About European congresses:

In European go congresses it is often possible to get significant support from local city, county or state. I was part of EGC2010 organization and we chose Tampere as the congress city because the City of Tampere gave us the congress venue with a severely underpriced rent for the two weeks.

These deals with local city and state governments obviously vary from year to year. However the EGC costs are generally so low that they are way below market prices and some kind of large local public sponsorship is necessary. Of course this sponsorship money comes indirectly from local taxpayers. In many European states and cities this is politically viable but in North America things might be different.

As a previous AGA member, the reason I don't renew is because due to monetary and time reasons, I'm not able to go over to the nearby go clubs too often to play (less than ten times a year), the cost of membership just isn't beneficial for me since I would rarely get to play in any rated tournaments. However, I do actively play on KGS, and it would be much more considerable if there were a separate (or merged, either way) AGA ranking system that I could play. The AGA could then possibly look into more online tournaments and basically just create another virtual support for those that don't get the option to play face-to-face.

There are many things to say here.

The myth of the gym with sleeping bags, while rooted in truth, is not the reason for the cost differential. It does appear that costs are simply cheaper in Europe, and with a bigger turnout, the fixed costs that do exist are spread over more people, resulting in savings.

The good about the US Congress in comparison is that there seems to be more things going on, some of which costs money, but there seems to be more going on and access to more pros, even though there are less people.

Now, you can argue that the US Congress is over scheduled, and the European one better balanced and more relaxing.

Still, the AGA should look at the pricing and analyze if some costs can be avoided and pass savings on. Instituitionally, the AGA has always felt that the Congress was so great, folks would pay whatever it took to go, and prices were set with no risk of loss at all, and, indeed, a virtually guaranteed profit for the AGA and local organizers. While this is not necessarily wrong, or bad, it is increasingly untenable and not based in reality.

In 1987 there was simply no other way to go to a place and hang out and play close to 200 go players for a week 24/7, or at least 16/7. The culture of the US Go Congress was born in a world where it was the only game in town.

Today, any of us can sit in our living room and hang out with thousands of go players any week literally 24/7.

For FREE.

Now I am not saying the experience is equivalent, but the Congress is no longer the only game in town, and the inertia that prevents people from trying that first Congress and getting hooked is vastly greater today where access to opponents is easier and costs have increased.

To complain without suggestion is annoying and pointless, but to smugly claim its worth every penny, without reflection, ignores current realities and I believe dooms the US Go Congress to being a runt little brother in severe danger of failing to thrive.

I still think one of the biggest things the AGA could do for itself right now is to develop a way of having online ranked games. It'd increase participation in the AGA ranking system and the AGA itself, help even out AGA rankings across the country (instead of the regional/enclave variations we have now) and help bring it in as a real presence in the online go world.

Without this, AGA rankings (one of the big reasons people even join) will become less and less relevant as time goes on. Personally, I already have to make an "adjustment" to AGA rankings to try and pair up newbies to my club with good initial handicaps whereas DGS rankings prove to be a pretty good, consistent system (at least in a relative sense).

Bruce "Just plain rank(ed)" Young

_________________
Currently reading: Plutarch, Cerebus, and D&Q 25th Anniversary

If your reasons for joining a particular organization rest primarily on the benefits that YOU can gain from being a member, then you really ought to stay away from organizations like the AGA or any other volunteer organization. I think you'd be sorely disappointed. In fact, I'd recommend that you please stay away entirely for the sake of those who take the old-fashioned notion volunteerism seriously.

Besides, you'll never be happy as a member of the AGA because you'll never understand the impulse of being part of something larger than yourself, of being part of something that involves personal sacrifice, of advocating for a greater good that transcends self gratification. And to be blunt, you'd just get in the way.

I know, such attitudes are antiquated but then so is the desire to promote the game of Go for its own sake and not for the sake of one's own personal gain or agenda. Mercenary opportunities abound for those who wish to pay and take without giving back. Why burden the AGA with your self interested pursuits?

_________________
"This is a game that rewards patience and balance. You must think like a man of action and act like a man of thought."
-Jonas Skarssen

This alone would be enough incentive for me to join the AGA.

