you don't like it.

Theo,

there once was a rule that Admin accounts would not be used for posting anything other than admin stuff.

please conform by using a non-Admin account for future posts.

if you need help creating a second account, contact me by email and i will guide you through it.

best regards,

pat



Bad Theo, Bad Theo. Does your mama know you did this? I bet you put your feet on the couch too.

that'd be funny, cept that the all admin accounts in the past have been subject to the same rules. remember mine? both you and theo were one of the folks who requested i refrain from posting from my admin account. its common internet courtesy.

that'd be funny, cept that the all admin accounts in the past have been subject to the same rules. remember mine? both you and theo were one of the folks who requested i refrain from posting from my admin account. its common internet courtesy.



Like I said, he probably puts his feet on the couch too.

BTW - I need to create a new posting account and I have no idea how to proceed. While this is in incredibly simple task that any person should be able to figure out, I've forgotten how. Do you think you could walk me through it?

Thanks in advance!

absolutely. send me an email.

Moderators and Admins using their accounts for general posting purposes has traditionally created confusion - there has at times been questions that the views and opinions expressed represent an "official" PDGA stance. Additionally, because of software restrictions, message board users cannot choose to place Moderators and Admins on ignore if they desire.

It has therefore been requested that Moderators and Admins create separate DISCussion accounts for general posting purposes, which create a separation and allow those persons to freely engage in dialogue and make potentially unpopular or controversial statements. Additionally, message board users then have the choice to Ignore those accounts if they would like to.

I did. You didn't get it? Maybe your account is configured incorrectly?

Do you call yourself "Sandalman" because you flip-flop more than Mitt Romney?

no, not really. it probably has more to do with the realities of needing a majority.

So how much did you get for your soul? :)

Kernan, Don't attack PB yet.
I've got you lasting 47 hours off of suspension.

Q? for Pat
Needing a majority ... how will you and
Godge get anything changed?

Seems like a loosing battle.

s timm

[post deleted due to personal attacks.]

the preceding references are to fictional characters. Any similarities to anyone living or dead is purely coincidence and unintentional. All rights reserved.

the answer is smaller steps. well, shoot for what you believe, but accept a slower pace and know that small wins are better than no wins. one problem is that a two year period is pretty short.

[b][i] Are you at liberty to tell us who supports the Draconian MB policy to be implemented on Dec.1 ?

I have never been more ashamed of the PDGA than I was reading of Shive's new policy. I am ashamed that you don't have the backbone to even attempt to fight it.

you mean the part about extending the timeframe for editing? :)

its not a question of backbone. its not a BoD decision. its up to the Comm DIr alone, and he is overrideable by the ED. the BoD could tell those folks to do it some other way, but as a general policy, and in the absence of some crisis, prefers to let committees handle their own affairs, just as it lets the staff take care of the day-to-day stuff. (i hope all BoD members reading this have the same understanding... i'm pretty sure they do, but in all fairness i cannot speak for them. that is what i understand as the fundamental reasoning of the BoD, and also what i believe.) i dont really know who supports what parts of the new policy, so i'll pass on that one.

my own opinion is that i can understand both sides. given that, i dont have much to say on this topic. personally, i dont prefer the longer sentences, but other than that, its kind of "whatever" for me. i dont know if it will help or hurt or be nuetral in the long run, but i'm not willing to say we should not find out.

Do you call yourself "Sandalman" because you flip-flop more than Mitt Romney?



Personally, I view this as a punishable offense. I mean calling someone Mitt Romney. That's almost as bad as saying you have all the brains of a GW Bush. Definitely a cutt. BTW - I took a much shorter line on the banning time frame than Steve did.

Do you call yourself "Sandalman" because you flip-flop more than Mitt Romney?



Wouldn't he have called himself flip-flop man? Sandalman sort of brings up images of a Roman soldier or a Greek philosopher, possibly even a beach bum.

or jesus

or jesus



If there's one thing you aren't, it's mythical... :D

you mean the part about extending the timeframe for editing? :)

its not a question of backbone. its not a BoD decision. its up to the Comm DIr alone, and he is overrideable by the ED. the BoD could tell those folks to do it some other way, but as a general policy, and in the absence of some crisis, prefers to let committees handle their own affairs, just as it lets the staff take care of the day-to-day stuff. (i hope all BoD members reading this have the same understanding... i'm pretty sure they do, but in all fairness i cannot speak for them. that is what i understand as the fundamental reasoning of the BoD, and also what i believe.) i dont really know who supports what parts of the new policy, so i'll pass on that one.

my own opinion is that i can understand both sides. given that, i dont have much to say on this topic. personally, i dont prefer the longer sentences, but other than that, its kind of "whatever" for me. i dont know if it will help or hurt or be nuetral in the long run, but i'm not willing to say we should not find out.



[b][i] "These are the times that try men's souls: The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot, will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly---'Tis dearness only that gives everything its value."

Flip, flop, a flippity to the flip flip flop you don't stop flopping to the bang bang boogity beat

i cant even tell what you are talking about here

[b][i] I'd like to spell it out for you, but I have a bet going on how many posts I can make before being banned. I guess I have you confused with someone who cares about doing the right thing like the Pat Brenner of 2005. Is Ransom posting for you perhaps? :D

Well obviously you're not Jesus.

and "the right thing" means what? be as specific as possible.

[b][i]I'll do the short version for you:

1. Disclosure of PDGA financials to all members with enough detail to see where all the money goes
2. An open board meeting policy allowing members to listen in on BoD meetings
3. Less fascist MB moderation
4. Lower fees across the board like the International Program that is being touted as phenomenomally successful

Too bad all we hear from you is "I have to build a majority" while the real majority makes it worse than it ever was. You have an obligation to stand up for what you know is right. Give up on building a consensus---isn't it obvious the new BoD is wrecking the PDGA? Admit it, you, me, Dodge, none of us thought it could possibly get worse, but it has!!! Wake up, wake up!!! Shive is on the move to crush free speech even worse than before, we have the absolutely worst moderators ever with an expanding daily list of people being disciplined for speaking their minds about what is supposed to be a FUN and AMUSING hobby/sport, but the new BoD is trying to turn this place into a prison.

It's obvious that the discipline against anyone with ideas other than the "majority" has even fooled YOU into thinking that people are 100% fine with the foolish actions of the new BoD.

WHEN PEOPLE ARE AFRAID TO SPEAK, LIKE IN PAKISTAN OR CHINA, IT APPEARS THEY ARE OKAY WITH THEIR LEADERS. CAN'T YOU SEE THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT IS GOING ON HERE AT THE PDGA? SHIVE IS CRUSHING HIS ENEMIES AND SO POSTS TO THIS FORUM ARE WAY DOWN AND AMERICAN MEMBERSHIP IS FALLING BECAUSE OF THE HIGH FEES.

With all these gross injustices, why do you continue to support the organization via renewing?

Some people aren't happy unless they're unhappy.

why do you continue to support the organization via renewing?




My guess is b/c Mikey plays a SuperTour or two a year and the PDGA requires memberships to play. Just a guess.

and "the right thing" means what? be as specific as possible.



Wasn't that some 1980s move, "Do The Right Thing?"

<blockquote>[I]sn't it obvious the new BoD is wrecking the PDGA?</blockquote>



It's mostly a new board and new staff, there's bound to be some slippage, loss of institutional memory, adjustment of procedures, learning curves; maybe some issues with a couple of elected leaders' commitment to the success of the PDGA as opposed to other interests, but I don't think the PDGA will be ruined by the current leadership, Mikey. (Although I do appreciate the inherent compliment about the previous board. It is definitely true that I never had an iota of doubt about any of those people's commitments to the PDGA.)</p>



I does seem to me that lengthening the punishment periods here on DISCussion without addressing the basic weirdness/unfairness/inequalities of the definitions-as-practiced of what's permissible or not is a mild form of intimidation that doesn't at all address the problem. I would represent it as "We're still gonna do what we've been doing, only now it's going to hurt more. So, stop talking."</p>

why do you continue to support the organization via renewing?




My guess is b/c Mikey plays a SuperTour or two a year and the PDGA requires memberships to play. Just a guess.



You would think that a man with so many issues with the PDGA would just skip those events to fully show his displeasure.

&lt;blockquote&gt;[i]sn't it obvious the new BoD is wrecking the PDGA?&lt;/blockquote&gt;

&lt;p&gt;It's mostly a new board and new staff, there's bound to be some slippage, loss of institutional memory, adjustment of procedures, learning curves; maybe some issues with a couple of elected leaders' commitment to the success of the PDGA as opposed to other interests, but I don't think the PDGA will be ruined by the current leadership, Mikey. (Although I do appreciate the inherent compliment about the previous board. It is definitely true that I never had an iota of doubt about any of those people's commitments to the PDGA.)&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;I does seem to me that lengthening the punishment periods here on DISCussion without addressing the basic weirdness/unfairness/inequalities of the definitions-as-practiced of what's permissible or not is a mild form of intimidation that doesn't at all address the problem. I would represent it as "We're still gonna do what we've been doing, only now it's going to hurt more. So, stop talking."&lt;/p&gt;



thats a powerful innuendo, calhoun. which BoD members do you feel have some deficiency with their commitment to the PDGA?

WoW! Powerful Innuendo! Terry, I never knew! Powerful and innuendo in one sentence! I've only elicited, wait, let me go back and look... Oh yeah, damaging. I guess that's better than powerful innuendo. O.K. I feel much better.

Lyle Ross... Damaging

Terry Calhoun... only Powerful

&lt;p&gt;I does seem to me that lengthening the punishment periods here on DISCussion without addressing the basic weirdness/unfairness/inequalities of the definitions-as-practiced of what's permissible or not is a mild form of intimidation that doesn't at all address the problem. I would represent it as "We're still gonna do what we've been doing, only now it's going to hurt more. So, stop talking."&lt;/p&gt;



Terry,

Communications Director Peter Shive will discuss these changes in length around December 1st when he writes an article for the PDGA front page addressing these and other message board concerns. In the meantime, consider that there is heavy pressure from both sides about message board standards. There are many like yourself who seem to think that the standards are not restrictive enough and anything critical of PDGA leadership, or negativity in general, should be stricken from the board, and there are an equal number of message board users who feel that the standards on profanity, personal attacks and potentially offensive images are outdated, do not reflect modern society, and are too tight.

The moderators all participate in dozens of other internet message boards, (also moderating many of them) and having honed them over the last 14 months in close conjunction with former PDGA Communications Director Steve Dodge, feel that the PDGA DISCussion Board standards are appropriately set. However, lengthening the punishment periods is a compromise between the two sides and may have the desired effect of encouraging our fellow disc golfers to be more respectful of each other here on the PDGA DISCussion Board.

