The AGA is asking very little from those who wish to share in this so-called "valuable gift." It's a pittance in comparison to the potential rewards it reaps for those who wish to participate. There are many other dedicated volunteers who give their time and money to make this happen and have absolutely no chance of sharing in this "valuable gift" and somehow it's unreasonable to ask these strong players to make a very minimal commitment to those who are making the whole thing possible for them?

_________________
"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

Exactly that; there has to be some kind of organisation that establishes the tournaments, ratings and other criteria for sending representatives to the various tournaments in the Far East. To suggest that some kind of benevolent anarchy would produce representatives just as good would not work. If AGA members living in the US (I am one not living in the US) believe that the system is broken, lobby the AGA about it. If they feel that the AGA is broken, then fix it. But, as things stand, only the AGA can nominate representatives from the US to those events.

Best wishes.

_________________
No aji, keshi, kifu or kikashi has been harmed in the compiling of this post.
http://www.gogod.co.uk

Let's try to think of this in terms of another example: a worker's union at a company called "Company Inc.". Some people like workers' unions, and think that they can protect employees. However, some people don't like unions. In some cases, the demands of a worker's union can get people laid off. Maybe somebody has something that they inherently don't like about unions. That's fine - they don't have to join the union.

But they are still employees at the company, whether or not they join the union. Now let's say that the union has some (small) dues that you have to pay to be a part of the union. It's pretty cheap, and you can get benefits from being in the union.

But if you don't want to be in the union in the first place, of course you don't want to pay its dues - you don't want to be a part of the union, so why should you?

Now let's say that there is some potluck where people from different companies can get together and join in fun and eating, and to talk about their respective companies. For this potluck, they want to invite people to represent the companies in the local area. They want somebody from "Company Inc.", "Electrosoft", "Jack's Fast Food", and so on.

Now let's say that the organizers don't know who to contact to get a representative from "Company Inc.". There's not a lot of communication between the organizers and "Company Inc.", so they don't know who to ask. But then they meet "Bob", head of the worker's union at "Company Inc.". They talk to Bob and say they want a representative to join for the potluck.

Now Bob can choose a representative to join the potluck at "Company Inc.". If Bob is altruistic, he may try to find a way to fairly choose a representative from the company, regardless of whether they are in the union or not. But if he is stuck on getting people to join the union, he may make a rule: "To represent Company Inc. at the potluck, you've gotta join the union".

Does this sound familiar? Some people just don't like unions, and they want nothing to do with them. But they are still representatives of Company Inc.. It could very well be that the person that met up with Bob doesn't care about the union either. He just wants a person from "Company Inc." to represent the company at the potluck.

Why should such a representative be forced to join the union?

In this case, to get a go playing representative to play for America, why do they need to have strong ties to the AGA? Not everybody likes unions - not everybody likes organizations like the AGA.

But we are united in that we all like go - we are all members of this gaming "company".

_________________
be immersed

What about a benevolent organization, which produced representatives of the country, independently of its own agenda?

_________________
be immersed

I checked around to a few other national organizations: Australian, British, Irish, and Canadian Go Associations. Their international policies have two things in common: you must be a member and you have to participate in tournaments to earn points towards international tournaments.

The AGA uses the point system for the WAGC. Anyone know of other national organizations that make you join their organization and play in many tournaments so you can play in tournaments to go overseas?

_________________
Decisions are made by those who show up.
and possibly those willing to attend secret meetings in ancient basements

I'd just like to point out that there is a charge for viewing the Irish Rules.

The 10 game rule is pretty easy to circumvent, so easy I find it hard to understand the opposition to it. Especially if you are a teaching pro, you can submit any game, even if it's even against a 30k. Could the AGA maintain a list of certified teachers though and use this as another 'good citizen' measure? It's a good question to ask, some people are talking about excluding pros from the 10 game measure, I think they really mean excluding teachers.

Membership at qualifying tournaments is really a must for me, strict continuous membership I am not really into. I think it's healthy that their are clubs out there who aren't AGA members, but I think they have to recognise that if they take a decision not to join up, then they have to pay the price for that (No access to international events). Cotsen has its own tournaments, and it sounds like a thriving club, but that doesn't mean it has the right to buy into the international community.

Wow, truly awesome! Great business sense

I think that your stance sounds reasonable, but I'm not sure that I understand the last part. What constitutes "the right to buy into the international community"? Why should the AGA have this right, while other groups of people should not?

_________________
be immersed

Because it has been officially recognized by larger international organizations, like the IGF.

I'm surprised that most people do not see this. < Admin editing on this line by Joaz Banbeck >

Form your own group and become a member of the IGF, then you can send whomever you wish.

I was not aware that the IGF controls this (and how does this constitute hardheadedness?). But I don't think that it changes the point. Ideally, then, a group should become a member of the IGF and then have the graciousness to let anybody from America that would like to participate participate.

That way, the focus is on "go players from America". Not on some "organization that is in America".