Deja, the thing is that you have to be an AGA member to participate in tournaments, so if we applied your standards, we'd more or less destroy competitive go in the USA. I don't think I'd appreciate that.

_________________
Occupy Babel!

I'm confused. If no individual member of the AGA benefits from the work the AGA does, then what exactly is the point of the AGA? Slaughtering my firstborn on a consecrated goban would be an act of great personal sacrifice and self-abnegation, but I hope you agree that it wouldn't be a particularly useful contribution to the greater glory of American Go.

And also: no one ever became part of something greater than him or herself by paying annual membership dues.

EDIT: jts already made my point far more succinctly.

This is quite unreasonable. I am not a member of the AGA, but gladly would be if I believed it was really doing much to spread Go and aid the Go community. The organizations in Europe seem to be doing far better. I will not become a member until at least some of the following criteria are met:

1) More transparency. The website should post the budget and how the members' money is spent.

2) Take advantage of new media to promote Go, as well as facilitate communication between members and members of
other Go associations.

3) Promote cooperation between different international Go associations and communication between its members.

4) Work toward getting more material translated to English.

5) It would be nice if the AGA started writing its own news articles again, instead of just bumming off
JustPlayGo.

_________________
"Those who calculate greatly will win; those who calculate only a little will lose, but what of those who don't make any calculations at all!? This is why everything must be calculated, in order to foresee victory and defeat."-The Art of War

Yeah, that came off a little strong...

I'm the last person to discourage criticism of the AGA. There are plenty of reasons to be dissatisfied with the current state of AGA affairs, some of which may be compelling enough to keep from joining. Nevertheless, if your primary reasons for joining any volunteer organization are focused on the personal benefits that you gain, then you're better off looking elsewhere. That obviously doesn't mean you shouldn't get anything in return from being a member. What it does mean is that volunteer organizations like the AGA are what they are because of active member participation, i.e., what members do for the organization. As I've said before - viewtopic.php?p=45857#p45857 - the AGA is not a Sam's club.

_________________
"This is a game that rewards patience and balance. You must think like a man of action and act like a man of thought."
-Jonas Skarssen

I still think this is something that would have similar responses in the UK if the BGA did it.

Although temperamentally I find myself in accord with deja, I was also impressed by Horibe's remarks on the Congress. There were several other excellent posts, so much so that they got me thinking.

Two aspirins later, something formulated itself in my mind. Before revealing that, a little background. There is great merit in off-the-wall ideas, but they tend to deal with the future. I have a sense that what go players want at present is something tangible NOW, in return for membership. Since we are at some sort of crossroads where many people feel they are being led inexorably into a decision to go with the free internet route to go enjoyment or to pay a subscription to a national go association that is currently declining or under criticism, action is also required NOW. Therefore any new ideas at the moment should be practical and able to be implemented NOW.

On that basis, I start with an analysis of what go players seem to want at present. In no particular order, I detect strongly: (1) a need for involvement other than tournaments or congresses; (2) a desire for teaching; (3) a desire for ranking; (4) a desire for use of online resources, for cheapness and instant access if nothing else; (4) a desire for more English-language material; (5) a desire for guidance.

There are other possibilities, but I think these cover most cases.

If we look first at how the internet meets these requirements, we see a very patchy picture. Rankings such as those produced by kgs are probably the most obvious benefit, as they are almost instantaneous and there is a wide range of opponents. But they are far from perfect - obtained at widely varying time allowances, plagued by cheating etc.

Kgs provides games online, and there are forums, wikis and blogs, but a lot of the resources are unreliable, in the senses both of being inaccurate and of being apt just to disappear, and just finding your way through the morass, let alone evaluating what you find, is a nightmare. There is also teaching online, but much of that is paid-for and so doesn't come under the "free internet" rubric we are considering. Much of the free English-language material on go is unreliable, and again it is very difficult to get any reliable guidance on how to evaluate it.