There will still be warnings for borderline offenses and a probationary period for a first offense. It is very important to have a first level with no punishment to simply show message board users that they may have inadvertently crossed a line. However, repeat offenders who seem intent on crossing them then experience increasingly lengthening periods of no access. The most habitual of offenders are enormously disruptive to message board users and waste valuable volunteer time, and the one year suspension will be a welcome break for the entire community from the disruptions they cause.

thats a powerful innuendo, calhoun. which BoD members do you feel have some deficiency with their commitment to the PDGA?


Unfortunately, PDGA board member Pat Brenner, given the amorphous nature of what the moderators will consider to be or not to be a personal attack, I think I will just leave that as a powerful yet non-personally-directed innuendo. Let your imagination roam. :D Knowing from many, many recent side discussions that I am far from alone in my opinions about that.


The most habitual of offenders are enormously disruptive to message board users and waste valuable volunteer time, and the one year suspension will be a welcome break for the entire community from the disruptions they cause.


I hope that whoever posted this speaks officially for all of the moderators, otherwise a personal account should have been used?

Unfortunately, some of the more egregious offenders against rational and polite discourse manage to skirt the current working definitions of "personal attack." Examples are close at hand.

As things currently stand, one can make a completely and on-its-face absurd and false allegation about someone else and if the moderators think they have to make a decision about whether the allegation is true or false, it goes unchallenged and unpunished.

Following the logic of recent decisions I could, for example, assert that Disc Golfer #00000 was having an affair with his neighbor's wife and go unpunished for that assertion, even if his neighbor was a dangerous person who might see the assertion - because the moderators won't want to be "deciders of fact."

I believe that such an assertion, whether true or not, is de facto a personal attack and should not be allowed in DISCussion regardless of its veracity.

Really - think about this, please - what's the point of such an assertion? It is unquestionably a "personal attack." Is it pertinent? Does it affect *anything* to do with disc golf or the PDGA? Can it be for any other purpose than to discredit another PDGA member, for whatever reason?

Under the current circumstances, even with overwhelming indications that the above hypothetical, defamatory posting was made by a banned poster using someone else's account, the moderators would still do nothing about it.

That's not a good situation and is not addressed by the increased sanctions. I frankly do not understand what PDGA board member Peter Shive and the moderators are afraid of.

We don't worry about a suspended user who e-mails posts to a buddy. If the posts are defamatory and violate PDGA DISCussion Board rules, then the buddy's account will be put on probation, and suspended as well if the violations are habitual. How many different buddies' accounts can one suspended user go through? I'm guessing not many, especially since the suspensions are now 1 year for the final level of discipline.

We are satisfied with the working definitions of personal attack and ask yet again that you realize that these definitions may differ significantly from your own. The affair with a neighbor's wife is a poor example and would likely be a borderline candidate for moderation due to being offensive no matter whether true or false. However, moderators will never otherwise be responsible for determining the truth content of posts as you have repeatedly asserted. That is simply an enormous and quite unrealistic strain on already limited volunteer time, and serves no useful purpose.

"Knowing from many, many recent side discussions that I am far from alone in my opinions about that."

isnt that the salespitch they used to get us into iraq? its like saying "the people i know everything and are always right". i have not heard any accusations of undue influence, except for the theories that innova influences tech standards.

terry, can you really leave such an assertion out there, backed up only by vague references to undocumented sources? if you have something to say, then say it. otherwise, i cannot see how your insinuations are anything close to respectful and positive.

an assertion out there, backed up only by vague references to undocumented sources? if you have something to say, then say it. otherwise, i cannot see how your insinuations are anything close to respectful and positive.


OMG! PDGA board member Pat Brenner, you have managed to quite concisely define the gist of your own posts. Good job!


We don't worry about a suspended user who e-mails posts to a buddy. If the posts are defamatory and violate PDGA DISCussion Board rules, then the buddy's account will be put on probation, and suspended as well if the violations are habitual.


The posts in question were not "posts *to* a buddy" but appeared as posts "*from* that buddy." (Oh, and have you since learned otherwise? Interesting.) As such, that used to explicitly violate the prohibition against adopting another's identity - people have been banned for doing that.

Oh, and they were defamatory, too, except that the definition of "defamatory," which you do not seem to understand - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamatory - includes "falsity." How do you know? You claim that "defamatory" posts are not allowed, yet you also claim not to judge falsity? Very strange.

At this point in time, someone can claim anything about anyone else on PDGA DISCussion, regardless of whether it is true or not, and all that defends the person attacked is a personal judgment by a moderator whether that moderator feels it is offensive or not.

That is not right.

are anything close to respectful and positive


Neither of which are required by the current MB rules.

Pat, don't you know you can't disprove undocumented rumors. The battle only confuses the original discussion.

The one thing I don't question about you is your commitment to the sport. Your methods have often left me confused, but I've never wondered about your commitment.

"OMG! PDGA board member Pat Brenner, you have managed to quite concisely define the gist of your own posts. Good job!"

pretending that i am the topic diverts the discussion, terry. the topic is your insinuation that some BoD members are not bing responsible to the association. thats a serious charge... i am asking you to defend it with some actual evidence or perceptions or anything, or else retract it. all BoD members have up to date COIs on file. they are even viewable in the Information section. this is absolutely the first time i have heard any murmurs about such indescretions, so no other BoD members must heard anything like that either.

At this point in time, someone can claim anything about anyone else on PDGA DISCussion, regardless of whether it is true or not, and all that defends the person attacked is a personal judgment by a moderator whether that moderator feels it is offensive or not.



That's absolutely not how it works at all. A message board user has to report the post for violating message board rules, a moderator has to agree that it does indeed violate the rules, and the PDGA Communications Director has to uphold the appeal that it violates our rules.

Three separate people have to agree that a post violates the rules.

...stop the thread drift. This is the Ask Pat thread, or whatever that says up there.

Pat, whatcha doing at 9:40am on Sunday morning? :D

Theo,

there once was a rule that Admin accounts would not be used for posting anything other than admin stuff.

please conform by using a non-Admin account for future posts.

if you need help creating a second account, contact me by email and i will guide you through it.

best regards,

pat



Pat,

Where is that rule documented?

Testing, testing... does this "conform" ok?

-Theo

Yes!!!

non-Admin Theo's a Rockstar! Literally!

lol..

That's absolutely not how it works at all. A message board user has to report the post for violating message board rules, a moderator has to agree that it does indeed violate the rules, and the PDGA Communications Director has to uphold the appeal that it violates our rules.

Three separate people have to agree that a post violates the rules.



Could you please confirm that this was the case with this post:
http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Cat=0&amp;Number=763341&amp;Main=760211#Post7 62469

As Discette has not appeared on the probation list, I can only assume that this post was not reported, not considered serious enough to merit disciplinary action, but was nonetheless censored by yourself?

Neil,
You know that Suzette is always causing trouble. :D

Maybe she ran into the "inadvertantly crossed the line" post mode and was spared the probation by apologizing that it didn't violate, but was removed by the mods anyways post. :eek:

As Discette has not appeared on the probation list, I can only assume that this post was not reported, not considered serious enough to merit disciplinary action, but was nonetheless censored by yourself?



It's never safe to assume.

The post was reported by a PDGA message board user for violation of the Rules. A moderator agreed that it was a borderline personal attack and also containing a creative spelling to approximate profanity, but nothing egregious enough to warrant probation. Discette was sent an official warning, copied to the Communications Director and all the other moderators, that similar posts in the future could result in probation.

"OMG! PDGA board member Pat Brenner, you have managed to quite concisely define the gist of your own posts. Good job!"

pretending that i am the topic diverts the discussion, terry. the topic is your insinuation that some BoD members are not bing responsible to the association. thats a serious charge... i am asking you to defend it with some actual evidence or perceptions or anything, or else retract it. all BoD members have up to date COIs on file. they are even viewable in the Information section. this is absolutely the first time i have heard any murmurs about such indescretions, so no other BoD members must heard anything like that either.



YAWN! SNORE!

I'll second Terry's "assertion" that IMO some Board members aren't being responsible to the organization, it that's what he said... when he said something... at some time... in some way... about some Board member...

Hey Pat,

I had a question, how did you score some prototype discs from Quest? I saw you had picked some up on the Equipment thread. I was wondering if you have to be a Board member or is it sufficient to be a player?

are anything close to respectful and positive


Neither of which are required by the current MB rules.

Pat, don't you know you can't disprove undocumented rumors. The battle only confuses the original discussion.

The one thing I don't question about you is your commitment to the sport. Your methods have often left me confused, but I've never wondered about your commitment.



Succinct, and to the point!

As Discette has not appeared on the probation list, I can only assume that this post was not reported, or not considered serious enough to merit disciplinary action, but was nonetheless censored by yourself?



It's never safe to assume.

The post was reported by a PDGA message board user for violation of the Rules. A moderator agreed that it was a borderline personal attack and also containing a creative spelling to approximate profanity, but nothing egregious enough to warrant probation. Discette was sent an official warning, copied to the Communications Director and all the other moderators, that similar posts in the future could result in probation.



Apologies, I missed out a word (now added in bold). So I assumed correctly, just typed badly :)

This wasn't supposed to be a dig, I was curious, as the original post didn't seem too bad, and deleting the entire post seemed overkill to me...
For these borderline cases, would it not be good to offer the poster the opportunity to self-edit before moderator action?

it is sufficient to be a player. i first met quest after winning their sponsor spot to the msdgc on ebay. a few of the quest discs are in my starting lineup, and i continue to talk to quest from time to time about disc related issues. neither ebay nor msdgc are pdga-related, so my bod role was irrelevant. i'm not sponsored or anything like that.

it is sufficient to be a player. i first met quest after winning their sponsor spot to the msdgc on ebay. a few of the quest discs are in my starting lineup, and i continue to talk to quest from time to time about disc related issues. neither ebay nor msdgc are pdga-related, so my bod role was irrelevant. i'm not sponsored or anything like that.

\

Were the discs a gift or a purchase? Are your discussions with them about disc related issues relative to your function as a Board Member or player?

it is sufficient to be a player. i first met quest after winning their sponsor spot to the msdgc on ebay. a few of the quest discs are in my starting lineup, and i continue to talk to quest from time to time about disc related issues. neither ebay nor msdgc are pdga-related, so my bod role was irrelevant. i'm not sponsored or anything like that.



BTW - I might disagree with you on your notion that MSDGC is not PDGA related. I might argue that a relationship with them is highly relevant to the PDGA and to your position on the Board. There's a reason that Peter Shive gave up his relationship to Innova when he joined the Board. However, playing in their event (the MSDGC) does not represent a conflict of interest, unless of course you held discussions with them about the PDGA, it's goals and missions, and it's day to day operations, while at that event.