By the way, I think that the AGA could be this organization. There are issues with costs of sending people abroad, but as was suggested earlier, these costs could be laid upon people that aren't as closely tied with the AGA if they end up going (eg. You had a lapse in membership, so you have to pay for your own ticket).

_________________
be immersed

OK, now add that the representative must be chosen competitively, not appointed by some authority. How is the competition to be organized? Unless there is some way to contact all the candidates, provide a venue and equipment to have the competition, it won't happen. Now suppose the workers' association has what it takes to organize this competition? It isn't so surprising that the workers' association does the organizing.

Now back to real life, aren't some sort of requirements needed to choose a US representative? For example citizenship or permanent residency? I think almost every country probably has some requirement to belong to the go association and participate in its activities. The WAGC is organized by the IGF which is made up of representatives of go associations. So ... isn't it reasonable to expect an association to make its own requirements for its representatives?

xed_over: I think we're being hardheaded because these restrictions were designed to get pros to come play, but they have an unintended consequence of preventing qualifiers from drawing players from outside of the system.

Well, that and the repeated posts by folks like deja, who somehow thinks that if these people are not already in the AGA and do not play games within the AGA system, then the AGA doesn't need them... I'm sorry, that's just terrible business sense.

People keep talking about how these rules are "simple" or "petty", but these rules prevent me from walking down to a Korean or Chinese club and saying "Hey, there's a qualifier in a couple weeks for this international tournament, you're really strong, you should come." This is a lost opportunity.

These people I'm referring to aren't trying to get into these tournaments through me, I'm not advocating for them because they asked me to find them a way to get into the qualifying tournaments without having to do anything..

I'm advocating for them because this could be a great hook to draw that community out once in a while, and I think it's being wasted by folks who are attempting to make the AGA into an exclusive club.

When you think of these people, try not to think of a pro with a sneer on his face. Think of your grandfather, who doesn't really use the internet and is very set in his own modes.

EDIT: unless your grandfather IS a sneering pro, in which case, think of Santa

_________________
Tactics yes, Tact no...

Bob can do this if he cares about the well-being of the employees at the company - the supposed goal of a worker's union. In the same way, the AGA could do this if they cared about given all American go players the opportunity to play abroad.

The question is, are Bob's motives truly for the company employees, or are they for the union itself?



Yes. And I believe that said requirements should allow for opportunity for all.

_________________
be immersed

Sure, but it's also reasonable to ask that the requirements be reasonable. And directed toward the growth of the organization.

_________________
Tactics yes, Tact no...

I don't see any attempt by anybody to make the AGA in an exclusive club, exactly the opposite. Precisely what is stopping these strong players joining? They attend a qualifying tournament and that would have them join and become members. Then they would qualify, under the normal rules that every previous representative has observed.

Best wishes.

_________________
No aji, keshi, kifu or kikashi has been harmed in the compiling of this post.
http://www.gogod.co.uk

Well, maybe you're forgetting that membership isn't the only requirement, it's "Continuous Membership for a year prior to competing", so no, they wouldn't qualify.

If membership was enough, I wouldn't be having this argument.

_________________
Tactics yes, Tact no...

QFT

_________________
That which can be destroyed by the truth should be.
--
My (sadly neglected, but not forgotten) project: http://dailyjoseki.com

The AGA is a non-profit volunteer association, not a business. The membership runs the organization; they elect representatives who represent the interests of members; they rely largely on unpaid volunteers; and their obligations are to its members, not to some glorified strong-player bottom line. And you're absolutely correct, I as an AGA member see no need for anyone who sees no need for the AGA, i.e., myself and the rest of the membership.

Again, no one is stopping you or anyone else from demonstrating your keen business sense by building an alternative organization that fits your business goals and sensibilities, and then successfully competes in the marketplace like any real business. I wish you the best of luck in that entrepreneurial endeavor, but in the meantime I guess you're just stuck with that old-fashioned volunteer association model.

_________________
"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

So IGF is giving the USA, represented by AGA, an opportunity to send its strongest players to international tournaments. And AGA, instead of treating it as such, uses it as a reward for people with enough involvement in the AGA to satisfy the games and membership requirements. This is like the government of a poor country using foreign humanitarian aid to reward people, instead of distributing it to the poor. It certainly seems unethical in principle, although perhaps too petty to care about.

<Sarcasm> Yes, because there's absolutely no need to attract players and money to an organization which does not profit </Sarcasm>

In a non-profit, should there be revenue, it goes back into the organization, if there is more money, the organization can offer more and better services.

This is not a glorified strong player bottom line, this is about finding ways for the different go playing populations to interact, and qualifiers which accept comers who are willing to pay for a membership and a bit extra for the tournament are a good way to do that.

The reason that you don't see a need for people who don't see a need for the AGA is < Admin editing on this line by Joaz Banbeck >
Instead of seeing them as a source of growth for the AGA, you seem to see them as some kind of threat.

_________________
Tactics yes, Tact no...