Looking at that situation from the point of view of a national organisation that wants to re-invent itself and to find things that are doable NOW, I come to these conclusions:

1. Effort in converting websites and journals into "guidance machines" would pay handsome dividends. This is doable simply because much of the necessary work has been done already. What is lacking is focus. Each national organisation should have information somewhere that offers guidance and evalution on everything a western amateur needs. This means things like, a syllabus of what is required to reach each grade, book reviews of every book, evaluation of all types of equipment, lists of congresses, advice on how to teach, etc. There is nothing new about any of this, but what would be new would to be see this activity (a) properly presented in a convenient place, very regularly[/] updated, and with reasoned but strong [u]opinions.

Looking at current sites, I see a mishmash. Probably everything is there somewhere, but where? Addresses for clubs that became defunct three years ago (as on the BGA site) do not just cause irritation but they undermine confidence in the entire site. Would it not be beyond an organisation to ask for a volunteer who would check for dead links once a month or fortnight? I also see many sites that offer lists of things available, but too often there is no opinion on what is good or bad. A national organisation full of experts ought to have the confidence to express a view. If an item of equipment tends to break easily, say so. If a vendor generates lots of complaints, say so. If one way of teaching is better than another, say so.

But putting all this information on a public website in the vague hope that it creates publicity for go is a bad idea. That makes it not just free and uncontrolled but feedback-free. Instead the webiste should give a taste and point to the benefits of joining the association. The meatiest information should be reserved for journals, pdf files, e-mails and CDs sent exclusively to paid-up members. The AGA does this already to a small degree but should go much further. There is an important need to overcome the false notion that just because it's possible you need to put everything you can on the internet for free. Doing that can dilute the value of content, help few and hinder many. Where control is required, because of e.g. needs for accuracy, data protection or regular updating, the paid-for option can work best.

2. Organisations could use funds to pay online teachers. There is already a desire to encourage native-born pros, and, apparently, several strong players willing to spend time teaching in return for an income. An organisation acting on behalf of many members could provide a substantial amount to a teacher, making the work worth his while in absolute terms while also providing him with some stability of income. The sort of thing I envisage would be that a teacher offers by e-mail a quiz of next move problems. These would cover the syllabus already outlined by the organisation. They would have a mark, and so convertible into a rank, of sorts, or at least a sign of having reached a certain level in the syllabus. Once the answers are revealed, the members would have the right to ask questions - why was move X not included, how is move Y bigger? The teacher would get the benefit of a large number of responses that would indicate where his explanations are deficient or where members' lack of knowledge needs attention. He would not answer each query separately, but instead give a round-up answer - something more for the member to look forward to. This sort of scheme seems to offer in one fell swoop some element of support for native pros, syllabus guidance, ranking guidance, personal and group involvement, and is online (i.e. little cost or administration overhead).

Again I see this as doable simply because to a degree it is already done. The only real change is putting focus and priority on it.

Both these ideas can be enhanced by cooperation between countries. If it proves difficult to fund a pro, why not approach another organisation and offer to share the costs?

These ideas obviously do not address every concern, and I'm sure there are many more that can be put forward. They may turn out not to be enough to reverse declines in memberships, but so long as they are doable - building on work already done and volunteers already in place - and so long as they address the expressed wishes of members and potential members - as opposed to just what was done before or to personal preferences - they can at least be tried with a minimal investment in money, time and extra effort.

To my way of thinking, the single most important hurdle to overcome is the mindset that being a good citizen means offering everything free on the internet. That is wrong, pernicious and counterproductive. The most fruitful path is to create a mindset that says: "Don't go to a wiki - go to the experts, your national organisation".

In fact, I think it would do a lot of national organisations to be more assertive and to remind both the carpers and the potential recruits that they are indeed the experts, and the labourer is worth his hire.

I was going to look up the budget report for you, but usgo.org is down... So I won't be doing that.

http://www.downforeveryoneorjustme.com/www.usgo.org

It's okay for me. The budget stuff until 2009 is posted at http://usgo.org/org/information.html, but there's nothing after that.

Your motive for joining any organization should be to help somebody. Some people join charitable organizations whose mission is not intended to benefit the volunteers at all, but they do provide benefits (food, shelter, medical care, education) that would be equally desirable for the volunteers and for the recipients of charity. Now, most volunteers in these sorts of groups already have access to the goods that they work to provide to others, but their own personal benefit is a good roadmap to the sort of benefits that they try to provide for others. Other organizations are almost wholly selfish (many businesses, for example), and don't directly intend to benefit others at all. Most organizations are somewhere in between.