Personally, it is my belief that Steve should have stepped up to the plate and dissociated himself from that organization much as Peter did from Innova. This might have prevented the sharing of private e-mails from Brian Graham with Jason, but I doubt it.

they were purchases. i talk to him about a lot of different issues. just like i talk to you about a lot of different issues. there is no conflict there.

btw, lets make sure we're all on the same page regarding COIs. eliminating COIs is not the goal. identifying them and making them known is. Steve Dodge is quick to remove himself from votes on issues that might conflict. so are all the other BoD members. i do not believe a sponsored player needs to give up his/her mfg relationships just becasue they become a BoD member. they'd just need to disclose, and then abstain as necessary or prudent.

they were purchases. i talk to him about a lot of different issues. just like i talk to you about a lot of different issues. there is no conflict there.

btw, lets make sure we're all on the same page regarding COIs. eliminating COIs is not the goal. identifying them and making them known is. Steve Dodge is quick to remove himself from votes on issues that might conflict. so are all the other BoD members. i do not believe a sponsored player needs to give up his/her mfg relationships just becasue they become a BoD member. they'd just need to disclose, and then abstain as necessary or prudent.



I guess it probably depends on the individual. Some are going to be capable of operating under such conditions, some not. That's why typically, government and businesses eliminate any thing that might appear to be a conflict.

Apparently, removing himself from votes about conflicting issues doesn't prevent Steve from passing privileged information to Jason. Interesting set of ethical standards.

Did all members of the PDGA, and for that matter of the greater disc golfing community have equal access to purchase these discs? That is, did you purchase them from a retailer?

I'm still unclear on what you talk to Quest about. I now know you talk to them about lot's of issues but I still don't know if that is in your official capacity as a Board Member or as a player. Is it some combination of?

BTW - you didn't talk to Jason and Steve about PDGA business while at their event... did you?

i bought them on ebay, so i dont think i had a serious advantage over anyone else regarding availability for the sponsorship package. i got the blanks/protos after the DD was approved for competition by PDGA, indicating availability was wide enough to meet the association standards.

sometimes is as a BoD member, sometimes as a player. its probably not possible to be a combination on any one specific topic. in those cases, it would necessarily be as a BoD member.

why would i talk to jason about pdga biz? i didnt know he had anything to do with pdga biz. i do remember filming a silly message to the pdga that he created, but other than that, nothing. steve dodge and i talk all the time about the pdga. i'm sure we exchanged a few sentences about the association while i was there. but that happens some mornings on the phone and most days via email, so nothing unusual there. the msdgc was part of my vacation this year. i wasnt really worried too much about anything other than playing and having a great time in new england. i probably spent less time thinking aboutthe pdga during that weekend than most weekends. it was nice to have a bit of a break, and to see what disc golf looks like at a large unsanctioned event.

are you gonna grill Graham about the conversations he had at the unity summit, or are you reserving the interogation for me alone?

***

"Apparently, removing himself from votes about conflicting issues doesn't prevent Steve from passing privileged information to Jason. Interesting set of ethical standards."

Steve who? i want to be sure i understand the question accurately.

As Discette has not appeared on the probation list, I can only assume that this post was not reported, not considered serious enough to merit disciplinary action, but was nonetheless censored by yourself?



It's never safe to assume.

The post was reported by a PDGA message board user for violation of the Rules. A moderator agreed that it was a borderline personal attack and also containing a creative spelling to approximate profanity, but nothing egregious enough to warrant probation. Discette was sent an official warning, copied to the Communications Director and all the other moderators, that similar posts in the future could result in probation.



Isn't that what I said in fewer words? :D

i bought them on ebay, so i dont think i had a serious advantage over anyone else regarding availability for the sponsorship package. i got the blanks/protos after the DD was approved for competition by PDGA, indicating availability was wide enough to meet the association standards.

sometimes is as a BoD member, sometimes as a player. its probably not possible to be a combination on any one specific topic. in those cases, it would necessarily be as a BoD member.

why would i talk to jason about pdga biz? i didnt know he had anything to do with pdga biz. i do remember filming a silly message to the pdga that he created, but other than that, nothing. steve dodge and i talk all the time about the pdga. i'm sure we exchanged a few sentences about the association while i was there. but that happens some mornings on the phone and most days via email, so nothing unusual there. the msdgc was part of my vacation this year. i wasnt really worried too much about anything other than playing and having a great time in new england. i probably spent less time thinking aboutthe pdga during that weekend than most weekends. it was nice to have a bit of a break, and to see what disc golf looks like at a large unsanctioned event.

are you gonna grill Graham about the conversations he had at the unity summit, or are you reserving the interogation for me alone?

***

"Apparently, removing himself from votes about conflicting issues doesn't prevent Steve from passing privileged information to Jason. Interesting set of ethical standards."

Steve who? i want to be sure i understand the question accurately.



Excellent! It is very good to know that you play within the rules. You wouldn't care to share your receipts with us? :D

I grill Brian all the time and even make... "less than supportive comments" about his actions. It's part of being an informed member. Does this bother you?

That would be Steve Dodge, the guy you referred to in your previous post. Are there a lot of Steve's in leadership roles in the PDGA who are associated with the MSDGC and would pass privileged information to Jason? Perhaps we have a problem that is deeper than I would have thought?

Glad you enjoyed the MSDGC and kept your time there strictly non-PDGA related.

As for Quest, given some of the comments they've made in support of the ED and our organization, I'd think any Board member would want to be careful of their relationship with that organization. Given the good nature of that relationship, I'd want to keep my dealings with them purely professional simply to make sure that no other company could claim they were gaining an unfair advantage in their dealings with the PDGA.

steve dodge has never given info to jason,to the best of my knowledge. if you have facts that indicate otherwise, then please do share.

doesnt bother me a bit. there's nothing more subtantive going on at the moment , so continue to ask away.

i'm pretty sure that all mfgs have equal access to the BoD. some use it more than others, but they do enjoy equal access. our contact info is equally available. i've emailed and phoned lots of mfgs about various issues. usually they answer, but not always.

steve dodge has never given info to jason,to the best of my knowledge. if you have facts that indicate otherwise, then please do share.

doesnt bother me a bit. there's nothing more subtantive going on at the moment , so continue to ask away.

i'm pretty sure that all mfgs have equal access to the BoD. some use it more than others, but they do enjoy equal access. our contact info is equally available. i've emailed and phoned lots of mfgs about various issues. usually they answer, but not always.



YAWN! Can you comment on a private e-mail concerning Quest and Brian G. posted on the SN message board and linked here, on a thread where I thought you posted.

you think dodge gave that to jason????? r u serious?

you think dodge gave that to jason????? r u serious?



Obviously I don't know who gave it to Jason. Why, did you think Steve did?

i dont think steve dodge gave it to jason. i think that you think he did. ( i think a lot of other people think he did, also.) i interpreted your posts above that way. please correct me if i am wrong, and tell me what other inappropriate information dispersals you think dodge is involved in if its not this.

You don't think or you know he didn't? Just curious.

BTW - what I think about this situation is my business. That Jason posted that information is important. How that information got to Jason is also important, Steve or otherwise.

There is a PM feature on this bored. Try it, it's nice.

BTW - Are you really sure Steve has never talked to Jason about things he maybe shouldn't have? You seem very positive. Do you really want me to dig back to when Jason used to post here to see if I can find evidence?

Naw, you're probably right...

There is a PM feature on this bored. Try it, it's nice.



I agree. If you'll go back about 2 years you'll find a whole discussion on this and about how some things should be discussed in private, both in terms of Board actions and in terms of discussions like this one. I believe the reply was everything should be in the open.

lyle, you made it other people's business when you accused steve dodge of giving it to jason.

abcd, i'd love to answer different questions, but this is all they're giving me :)

Like I said, Naw, you're probably right, it never happened.

abcd, i'd love to answer different questions, but this is all they're giving me :)



You must have overlooked one of mine then.


...stop the thread drift. This is the Ask Pat thread, or whatever that says up there.

Pat, whatcha doing at 9:40am on Sunday morning? :D

lyle, you made it other people's business when you accused steve dodge of giving it to jason.

abcd, i'd love to answer different questions, but this is all they're giving me :)


I want to be clear, I'm not accusing Steve of passing that e-mail to Jason. In fact as soon as you commented I realized that I had stated it that way and that did not expressed my point, so I modified my post. On the other hand, I am exploring that issue since I think it's an important one.

Nonetheless, you are correct, I have implied that Steve has passed information to Jason, based on my impressions from posts going back several years. That was also incorrect. My apologies to Steve and Jason. If the moderator wishes to punish me I will understand that. I understand that it doesn't matter if Steve at one time passed information to Jason or not, we're not allowed to imply anything negative about another member.

my honest and best understanding is that Steve Dodge did NOT pass that email to jason. some other Steve may have done so, but it wasnt a Steve of the Dodge variety.

john... i will be practicing some drives on tee 4 :)

my honest and best understanding is that Steve Dodge did NOT pass that email to jason. some other Steve may have done so, but it wasnt a Steve of the Dodge variety.

john... i will be practicing some drives on tee 4 :)



So to get back on track. What do you think about a Board Member having a relationship with a company that has so openly trashed our ED in what appears to be a misleading and misrepresenting fashion? Do you think that reflects well on the organization? Also, What do you think about the private e-mail that was presented by Jason? How do you think it got to Jason? I can see two possibilities. One, Quest sent it to Jason or two, a PDGA employee, or volunteer sent it to Jason. What do you think about that and how it reflects on the organization?

Oh, BTW, I don't think Steve Dodge passed the e-mail to Jason either...

Please provide a link to the forum where the email is posted.

Please provide a link to the forum where the email is posted.



I knew someone was going to ask that. It's on the SN forum, I'll have to look for the original link.

"What do you think about a Board Member having a relationship with a company that has so openly trashed our ED in what appears to be a misleading and misrepresenting fashion? " <font color="brown">say what? i'm not aware of any open thrashing of our ED. even if there was, it might be better than behind-the-scenes thrashing, because it would see the light of day. a person cannot be responsible for all of the actions of some other entitiy, and i dont think there's anything wrong with a BoD members having a relationship with a company </font>

"Do you think that reflects well on the organization? " <font color="brown"> i dont think it has anything to do with the association. the association is not responsible for the actions of every entity it has a relationship with. </font>

"What do you think about the private e-mail that was presented by Jason? " <font color="brown"> i thought it was interesting and informative. </font>

"How do you think it got to Jason? " <font color="brown"> i cant answer that, cuz i know how it got to jason. i dont "think" it. </font>

"What do you think about that and how it reflects on the organization?" <font color="brown"> think about what? i dont see a lot of value in itemizing what i might think about a long list of possible occurances. </font>

Please provide a link to the forum where the email is posted.



I knew someone was going to ask that. It's on the SN forum, I'll have to look for the original link.



Actually, that would be the NEFA website ...


NEFA DISCussion (http://www.nefa.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=2890&amp;postdays=0&amp;postorder=asc&amp;high light=quest+turbo&amp;start=30)

Theo,

there once was a rule that Admin accounts would not be used for posting anything other than admin stuff.

please conform by using a non-Admin account for future posts.

if you need help creating a second account, contact me by email and i will guide you through it.

best regards,

pat



Pat,

Where is that rule documented?

Testing, testing... does this "conform" ok?

-Theo



Theo,

I'm not sure this rule is documented anywhere. I'll send a note to Dave Gentry to see if we can get it documented. All I know is that we were asked by the PDGA Office some time ago to do so, because moderators, admins, and Communications Directors using their accounts for general posting purposes had traditionally created confusion - there had at times been questions that the views and opinions expressed somehow represented an "official" PDGA stance. Additionally, because of software restrictions, message board users cannot choose to place Moderators and Admins on ignore if they desire.

It was therefore requested that Moderators and Admins create separate DISCussion accounts for general posting purposes, which create a separation and allow those persons to freely engage in dialogue and make potentially unpopular or controversial statements. Additionally, message board users then have the choice to Ignore those accounts if they would like to.

Thanks for creating a new Theo_Pozzy_Non_Admin_Acct account.

"What do you think about a Board Member having a relationship with a company that has so openly trashed our ED in what appears to be a misleading and misrepresenting fashion? " <font color="brown">say what? i'm not aware of any open thrashing of our ED. even if there was, it might be better than behind-the-scenes thrashing, because it would see the light of day. a person cannot be responsible for all of the actions of some other entitiy, and i dont think there's anything wrong with a BoD members having a relationship with a company </font>

"Do you think that reflects well on the organization? " <font color="brown"> i dont think it has anything to do with the association. the association is not responsible for the actions of every entity it has a relationship with. </font>

"What do you think about the private e-mail that was presented by Jason? " <font color="brown"> i thought it was interesting and informative. </font>

"How do you think it got to Jason? " <font color="brown"> i cant answer that, cuz i know how it got to jason. i dont "think" it. </font>

"What do you think about that and how it reflects on the organization?" <font color="brown"> think about what? i dont see a lot of value in itemizing what i might think about a long list of possible occurances. </font>



My opinion is that this issue nicely demonstrates the point that Terry was making when he said that some leaders act in fashions that don't best represent the organization.

how so? this thread has gone from vague to ethereal. if you have a point, please make it clearly. i am having problems following what you are saying.

Second the request for clarity.

Which leader, in your opinion, does this issue nicely demonstrate is acting in fashions that don't best represent the organization?

just for clairty sake :) , that question is for who(m?)?

... and here I thought I couldn't have been clearer.

The question was meant for Lyle.

""How do you think it got to Jason? " i cant answer that, cuz i know how it got to jason. i dont "think" it. "

Since you say you know, tell us.

"this thread has gone from vague to ethereal. if you have a point, please make it clearly. i am having problems following what you are saying. "

Please, don't be vague, tell us clearly who sent the e-mail to Jason.

Hi everyone, I just thought I'd chime in at an inopportune time. :D

""How do you think it got to Jason? " i cant answer that, cuz i know how it got to jason. i dont "think" it. "

Since you say you know, tell us.

"this thread has gone from vague to ethereal. if you have a point, please make it clearly. i am having problems following what you are saying. "

Please, don't be vague, tell us clearly who sent the e-mail to Jason.



Just in case you missed this, Pat. Reply?

no one related to the pdga sent to email to jason. its not a pdga bod issue. you could ask jason, or brian, or any of the involved parties. apparently at least some of them dont mind sharing :)

just to save others time ... here's the post/emails in question from the NEFA discussion board

&lt;from Jason&gt;
Here's an exchange between the PDGA's Executive Director Brian Graham and Quest's Steve Pearson, regarding the Wheel. The weird thing with the Wheel is that it DOES conform to the PDGA's technical standards, but that Brian Graham asked Steve Pearson NOT to submit it UNTIL the PDGA, in its endless dithering, got around to rewriting its technical standards because they still can't agree on what a disc is.

Steve Dodge had a good insight: He said Quest should not have agreed to not submit the Wheel.

Anyway, here's the confidential exchange that I definitely shouldn't be sharing, because we like our disc golf organization like our government, with a lot of secrets and no accountability:

On 10/11/07, [email protected] &lt;[email protected]&gt; wrote:

Steve,

The last time we spoke you had agreed to wait until the new technical standards had been instituted before you submitted the Wheel for approval. You told me that you were going to send an example to Jeff to look at so that he could possibly give you some feedback before you officially submitted it early next year. Have you forgotten this conversation?

Your assertion that Innova is inappropriate influencing the PDGA is not valid in the least. As I have told you several times in previous conversations, Innova sent the PDGA an unsolicited letter in regards to technical standards. There is nothing to prevent you or any other manufacturer from doing the same. The fact that we received a letter from anyone does not mean that we are influenced by its contents and quite frankly your assertion is somewhat offensive. The fact that the Destroyer was approved despite Innova's unsolicited recommendation that wide wing drivers be disallowed, should be proof enough that we were not influenced by their opinion. The Destroyer meets all current technical standards requirements and guidelines and thusly was approved.

Please feel free to submit any discs you wish via the regular channels and the tech standards committee will review them per our established protocol.

Your current use of the term "PDGA Conforming Golf Disc" is a trademark infringement and we would appreciate if you would not use this or any other similar terminology in the future. As always, I am more than happy to speak with you in person should you want to discuss the matter in additional detail.

Regards,

Brian J. Graham

PDGA Executive Director

__________________________________________________ ___________

Steve Pearson Replies:

I didn't agree to wait, I just asked your opinion and then spoke to Jeff who said if it conforms it would be approved. So we submitted it and It was submitted properly. I guess if it is going to be held up we could change the wording to " Conforms to all Professional Disc golf rules and technical standards" or something like that and eliminate P.D.G.A.. It would be better to say P.D.G.A. Approved.

Our next disc is a wide winged driver with dimples on the under wing, and we are planning to submit it today or tomorrow. If this disc is held up it will effectively block competition to the destroyer.

I have a bad feeling about it and am starting to feel general distrust of the P.D.G.A. I really would like to work with everyone in disc golf including the P.D.G.A. and Innova To help expand Disc golf and make it better.
thanks

steve

What is it about this that gets people worked up? Is it the fact that someone forwarded what they thought was some damning e-mail? The fact that they forwarded any e-mail? Just what is it?

imo, the content of the e-mails seems reasonable on both ends. If someone "leaked" it out, thinking it was some big deal and would make the PDGA look bad, they should have waited for stronger stuff.

im personally not worked up... just posting what everyone is talking about to clarify things.

BTW... to bring it back to what the thread topic currently is...
Can someone (meaning a moderator or someone who has been banned/warned or knows for a fact) give a few examples of personal attacks? Obviously remove names or say PersonA &amp; B or something to avoid getting into trouble.
I'm just curious what it entails exactly. (oh yeah... and use &lt;beep&gt; for swear words... although i'm curious to see if there are personal attacks w/o swear words getting people kicked off or in trouble)

not trying to stir the pot... just opening up the lid to see whats inside

Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries.

Go and boil your bottoms, you sons of silly persons!

your father smelt of elderberries.



is it still a personal attack if its true?! :o

Your mother was a [edited so i won't get banned] and your father [edited so i won't get banned].

Go and boil your bottoms, you [edited so I wont get banned like abcd is about to be]!



sadly, Mike got banned for less than that abcd. he even put a disclaimer in the post saying he was referencing fictional characters. goes to show you it's not what you say, it's who says it.

i remember the days when lots of people posted on this forum. now, you only have to read it about once a week since all meaningful discussion has ceased. and they call it progress...looks to my potential sponsors who read here that no one plays much disc golf anymore. why would they advertise on what appears to be fewer players?

keep up the good work!

I think you meant primarily the meaningful discussions remain...

your father smelt of elderberries.



is it still a personal attack if its true?! :o



My understanding is yes. If I smell like horse dooky and you comment that I smell like horse dooky, the fact that it's true is irrelevant, it is an attack.

Consequently, I can't come on here and say person X did Y, even if it's true. Instead, I can use innuendo and half truths to besmirch that person's character. It's a lovely place the message board.

James, while you are correct, the e-mail is fairly non-damaging, the obvious intent was to present a private e-mail that presents the argument that Brian Graham lied. Personally, I find that tact damaging to the PDGA.

Hypothetically speaking, if someone in the PDGA didn't send that e-mail out, then that means that someone with Quest did. Why in the world would someone at Quest forward that e-mail to Jason S? Or is the assumption that it bounced around for a while before Jason picked it up and so generously passed it to the SN MB? If Quest passed this e-mail out, why did they do it? Was it to make the PDGA look good? /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif If Quest wants to make the PDGA look bad, why would a PDGA Board member work with them outside their official capacity?

There's a saying it goes: if it looks like a donkey, and it smells like a donkey, it probably is a donkey.

James, while you are correct, the e-mail is fairly non-damaging, the obvious intent was to present a private e-mail that presents the argument that Brian Graham lied.



Half-full, half empty or not a glass at all.

I guess if that was a viable interpretation, then an alternative view is that the e-mail exchange presents an argument that the manufacturer lied. Personally, I didn't read lying into either party. It just looks like a typical exchange between a regulator and the regulated.

Eyes wide open, blinders on. Why did Jason post it? I understand that for a logical thinking person such as yourself the conclusion is clear. But I think you miss the intent of the poster.

Hi everyone, I just thought I'd chime in at an inopportune time. :D



Not inopportune at all. You can easily clear this little misunderstanding up. Go to Jason and ask him for all the names on the e-mail, recipients and senders, and post them here.

Please don't come back with "that would be inappropriate." We already know that Jason feels posting private messages is O.K., this isn't his first time doing such. And of course in the past he didn't hesititate to post the sender.

I'm also confident that Pat will support that position; he's done the same in the past. So Steve, balls in your court.

On the other hand, why did Jason post this? In the past Jason posted private e-mails because he was trying to win his argument that the PDGA should not force restrictions on his event in order to grant him NT status. That is, he had a reason, one I agreed with. I didn't agree with his method, but I could at least understand it.

Why then post this piece of garbage? What good would come out of it? Jason can hardly know either ends of the message. Is he simply reveling in spreading trash? Is he trying to hurt someone? Has he already judged the new ED or some other member of the almost completely remade Board or PDGA Staff to be worthy of trashing such that he would try to make the PDGA look bad? I seems a bit premature to take the mickey out of Brian, given that he has just started the job. Conversely, as James pointed out, does he hate the new vendor on the the scene because they've generated new and unconventional discs so much that he would go for it? I hardly see the benefit in such a petty, yet vindictive action.

Donuts anyone?

after they finish banning everyone with an opinion, you'll be even lonlier. remember when the pdga forum was open to everyone and pdga membership numbers were growing? not a coincidence.

And they're not growing now? Opinions are all over the place...why hasn't everyone been banned? I'm not sure I agree with what defines a personal atack by current moderator standards, but the DB is much better off without the tons of poo that non-members hurled around here. Yes some of the non-members did contribute meaningful and relavent content to discussions and perhaps more non-sanctioned events got advertisment, but the biggest majority just wasted bandwidth and hard drive space.