Think of the members of a neighborhood beautification committee. Are they improving the neighborhood merely for their own selfish benefit? No, there are certainly other people who will benefit as well. But should you feel proud of working for a beautification committee which doesn't benefit you at all, and whose accomplishments don't benefit any of the members? Of course not. Such a committee has manifestly failed to beautify the neighborhood.

The AGA, I would assume, is more like a neighborhood beautification committee than Oxfam. If anyone benefits from what the AGA does, it will be the American go players who are dedicated enough to volunteer; it's their neighborhood, so to speak. If they don't benefit, no one does.

You left this part out when you selectively quoted my post

_________________
"This is a game that rewards patience and balance. You must think like a man of action and act like a man of thought."
-Jonas Skarssen

Although I do not know the AGA at all, the following question struck me while reading this thread: would I pay 40 euros per year to join the European Go Federation? Honestly, I don't know. While that organisation undoubtedly does a lot of useful things, it really is a "far-away" institution which I do not directly encounter very often - aside from the Congresses, of course. Yet, I have gladly been a member of the Dutch go federation since I started playing, and I never even considered cancelling my membership even though it is more expensive than 40 euros per year. Of course, the Dutch go federation then pays some money to be a member of the EGF, and I think this is perfectly natural. Hence, the real problem might be the shear size of the US, rendering the AGA a "far-away show" with no real benefit for many people. As mentioned before, this might be changed by using new media and online rankings more.

But my main feeling is that focusing on regional organisations would be more productive. When people feel part of some community and have real-life friends there, paying a few bucks every year to support that community is just not so much of an issue. Of course, traveling distances are bigger in the US than in Europe. But, provided that there are dedicated volunteers, things like low-cost regional go camps (get together in a cheap group accomodation for a week or so without high budget for pros or prize money) and all-day or all-weekend events like tournaments bind a community together. My feeling is that people would not have so many objections towards paying a bunch of money to become a member of, let's say, the California AGA Chapter, which uses most of the money to organise local events and forwards maybe 20-30% of the money to a small overarching national association.

By the way, what's up with the idea that people have to be an AGA member to play in tournaments? That's pretty unfriendly, and kind of unwelcoming to newcomers and irregular players (plus: what do you do with foreigners who want to play?)... Instead, let people become part of the go community first; then they will want to pay their share!

Of course, these are just my 2 cents. But first and foremostly, I believe that any regional or national go association should be as friendly and welcoming as possible. People should join a federation because they want to support its goals and support the community, not because they are somehow forced to.

_________________
My name is Gijs, from Utrecht, NL.

When in doubt, play the most aggressive move

1. Why does the EGF seem far away? Is it national identification, or something else? If something else, California is 770 miles from North to South, making it a "far away" organization.

2. There are terms for joining the AGA at a tournament, more cheaply than normal ($10 for a one day pass, $15 for a one year promotional membership). You become a member when you go to the tournament, along with receiving your rating.

_________________
Occupy Babel!

[rant] At my curmudgeonly age I think almost all the resources of the AGA should be devoted to promoting face-to-face go. Back in the good old days there was no internet and the only way you could play was face to face. You developed real relationships with real people and when you went to a club or tournament you had real interactions with groups of people with common interests. This just doesn't happen with internet go. That's about as real a relationship as text messaging lol (not!).

And what's with this obsession with ranks? When all play was in person and mostly at your local club, you mostly played for the social aspect and ranks just helped you get a good game at an appropriate handicap. Now I see threads devoted to paralysis due to fear of rank lowering. I think this is an internet-related phenomenon. Even blitz games were more fun. I'm thinking of a couple of players at a club I once frequented who played blitz all the time and frequently ended with angry exchanges on the theme of "I would have won if ..." followed by sulking and/or stomping out of the club. But they'd be back the next week. There was no "escaping" when people played in person.

And then there is the greedy attitude that you only contribute to the go community if you get immediate and concrete return on your investment. Bah! [/rant]