There was talk of creating a section on the DB that was for non-members...dont know where thats at though.

Discussing opinions and disagreeing can be done without resorting to mud slinging and name calling. If you (anyone) take the time to write well thought out responses, you shouldn't ever be close to the progressive disciplinary ladder.

you are slower than the release of a new discwing product.

Hi everyone, I just thought I'd chime in at an inopportune time. :D



Not inopportune at all. You can easily clear this little misunderstanding up. Go to Jason and ask him for all the names on the e-mail, recipients and senders, and post them here.

Please don't come back with "that would be inappropriate." We already know that Jason feels posting private messages is O.K., this isn't his first time doing such. And of course in the past he didn't hesititate to post the sender.

I'm also confident that Pat will support that position; he's done the same in the past. So Steve, balls in your court.



Return of serve: [email protected]

after they finish banning everyone with an opinion, you'll be even lonlier. remember when the pdga forum was open to everyone and pdga membership numbers were growing? not a coincidence.



On the ask Pete thread, he's arguing that criticizing politely is O.K. Will have to work on that.

And yes, I do remember those times. I believe I argued for a tighter policy at that time. :o

Hi everyone, I just thought I'd chime in at an inopportune time. :D



Not inopportune at all. You can easily clear this little misunderstanding up. Go to Jason and ask him for all the names on the e-mail, recipients and senders, and post them here.

Please don't come back with "that would be inappropriate." We already know that Jason feels posting private messages is O.K., this isn't his first time doing such. And of course in the past he didn't hesititate to post the sender.

I'm also confident that Pat will support that position; he's done the same in the past. So Steve, balls in your court.



Return of serve: [email protected]



Weak...

after they finish banning everyone with an opinion, you'll be even lonlier. remember when the pdga forum was open to everyone and pdga membership numbers were growing? not a coincidence.



Yeah, actually Mikey, it is a coincidence. I would say the two things are totally unrelated. It's more likely that more and more people are finding out how terrific the game is. Frankly, I'd like to see the message board go OFF the PDGA site and then go no-holds-barred somewhere else. But that's just my personal opinion. The value of this board to the PDGA is grossly overrated in my opinion. There's way more time and effort that go in to the MB than PDGA gets out of it. LPGA got rid of their message boards a few years back for that reason (among other reasons).

Chap

How are those 4:20 mini's selling Steve?

after they finish banning everyone with an opinion, you'll be even lonlier. remember when the pdga forum was open to everyone and pdga membership numbers were growing? not a coincidence.



Yeah, actually Mikey, it is a coincidence. I would say the two things are totally unrelated. It's more likely that more and more people are finding out how terrific the game is. Frankly, I'd like to see the message board go OFF the PDGA site and then go no-holds-barred somewhere else. But that's just my personal opinion. The value of this board to the PDGA is grossly overrated in my opinion. There's way more time and effort that go in to the MB than PDGA gets out of it. LPGA got rid of their message boards a few years back for that reason (among other reasons).

Chap



Most intelligent post ever on this MB! If it comes up for a vote you've got mine.

Frankly, I'd like to see the message board go OFF the PDGA site and then go no-holds-barred somewhere else. But that's just my personal opinion. The value of this board to the PDGA is grossly overrated in my opinion. There's way more time and effort that go in to the MB than PDGA gets out of it. LPGA got rid of their message boards a few years back for that reason (among other reasons).

Chap



I now agree with these sentiments and kind of wish I hadn't gone before the BOD at the summit that one year and campaigned to save this thing. :p

Frankly, I'd like to see the message board go OFF the PDGA site and then go no-holds-barred somewhere else. But that's just my personal opinion. The value of this board to the PDGA is grossly overrated in my opinion. There's way more time and effort that go in to the MB than PDGA gets out of it. LPGA got rid of their message boards a few years back for that reason (among other reasons).

Chap



I now agree with these sentiments and kind of wish I hadn't gone before the BOD at the summit that one year and campaigned to save this thing. :p



For those who haven't noticed, the MB just got about 30% better. Both Hawk and Rhett are back!

if you guys dont mind, i'd like to ask that we return this thread to its original purpose. there are other thread out there for hashing thru what it means to be civil. there's other threads for non-pdga issues. most of the topics discussed recently are relatively unimportant in the overall scheme of things. maybe we could get back towards issues that matter? thanks.

Hey Pat,

Are you happy that Rhett and Hawk are back? Do you think they make any important points? Do you think that either of them should be given a membership gratis and if so which?

yes, of course
yes, sometimes they do
i havent given it any thought, and, in the absense of a formal proposal to that effect, dont intend to.

Rhett's probably gone for another 3 months by the end of the day.

btw abcd, i bought 10 sets of those minis from ms. nice stocking stuffer. collections of minis are kewl.

Did you buy the tye-dye disc with the pot leaf stamp too? :p

Funny that these guys sponser this bored but I can't post a picture of one of their discs...Maybe it's just me.

no, i didnt get that one. some things are over the line.

January 2008 is less than 41 days away, but there appears to be only one PDGA tournament scheduled for that entire month.

Do you think that this is because hardly anyone wants to sanction with the pDGA, or is there another reason that one can not say without being banned from here?

after they finish banning everyone with an opinion, you'll be even lonlier. remember when the pdga forum was open to everyone and pdga membership numbers were growing? not a coincidence.



Yeah, actually Mikey, it is a coincidence. I would say the two things are totally unrelated. It's more likely that more and more people are finding out how terrific the game is. Frankly, I'd like to see the message board go OFF the PDGA site and then go no-holds-barred somewhere else. But that's just my personal opinion. The value of this board to the PDGA is grossly overrated in my opinion. There's way more time and effort that go in to the MB than PDGA gets out of it. LPGA got rid of their message boards a few years back for that reason (among other reasons).

Chap



Don't ever call me Mikey again. That is the lowest personal attack you can make on this forum. My name is Jones.

sigh.....

January 2008 is less than 41 days away, but there appears to be only one PDGA tournament scheduled for that entire month.

Do you think that this is because hardly anyone wants to sanction with the pDGA, or is there another reason that one can not say without being banned from here?

i suppose its mostly cuz january is a notoriously slow month, as the northern states sit around in a jealous stew watching their southern brothers playing outside in picture perfect weather. that, and dg'ers' reputation for procrastination is well deserved.

after they finish banning everyone with an opinion, you'll be even lonlier. remember when the pdga forum was open to everyone and pdga membership numbers were growing? not a coincidence.



Yeah, actually Mikey, it is a coincidence. I would say the two things are totally unrelated. It's more likely that more and more people are finding out how terrific the game is. Frankly, I'd like to see the message board go OFF the PDGA site and then go no-holds-barred somewhere else. But that's just my personal opinion. The value of this board to the PDGA is grossly overrated in my opinion. There's way more time and effort that go in to the MB than PDGA gets out of it. LPGA got rid of their message boards a few years back for that reason (among other reasons).

Chap



Don't ever call me Mikey again. That is the lowest personal attack you can make on this forum. My name is Jones.



My apologies to Mr. Jones, but he does sound an awful lot like Mikey. :) Of course, Mikey wouldn't probably wouldn't hide behind someone else's name to state his opinion (and I'm not saying that Mr. Jones is). My bad. And there's a lot worse things I could call you other than Mikey, trust me.

So Pat, to get back to the original purpose of this thread:

Why does the PDGA Board put so much value in this message board, and why does it continue to govern placing so much credence in what is said here? I know the Theo Pozzy answer to these questions...what is your answer?

Chap

Hi Pat,

I posted this on the Peter Shive thread and want to pose the same question to you as well.

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?

Why does the PDGA Board put so much value in this message board, and why does it continue to govern placing so much credence in what is said here?



I haven't noticed this phenomenon, could you please provide some convincing examples, especially decisions that have been modified in a negative way due to "message board governance."

Why does the PDGA Board put so much value in this message board, and why does it continue to govern placing so much credence in what is said here? I know the Theo Pozzy answer to these questions...what is your answer?


fair question... i am not sure they put much value in it, really. its one dat apoint, or set of data points perhaps, but really just one source. i know i do not think the MB represents either one view or all views on any particular issue. personally i find it useful for taking a pulse and for being exposed new ideas. ... but the claim we govern based on it does not do justice to the many other inputs. so, MB input is certainly considered, just like email, phone, and personal conversation input is considered. i tend to weight it as an aggregate rather than adopt only one unique viewpoiint from it. does that make any sense? maybe i overexplained.

"Do you see this as a viable option?"

yes. makes sense to me, at least on the surface.

Why does the PDGA Board put so much value in this message board, and why does it continue to govern placing so much credence in what is said here? I know the Theo Pozzy answer to these questions...what is your answer?


fair question... i am not sure they put much value in it, really. its one dat apoint, or set of data points perhaps, but really just one source. i know i do not think the MB represents either one view or all views on any particular issue. personally i find it useful for taking a pulse and for being exposed new ideas. ... but the claim we govern based on it does not do justice to the many other inputs. so, MB input is certainly considered, just like email, phone, and personal conversation input is considered. i tend to weight it as an aggregate rather than adopt only one unique viewpoiint from it. does that make any sense? maybe i overexplained.



OK 4 examples:

1. Where else besides the MB does the PDGA post official announcements?

2. As far as it being just one data source, you are correct, but I think it's become the main data source. I know this from taling to BoD members while I was on the BoD and since. Maybe it's because not enough of us are giving you feedback in other ways.

3. There are two separate "Ask (insert BoD member here)" threads here. I guess I'd like to know what other sources you're soliciting input from.

4. How come the front page of the site isn't utilized more often for official announcements?

I personally post here mainly to debunk misinformation, give Chuck a hard time :), or purely for my amusement. I think THAT (amusement) should be the primary role for this message board. Which means it probably shouldn't be attached to PDGA.com. 90% of the MBs content doesn't really contain any intelligent or relevant discourse, and that includes a lot of the stuff I post for my amusement's sake (of course there are exceptions)...the forum simply isn't designed for it. The MB is more of a stream of consciousness thing. It's a brainstorming tool, not a good forum for debate.

People will say things on this message board that they wouldn't say in person or over the phone...the MB seems to remove one's inhibitions. It's sort of like drinking a fifth of Scotch, and then saying everything that pops in your head. I used to hate coming in here and posting as a BoD member, because I'd usually have to answer a question like, "Are you still beating your dog?" Pretty much a lose-lose situation, and I guess I'm making it no different for you.

Perhaps I'm taking this too far, but I think you know where I'm headed. I'm all for free speech, believe me. If it were me, there'd be a lot less moderation on this MB (and no, I don't want the job). But there's a difference between letting people vent, and recognizing that they are venting, and actually running the organization based on it.

And while you're at it, ask Lyksett if he's ever come up with those "surveys" the BoD's magazine optional vote was supposedly based on.

Chap

January 2008 is less than 41 days away, but there appears to be only one PDGA tournament scheduled for that entire month.

Do you think that this is because hardly anyone wants to sanction with the pDGA, or is there another reason that one can not say without being banned from here?



Actually I just sent in a sanctioning agreement for January tonight.

John,

It is called the anonymity of the keyboard.

I am just the opposite. I am nicer on here than I am in person.

Kirk

heres some thoughts... sorry about the intertwining... felt more stream of consciousness :)


1. Where else besides the MB does the PDGA post official announcements? <font color="purple"> the front page and information links on the website; regular and ad hoc emails; our pages in the magazine; </font>

2. As far as it being just one data source, you are correct, but I think it's become the main data source. I know this from taling to BoD members while I was on the BoD and since. Maybe it's because not enough of us are giving you feedback in other ways. <font color="purple"> i really dont know if it is the main info source for other BoD members or not. i heartily agree that not much feedback reaches us individually. maybe the officegets more since it is on the front lines. </font>

3. There are two separate "Ask (insert BoD member here)" threads here. I guess I'd like to know what other sources you're soliciting input from. <font color="purple"> i get a lot of feedback from direct conversations with players. going to msdgc this year was great, cuz i got to see firsthand how things are done in nefaland. theres a number of players that i talk to regularly on the phone. that broadens the input out of my own region. i talk to disc golf vendors and service providers fairly regularly also... they are a key stakeholder in our sport. from timeto time the association does more formal surveys that provide some structured input. another source of input is my own professional circle. these folks have great experience in a range of areas, and because they fdont give a rats bahotty about disc golf, they are brutally dispassionate </font>

4. How come the front page of the site isn't utilized more often for official announcements? <font color="purple"> thats a great question. i've seen some, but the fast change nature of a front page make the stories fleeting. </font>

I personally post here mainly to debunk misinformation, give Chuck a hard time , or purely for my amusement. I think THAT (amusement) should be the primary role for this message board. Which means it probably shouldn't be attached to PDGA.com. 90% of the MBs content doesn't really contain any intelligent or relevant discourse, and that includes a lot of the stuff I post for my amusement's sake (of course there are exceptions)...the forum simply isn't designed for it. The MB is more of a stream of consciousness thing. It's a brainstorming tool, not a good forum for debate.
<font color="purple"> ok, i mostly agree, and especially agree with some points in there. i would argue that the MB is great for short discussions (til the thread gets jacked) and for running wild ideas up the flagpole. to me, the MB has great value as a sounding board. it is more two-way than email, and just about as universally participatory as you can get. </font>

People will say things on this message board that they wouldn't say in person or over the phone...the MB seems to remove one's inhibitions. It's sort of like drinking a fifth of Scotch, and then saying everything that pops in your head. I used to hate coming in here and posting as a BoD member, because I'd usually have to answer a question like, "Are you still beating your dog?" Pretty much a lose-lose situation, and I guess I'm making it no different for you.<font color="purple"> i appreciate your phrasing, but rather than experiencing a drunken regret, i prefer to look on it as a Commons. not much gets said here that doesntalso getsaid among friends and neighbors. it is an extension of our living rooms, our backyards and our courses.</font>

Perhaps I'm taking this too far, but I think you know where I'm headed. I'm all for free speech, believe me. If it were me, there'd be a lot less moderation on this MB (and no, I don't want the job). But there's a difference between letting people vent, and recognizing that they are venting, and actually running the organization based on it.<font color="purple"> listening directly to vents is good. a passionate vent is frequently a very open and honest thing. ideally, being exposed to good vents keeps us humble. </font>

And while you're at it, ask Lyksett if he's ever come up with those "surveys" the BoD's magazine optional vote was supposedly based on.
<font color="purple"> hmmm... i guess i need to go back thru all the emails... i dont remember all the nitty gritty details. </font>

John,

It is called the anonymity of the keyboard.

I am just the opposite. I am nicer on here than I am in person.

Kirk



Ah, Kirk, that's not true. You're a pussycat in person. :)

Chap

let me cross the streams again.....

heres some thoughts... sorry about the intertwining... felt more stream of consciousness :)


1. Where else besides the MB does the PDGA post official announcements? <font color="purple"> the front page and information links on the website; regular and ad hoc emails; our pages in the magazine; </font>

<font color="green"> Not every important announcement gets on the front page. When we hired Dave Gentry and Matt Gillis, that job announcement was ONLY on the message board, hence, we only had like 3 applicants for both jobs. News was much better for the ED job when Guru retired. Page through the Announcements thread, and you'll see what I mean, and there are other examples. And I'm not just talking about LaGrassa telling everyone that round 1 Worlds scores are up. </font>

2. As far as it being just one data source, you are correct, but I think it's become the main data source. I know this from taling to BoD members while I was on the BoD and since. Maybe it's because not enough of us are giving you feedback in other ways. <font color="purple"> i really dont know if it is the main info source for other BoD members or not. i heartily agree that not much feedback reaches us individually. maybe the office gets more since it is on the front lines. </font>

<font color="green"> I got lots of feedback individually, but then, perhaps I did a better job of seeking it out. </font>

3. There are two separate "Ask (insert BoD member here)" threads here. I guess I'd like to know what other sources you're soliciting input from. <font color="purple"> i get a lot of feedback from direct conversations with players. going to msdgc this year was great, cuz i got to see firsthand how things are done in nefaland. theres a number of players that i talk to regularly on the phone. that broadens the input out of my own region. i talk to disc golf vendors and service providers fairly regularly also... they are a key stakeholder in our sport. from timeto time the association does more formal surveys that provide some structured input. another source of input is my own professional circle. these folks have great experience in a range of areas, and because they fdont give a rats bahotty about disc golf, they are brutally dispassionate </font>

<font color="green"> That's good that you are soliciting other feedback, and also bad in some ways. We need more creative people that ARE passionate about disc golf in leadership positions. PDGA has become very corporate-like. The BoD USED to be a working board. Now it's more oversight, and perhaps that's good in a way, but it's also removed the BoD members from knowing the tasks that need to be done, and I think some BoD members are not as well informed about things as they should be.</font>

4. How come the front page of the site isn't utilized more often for official announcements? <font color="purple"> thats a great question. i've seen some, but the fast change nature of a front page make the stories fleeting. </font>
<font color="green"> Announcements are fleeting by nature. They don't need to stay up there long, but they do need to be up there, not buried in the message board. Perhaps the site could have a "News Release" type of section that isn't tied to the MB.</font>

I personally post here mainly to debunk misinformation, give Chuck a hard time , or purely for my amusement. I think THAT (amusement) should be the primary role for this message board. Which means it probably shouldn't be attached to PDGA.com. 90% of the MBs content doesn't really contain any intelligent or relevant discourse, and that includes a lot of the stuff I post for my amusement's sake (of course there are exceptions)...the forum simply isn't designed for it. The MB is more of a stream of consciousness thing. It's a brainstorming tool, not a good forum for debate.
<font color="purple"> ok, i mostly agree, and especially agree with some points in there. i would argue that the MB is great for short discussions (til the thread gets jacked) and for running wild ideas up the flagpole. to me, the MB has great value as a sounding board. it is more two-way than email, and just about as universally participatory as you can get. </font>

<font color="green"> And it's about as out of focus as you can get. It's very inefficient. Actually, it's less two-way than email. It's more 3-way, 4-way, etc.... Threads can get hijacked. One-on-one conversations rarely do. </font>

People will say things on this message board that they wouldn't say in person or over the phone...the MB seems to remove one's inhibitions. It's sort of like drinking a fifth of Scotch, and then saying everything that pops in your head. I used to hate coming in here and posting as a BoD member, because I'd usually have to answer a question like, "Are you still beating your dog?" Pretty much a lose-lose situation, and I guess I'm making it no different for you.<font color="purple"> i appreciate your phrasing, but rather than experiencing a drunken regret, i prefer to look on it as a Commons. not much gets said here that doesntalso getsaid among friends and neighbors. it is an extension of our living rooms, our backyards and our courses.</font>

Perhaps I'm taking this too far, but I think you know where I'm headed. I'm all for free speech, believe me. If it were me, there'd be a lot less moderation on this MB (and no, I don't want the job). But there's a difference between letting people vent, and recognizing that they are venting, and actually running the organization based on it.<font color="purple"> listening directly to vents is good. a passionate vent is frequently a very open and honest thing. ideally, being exposed to good vents keeps us humble. </font>

And while you're at it, ask Lyksett if he's ever come up with those "surveys" the BoD's magazine optional vote was supposedly based on.
<font color="purple"> hmmm... i guess i need to go back thru all the emails... i dont remember all the nitty gritty details. </font>

[/QUOTE]

<font color="green"> I guarantee you are not the only BoD member that doesn't remember the details, either. I think you guys need to involve yourself more in day-to-day details, or at least find out what people are doing. But that's perhaps my singular view.</font>

John,

You only believe that because you have never been on the receiving end of one my verbal assaults.....lmao

Kirk

Hi everyone, I just thought I'd chime in at an inopportune time. :D



Not inopportune at all. You can easily clear this little misunderstanding up. Go to Jason and ask him for all the names on the e-mail, recipients and senders, and post them here.

Please don't come back with "that would be inappropriate." We already know that Jason feels posting private messages is O.K., this isn't his first time doing such. And of course in the past he didn't hesititate to post the sender.

I'm also confident that Pat will support that position; he's done the same in the past. So Steve, balls in your court.



Return of serve: [email protected]



Weak...



Hi Lyle, I can confidently tell you that I did not send that email to Jason and that I have never seen it in my inbox. If you want to know where Jason got it, then I would recommend you ask him. Stop your silly pandering and do something.

Steve.

PS. Happy holidays.

John,

You only believe that because you have never been on the receiving end of one my verbal assaults.....lmao

Kirk



LOL....I do agree you have a sort of....."direct" sort of style. Of course, I find that sort of refreshing. I'm glad I've not given you reason to verbally assault me. :)

Chap

Hi Pat,

do you know how I can guage when my DISCussion Board Private Message Inbox and Sent Messages are too numerous and create a memory problem for my account? I like to save them in case i need to refer back to them at a later date (curiously my memory isn't perfect and as i age it seems to get worse -- i say seems because my memory isn't good enough for me to tell for sure)

ok, so now we ARE discussing testing discs at events. some good thoughts and questions have already been raised. an outline of issues to overcome is forming, which should provides a great starting point for a thorough program.

for me the question is simply this: "should we test discs at events?" if we decide the answer is Yes, the style and substance of the program should be left to the Staff to develop initially.

for me the answer is "yes, but only for a subset of the TS tests, and only at a subset of sanctioned events".

we may very well have two types of standards: one for which we hold players responsible, and another for which we hold the manufacturers. something like flexibility is for the mfgs, while weight is up to the player to verify.

i dont want to get ahead of my thinking at this early stage, but i'd like to address one commnet i particularly agree with: " It will never be solved until the PDGA enacts penalties that make it unprofitable for manufacturers to make out-of-spec discs." i cant help but believe this is precisely the kind of penalty that would work. it will require mfgs to be more, um, "accurate", about the weights they write on their product. it is important to remember that it may not always be that our max allowable tournament weight is also the max common weight. Japan is already in that situation. so it safe to assume that the set of discs that make sense to release into the market is bigger than the set of discs used for PDGA-sanctioned play. under that assumption event testing, at least of weights, makes a ton of sense.

btw, my understanding is that we are only considering the individual disc in the bag. a disc being overweight would only remove that single disc from sanctioned play.

do you honestly believe the pdga has the leverage to force the manufacturers to do anything???

wow, good question. i'd say, no probably not.

the pdga sets standards for discs used in pdga-sanctioned play. a manufacturer who is pursuing the non-sanctioned market doesnt have much reason to care if/how the association enforces its tech standards.

if one manufacturer or another wants to make discs that weigh over legal limits for sanctioned play, the pdga cannot stop them (nor should we). but we can take steps to ensure those discs are not used in pdga sanctioned play. i dont have any problem if a 210 gram Roc exists, as long as it doesnt get thrown during a pdga event.

Is anybody familiar with Superflights, Inc.? Yeah, they make discs and flying rings. They've been doing it for many, many years. Some of their products we can use during tournaments, some we aren't supposed to use. It should be up to the COMPETITOR to choose his/her equipment wisely, and be responsible for their choices.

Hypothetical:
td Tim Dewgood has tourney discs made.
Mfgr Outcrop Plastics sends sweet pink Shestroyers.
TD sells said disc to BERNIE (everyone's fav. DGer)

BERNIE's #1 fan reports possible overweight disc to TD .
Is TD now going to weigh that disc that he sold BERNIE?

Must that TD weigh every Shestroyer in every bag?
Should TD weigh them all before selling them?

Does TD only weigh Shestroyers from other tourneys?

steve timm

The TD only has to certify discs that someone has questioned, and the only certification tool that the TD now has is a list of certified discs. So if the Shestroyer is on the list, the disc could way 250g, and the TD, with a clear conscience, could state that s/he has no tools available by which to declare the disc above the maximum weight as set by said technical standards.

steve, is that hypo with today's rules or with some hypo set of rules in the future?

it IS a great example of a potential COI. could it be solved with marshalls?

bill's answer is great assuming today's rules.

in my future world, the discs would have been weighed before the round started, so the hypo couldnt happen :) in the absence of pre-round weigh-ins, i'd say the TD would weigh the suspect disc. there would be no COI, because it would be common to have discs in the market that do not meet the regs (hahaha.. thats not the future - thats TODAY at every event) so all the players would already know that is was THEIR responsibility to only throw discs of legal weight.

Regarding pre-round weigh-ins, might not the cure be worse than the disease? 90 players with 20 discs each is 1800 to weigh. Before every round of a standard 4-round tournament? And would we ink-stamp the discs to prevent a player from sneaking in a 3-gram-overweight disc after the weigh-in? Would it be worth it to take away the neglible advantage of a player throwing discs a few grams overweight?
(Granted, it would be easier for events with 1 round per day and staggered starts, where players could do check in 30 minutes before their tee-time like airport luggage, but still easily circumvented).

Might we make this part of the PDGA approval process instead? The PDGA could randomly order 10 discs of a given model and weigh them. If they don't meet an agreed tolerance---say, 10% are more than 1% over their marked weights---PDGA could remove that model from the approved list. This would pressure manufacturers to err towards slightly lower weights, if anything; be easier to notice unapproved discs in play; and the PDGA can re-sell the discs, minimizing cost.

Just a thought.....

If it gets to the point where there is a weigh-in at tourneys (which I hope doesn't happen), you will probably find that a limit on the number of discs you can carry will also occur.

yepper, i can see how those could be related.

whats your biggest reason for not wanting weigh-ins to happen?

whats your biggest reason for not wanting weigh-ins to happen?



From my perspective, time, manpower, testing equipment costs (purchase and maintenance), TD having the added requirement to establish a lab-like controlled environment, having to provide a arbitration process ("I weighed this at home and it was legal, so your scale is wrong"), having to police people adding discs after the weigh-in, having to provide additional opportunities for weighing in discs between rounds ("hey, I lost my Roc on #7 so I have to be able to put my backup in the bag"), not being able to calibrate correctly for hydroscopic changes ('hey, in dry Arizona this disc was legal") and so on.

Yes. these are 'reasons', not a single reason. All the 'reasons' pretty clearly point out in my mind that tournament weigh-ins would be impossible for all but perhaps the top one or two tournaments. And for those two, the benefit gained wouldn't be worth the cost and efforts required.

Since I have been generally trying to replace my bag with lighter weight discs (mid/upper 160s), I have no concern for my own bag.

My biggest concern with weigh-ins is merely logistics and TD work load. If we're talking USDGC with staggered starts, the logistics make it a tractable problem. When we are talking shotgun starts and players occasionally wanting/needing to buy/acquire a new disc (e.g. to replace a lost disc) mid-round, it will prevent tournaments from running smoothly. The TD workload is high, and I don't think adding this would significantly add a benefit to PDGA tournaments for the work required.

That said, I have no problems with enforcing the weight limit rule if a player asked for an individual disc to be weighed.

But the challenge of a TD being able to respond to that request (asking for an individual disc to be weighed) in a manner that will result in a sound indisputable decision is too great for most tournaments. I think the onus still needs to be on the manufacturers selling discs that comply with PDGA rules plus/minus a given tolerance.

Not much different than softball. No one on the field at your Thursday night league has the capablility of testing a bat. But they can see if the bat being used is an approved model. Actually, this isn't much different than pro baseball, where bats are confiscated if in question and then subjected to testing in a separate lab environment, a process that can take a couple of weeks for a decision. Even in big money Major League Baseball, the equipment isn't on hand to be able to make the determination unless a bat breaks and cork flies all over the field.

I agree with tkieffer.

Onsite testing makes players responsible for a measurement that should be made by the manufacturer. In particular, players are held accountable for and punished for those mistakes. It would require that every player have their own testing facilities. If we do this, we send the wrong message.

Here's the gist of the message the onsite testing program program would send. "We sympathisize with manufacturers who cannot accurately weigh a disc (or who might falsify weights to sucker players into buying out-of-spec discs), so players might buy PDGA approved discs that have the wrong weight written on the bottom. The players must pay for any such errors, in several ways. First, they will need to buy their own home laboratories or pay some other lab to validate the measurement. Secondly, they will have to stand around in long lines when they might rather be practicing or warming up. Thirdly, we will punish the players by disqualifying overweight discs right before the event."

And here's the gist of the message we need to send: "It is the absolute responsibility of the manufacturer to make sure that no disc that carries the 'PDGA approved' stamp is out of spec in any way. We are instituting a program of random sampling of new discs for retesting. Manufacturers that produce out-of-spec discs with the 'PDGA approved' stamp will be subject to sanctions that may include fines and the loss of the privilege of using the 'PDGA approved' stamp. This retesting program will be paid for by the manufacturers."

Peter I posted the exact ideas almost in the thread started by gateway. No other sport relies on players to take a manufactured correctly piece of equipment (non modified) and be responsible for it. If the manufacturers can not make and mark a PDGA specified disc correctly then they should be fined, and there disc be put on a hold list. I have worked in manufacturing businesses where specs are very tight after production, and I know people who have worked on parts for govenment work where the specs are stupid and 0% tolerence. But since what we are buying can be melted down and remolded, or possibly fixed at the manufacturer (is there a way to shave off 1gram from the rim at the manu?) then it should never come out as bad as they do now. Sure the molds may release and weights be off what they wanted, but after measuring the weight they should know without a secound thought the weights are correct.

If we get to the point of weigh in's then it should be for por's only at NT's and above.

And here's the gist of the message we need to send: "It is the absolute responsibility of the manufacturer to make sure that no disc that carries the 'PDGA approved' stamp is out of spec in any way."


I absolutely cannot believe what I am reading. I would have expected someone with Mr. Shive's years of life experience to be the last to buy in to today's society's prevailing "blame the other guy" mentality. This abhorrence of personal responsibility is not only what's ruining our culture (a topic for another thread altogether), but also what is threatening to make "competitive" disc golf a joke.

I submit that here's the gist of the message we need to send: "It is the absolute responsibility of a competitor in a PDGA-sanctioned event to ensure that he/she is in compliance with all PDGA rules, regulations, and technical specifications as a condition of competing in said event. Competitors that carry out-of-spec discs will be subject to sanctions that may include disallowing the out-of-spec disc(s) and/or disqualification from the event."

Ray,

You are both right!

It is absolutely the competitor's responsibility to ensure compliance with PDGA rules, regs, and tech specs, but Peter is right with respect to what the "PDGA Approved" stamp should mean. If a disc is "PDGA Approved", that should mean that the vendor is not producing any discs for sale that are not in compliance with the PDGA tech stds.

If, as a TD, I had someone question a disc, and the disc has "PDGA Approved" on it, I would examine the disc for cracks, perforations, and post-production modifications that affect the flight characteristics, as called for in Section 802.01 B and C, but if there was a question about weight, flexibility, or other tech stds, I would point to the "PDGA Approved" on the disc, and say, "Next!"

Today's society's prevailing "blame the other guy" mentality, ruining our culture? That's a bit of a stretch, isn't it?

Perhaps you can say that it is the players responsibility to be throwing PDGA approved for play discs, but isn't it a bit much to expect each and every player in a tournament to know if his/her discs will pass a flex test (let alone what the specs are)? Wouldn't it be a bit of a burden to expect every player to have a properly calibrated scale that will weigh a disc with enough accuracy, let alone the humidity controlled room to account for hydroscopic changes? Is it even fathomable that every player would know all of the technical specs (let alone possess all of the equipment) to a point that they could be employed as 'certified' disc approval experts'? I can't even see TDs being able to pull this off, let alone the players themselves.

But it is reasonable to expect players to know that a particular make and model of disc is PDGA approved, and to know that intentionally altering the disc is not allowed.

Not much different than golf balls, tennis balls, hockey pucks, baseball bats, pool cues, and whatever else. You purchase what the box says is approved by the sanctioning or testing body and take it from there. I don't expect everyone who plays in a ball golf tournament to own, maintain and properly use the 'durometer' or whatever other tools they use in evaluating golf balls for approval just to make sure the cover of every ball in their golf bag meets the hardness standards. Nor would I expect them to sample 2 out of every 12 balls they buy, drilling into these to determine whether the core meets whatever specs. Its just not feasible, and has nothing to do with our 'deteriorating culture'. Its been that way for most sports since their near inception, even back before the world went to pieces due to rock and roll and all the rest of the culture breakers. ;)

As weight can change (rather dramatically) depending on conditions, a manufacturer cannot be responsible for a disc's weight after it leaves the factory. A disc might weigh a conforming 175g when it leaves the factory and be marked as such, but weigh a non-conforming 177g after a month at the bottom of a lake. While it could be argued that it is a manufacturer's onus to ensure compliance at the moment a disc leaves the factory, that is a red herring when it comes to a disc's legality for a specific competition. It is 100% the player's responsibility to ensure that the discs in his/her bag conform to the tech specs at the time they are used in PDGA-sanctioned play.

It's not feasible. Players will never own the proper testing equipment nor facilities, and too much can happen after the fact (changing humidity, wet discs due to rain or condensation and so on).

By your example (disc in a lake), a player would have to carry a scale during the round (and, of course, the necessary calibration equipment) just in case they drop a disc in a puddle or get mud on it.

I am not suggesting that at all. I just say that a player is the one who suffers the consequences IF a disc he is carrying is found to be out-of-spec. He need not carry a balance nor ever weigh his discs. He only needs to accept responsibility (and the concomitant punishment) if he is found to be carrying an illegal piece of equipment.

If a disc carries a PDGA APPROVED logo, then I as a competitor should not have to worry about the disc if it is still in good condition, eg. not cracked, etc. Otherwise the PDGA should not even approve a single disc, and we as competitors then would have to ok every disc we bring in our bags.

If I buy a disc that clearly states it is 174grams, then weigh it and its 177grams, then I should not be held responsible. The manufacturer should for releasing a disc beyond approved status. Maybe a disc that is approved for 175 grams never leave the factory over 173 grams.

Is it your responsibility if it weighs 200g? How about 600g? How about 6000g? Where is the cutoff? And why is that cutoff any more reasonable that the obvious one that is laid out by the PDGA rules?

Why not just increase the MAX weight of a 175 disc to 180? I wouldn't want to start throwing all 180 so Manufacturers would be able to produce 175 discs without having to throw away 1 out of every 5. I have been in the factory making discs and when you are shooting for max weight they do go from 172-178g so are we supposed to just toss the overweight ones away? If you increase it to 180g you can sell all of those which will cause a decrease in production costs.

Heck it could possibly be the 1st thing the PDGA has done right in a long time.

careful young jedi... thems banning words! :)

Moving from 175 to 180 just moves the cutoff to a new spot. Some people (perhaps not you) will still crave max weight discs and manufacturers will still shoot for the max, not 2 to 3 grams under, to meet the demand.

Oh, and appreciate that PDGA boosting comment on the end. :p

Is it your responsibility if it weighs 200g? How about 600g? How about 6000g? Where is the cutoff? And why is that cutoff any more reasonable that the obvious one that is laid out by the PDGA rules?



Yes, because that much difference could only be accomplished via a post production modification. Its already covered under the rules, the player is already responsible, no change is needed.

Is it your responsibility if it weighs 200g? How about 600g? How about 6000g? Where is the cutoff? And why is that cutoff any more reasonable that the obvious one that is laid out by the PDGA rules?



Yes, because that much difference could only be accomplished via a post production modification. Its already covered under the rules, the player is already responsible, no change is needed.



Exactly! Except for post-production modifications and cracks/perforations, the "PDGA Approved" stamp should absolve the player from any sanctions, including not being able to use the disc.

Now, if there is some kind of recall, or other extraordinary situation, the disc might be disallowed, but in normal situations, that stamp should mean that the disc is good to go.

Heck it could possibly be the 1st thing the PDGA has done right in a long time.



Remember how young this pup is. To him, a "long time" could mean "not this year"!

careful young jedi... thems banning words! :)



I hope they try it............. :D

Exactly! Except for post-production modifications and cracks/perforations, the "PDGA Approved" stamp should absolve the player from any sanctions, including not being able to use the disc.



Got my vote.

careful young jedi... thems banning words! :)



No. Them's [deleted*] words. Which could possibly get *me* banned if anyone knew what I meant to put inside those brackets, which no one does. :cool:

Added much later: I know that the mystery of the missing phrase was making some people tense, so here it is: The mystery phrase is [a young man's] :D

Pat, can you find out how many current members the PDGA had at this time last year?
(Currently, the PDGA has 5220 current members)

Apples and oranges. I understand they changed how they did renewals this year to later timing. Gotta wait until probably mid-March to compare.

What? I just wanted to know the numbers.

Apples and oranges. I understand they changed how they did renewals this year to later timing. Gotta wait until probably mid-March to compare.



Just compare renewals in Jan. 07 and Jan. 08, i don't see it being much different than comparing March 07 to March 08.

the 5,220 is 224, or 4.5%, ahead of last year at this same time.

But it is based on the procedural changes that shifted the renewal process cycle later into this year than last. Sounds like it may take until March for the two year-to-date numbers to be on a comparable basis. If any member wants the numbers, here is not where to ask. Contact the PDGA office to get the scoop.

Thank you Pat.

hmmm... Members 2007 (http://www.pdga.com/tournament/playerstats.php?PDGANum=2007) v 2008 (http://www.pdga.com/tournament/playerstats.php?PDGANum=2008)... would be a good matchup but i'd give the edge to #2007 - Geoff Lissaman since he beat #2008 Johnny Lissaman in the last tourney they played together

:D

looks like we're in for a tough one (http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&amp;word1=2007&amp;word2=2008)

What does DROT and MIO mean

DROT is Disc Resting On Top {off the target}. i saw one yesterday that got wedged under the number plate.

i dunno what MIO means. given our divisional structure, maybe Mens Intermediate Open :)

DROT is Disc Resting On Top {off the target}. i saw one yesterday that got wedged under the number plate.

i dunno what MIO means. given our divisional structure, maybe Mens Intermediate Open :)



Man In Orbit?

I never like drot, I much prefer dot or ybib (you blew it buddy) or mwtc (man was that close)

M1O used to be the code for the Advanced division until changed to MA1 for the past several years.

My fault. I meant, what does "IMO" mean? I've seen people type this and this is one that I've never picked up on.

IMHO, IMO means In My Opinion. Sometimes it has an H in it for Humble.

IMHO, IMO means In My Opinion. Sometimes it has an H in it for Humble.



or sometimes H for "Honest"... :D

this is the most recent motion the Board is considering:

MOTION: That the PDGA Board of Directors as a whole will make decisions regarding disclosure of confidential information in accordance with Colorado law, including the determination of what constitutes confidential, and that no individual board member may release such information without permission of the board.

the attempt is to make sure that no member, other than those blessed by the Board, may receive any information about anything the association does.

please talk your Directors and make your feelings known.

some will try to tell you that "all companies do this", blah blah blah, etc etc etc. thats complete BS. this motion seeks to keep information away from the Members. it exists for no other reason. it claims to keep things even with Colorado law, but in fact is more restrictive.

there is also a move underway to require the signing of a Non-Disclosure and Non-Compete agreement prior to serving on the Board or as a volunteer. the proposed language calls for 3 years of non-compete. this is beyond absurd, and 1will only serve to keep volunteers away from helping. again, please contact your Directors and discuss this with them. this attempt goes far too far.

who is pushing these measures and for what reason... or will we have to wait for the minutes to find out? (which usually results in too little too late on the info)

TYS. :D

just curious but why Colorado? whats the significance of that when (i thought) everything is in Georgia?

Spotters at tournaments will need to sign Non-disclosure and Non-compete forms?

just curious but why Colorado?

That's where the PDGA is incorporated or legally registered.

MOTION: That the PDGA Board of Directors as a whole will make decisions regarding disclosure of confidential information in accordance with Colorado law, including the determination of what constitutes confidential, and that no individual board member may release such information without permission of the board.



This shouldn't be required if the Board is functioning correctly. If the group by majority vote decides not to release particular confidential information, it would be a gross disservice of an individual Board member to go against such a vote. There obviously is something fundamentally wrong going on if such a resolution is even having to be considered. The Board and its members need to act as one after decisions are made. The alternative is infighting, lack of progress and the possible end of majority rule. In effect, there will be an ineffective Board made up of individuals who feel fit to tear down or prop up personal interests or gripes as they see fit. Majority wishes or opposing viewpoints be damned.

You guys not playing nice in the sandbox again?

thats not really the point. no one has done anything against formal wishes of the Board. god forbid. the world would prolly stop if that happened.

the issue here is disclosure. not satisfied that COlorado law requires disclosure, we are now discussing ways to limit disclosure. thats the real problem.

I don't read it as limiting disclosure. I read it as the Board as a whole will consider confidentiality issues as opposed to leaving it to individual Board member discretion.

Out of curiosity, is this motion documented in publicly available minutes, or did we just get a 'sneak preview' from you?

The non-disclosure and non-compete agreements are pretty standard business practices. I applaud the BOD for the move.

I don't see it as limiting disclosure, I see it as following the law.

actually, the law does not require it. nor does common sense. do you guys really think asking for a three year non-compete makes sense? for volunteers, that means you cant do the folowing while you help the pdga, and for three years after:

1. assist any other disc golf organization
2. run certain events
3. offer online registration services
4. create discgolf.ning.com
5. develop a new ratings system
6. conduct online business as a disc reseller
... and many more...

its one thing to protect oneself. its another to rush into overly restrictive arangements.

actually, the law does not require it. nor does common sense. do you guys really think asking for a three year non-compete makes sense? for volunteers, that means you cant do the folowing while you help the pdga, and for three years after:

1. assist any other disc golf organization
2. run certain events
3. offer online registration services
4. create discgolf.ning.com
5. develop a new ratings system
6. conduct online business as a disc reseller
... and many more...

its one thing to protect oneself. its another to rush into overly restrictive arangements.



I'd have to read the agreement, but I would guess your description here is a gross exaggeration. I can't see where selling discs on-line, working with the local club, participating in EDGE, maintaining a discgolf.ning page or the like would be affected by a non-compete. These actions don't directly compete against the PDGA.

those are all things the pdga does, and it would be considered competition if one were to do similar things.

I believe this is for high level volunteers like BOD members and those that provide special services like Chuck and ratings. This would not apply to your average TD or spotter.

I'm trying to understand your concerns. You first state that the BOD " as a whole will make decisions regarding disclosure of confidential information in accordance with Colorado law ." What exactly is Colorado law. Does the law dictate what is confidential and what is not; or does the law simply require the BOD to formally determine in writing what is confidential and what is not?

If the law requires the BOD to define "confidential" and the BOD is doing so, what is the issue, or are you concerned that they are defining it too broadly?

Secondly, is the fact that no BOD member can release confidential info without the BOD's permission a requirement of the law, or part of a discretionary policy they are required to adopt?

Thirdly, what do non-compete agreements have to do with all this? This is a separate issue and not related to the recited law. Correct? Non-compete agreements could cover a little, or a lot, but some level of non-compete agreements seems to make sense for an organization like the PDGA. Correct?

For doing ratings, I'm neither a BOD member nor volunteer, but contractor. I'm guessing OfficeMax won't need to sign a Non-disclosure/compete form. :eek:

I'd be fine signing them as needed for volunteer work like co-designing the Steady Ed course and committee work.