I'm confused, the 4 kids playing don't want their castle destroyed, so they don't let the kid join in, but when the other kid builds something, it's okay for them to join in? Isn't the 5th kid worried about them destroying HIS castle?

It seems like the 4 kids have no trust in the 5th, but the 5th is expected to trust the 4 after they've rejected him...

If your analogy is accurate, this seems like an odd lesson about the AGA.

But again, volunteer time is not at the heart of this issue.

_________________
Tactics yes, Tact no...

One issue is equality, the other is community or perhaps loyalty, the third is regulation.
I'll add a fourth - honour

Yes it is. They were the ones who came up with with rules you are objecting to. I repeat again that the first priority is to understand why they did and why so many people here seem to endorse the rules, at least in part. You won't make much headway until you understand why they volunteered and what their bottom line is. As I've tried to point out earlier, killer arguments on paper mean little when you are dealing with real people. < Admin: minor ad hominem removed >



This is one of the oddest statements I've ever seen for justifying attempted censorship. I'm gobsmacked. My flabber has never been so gasted.

"No it isn't."
"Yes it is."
"No it isn't."



I'd just like to reiterate my support for Richard Nixon.

Wait, so the volunteer time in question is the time they put into crafting the rules?

It's a very, very loose connection between these rules and volunteers. I think it's a hard sell.

P.S.
as it stands:
30% of votes went to approval of one or the other rule
37% of votes went to disapproval of one or the other rule
Rest Abstain

Among AGA members (Including those who abstained and chose one of the last 3 options, I.e. giving the Pro-voters the benefit of the doubt, that those who abstained ARE AGA members, the results are rather starker)

25% of votes went to approval
37% of votes went to disapproval
37% Abstain

If we look at only those AGA members who took a position:

41% in favor of the rules
59% against

So, I would say that the "so many people who endorse these rules" are in fact a minority. They just happen to be a very vocal one.



Um, attempted censorship? I was observing what happened, and I believe my point was not to get off topic. If you want to make a thread about volunteer appreciation, and experience that flamewar, by all means, go ahead. But my point is that this issue is about AGA members relationship with other American Go players, not about volunteer hours.

_________________
Tactics yes, Tact no...

I don't think there was a minor ad hominem in my post. There was a question and I don't see how you can ad hominem an anonymous person anyway. I already said I found the adminning here to be getting heavy handed. I'm leaving this thread in protest.

Right, I think this is spot on:

Under my suggestion:

1) Equality:

Non-AGA players would be expected to front more of the cost of the prize fund in order to compete and pay a fee for membership, AGA members in good standing continue to have benefits commensurate with their standing.

2) Community/Loyalty:

Volunteer time is precious, luckily, an additional 30 players is well within normal standard deviation for a given large tournament, especially with declining tournament member presence. This should keep the number of players within the size requirements for a given tournament and thus not add substantially to volunteer workload. (Larger venues and more boards/clocks should not be required)

Member Loyalty is rewarded by offering substantially lower costs for those players that maintain good standing.

Through said outreach, the community has a chance to grow, creating benefits for the organization long term.

3) Regulation

While these options were the council's way of solving these problems, they should not be seen as the only way to regulate these issues. This is not a "I'm for the AGA"/"I'm against the AGA" issue. Different rules, such as the ones I suggested, can be made to target the same problems, while not excluding important American constituencies.

4) Honor

I want to include those players who have never been AGA members, or those who are long lapsed. (I.e. those who are not lapsing in order to game the system). I see nothing dishonorable about reaching out to these players. If regular AGA members are letting their memberships lapse until these tournaments come around, then that is a problem of honor. The regulations should thus target the latter players and not the former.

_________________
Tactics yes, Tact no...

No conclusions about how AGA members feel about a policy or how non-AGA members feel can be drawn from the poll. All you can say about the poll results is that a certain number of L19 members who cared to respond felt a certain way. That's the nature of self-selected-samples. The sample of people responding to the poll in no way represents all AGA members or all non-AGA-members.

I'm not sure what was removed, so I can't say one way or the other. But who's anonymous? We may not be having this discussion in person, but an internet identity can still be targeted via an Ad Hominem attack.

People can be targeted in speeches, how about (in the form of a hypothetical debate question answered by Dubya):

Questioner: "What do you say to people who argue that opposing fuel economy standards raises the price of gasoline and thus funds many of the oil states that you speak out against?"

Respondent: "Well, those people just aren't in touch with the American way of life"

This is an Ad Hominem attack, even though the target is unclear.

_________________
Tactics yes, Tact no...

I entirely agree, which is why John's previous statement that I need to understand why "so many approve", is lacking in merit. By the only standards we have, that population is a minority. And if we throw out those standards, then no such comment should be made at all.

_________________
Tactics yes, Tact no...

I read John's post and didn't find it in the least bit offensive. I'm puzzled at why John has been singled out twice in this thread for the censor's axe...

Exactly. It's getting to be a bit much.

_________________
"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 think the first one was automatic because nobody can post the word (let's see if it substitutes) ass. I'm not sure about the other because the wifi here at the airport is too slow to check.

<sarcasm>
If you don't like the word filtering here in our closed little club, you can make your own club and maybe we'll join it...
</sarcasm>

_________________
be immersed

we could, but we'd rather join this one and work together to improve things, even if we sometimes disagree with the decisions being made by those currently in power.

we can accomplish so much more as a larger group, than we could if we splinter into many smaller groups. though, often smaller groups can succeed quicker, if not better, at some unique and very specific tasks -- but usually their overall goal is to be accepted back into the larger group again.

Like what happened with GD?

Anyway, we're getting off topic, again...

_________________
be immersed

Is there a list of prohibited dirty words in the forum? I'm not particularly bothered by the word ass myself, but if it is prohibited I'd like to know.

...so when was a 'dirty' words filter installed?

I thought i was the only one but


WHERE ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT ?

I personally have nothing to do it it

I am not an AGA member
I am not an Amarican
I don't even (want to) live there

But still were are you talking about?

_________________
Promotor and Librarian of Sensei's Library

The thread originated from a mail sent to the AGA Chapters Mailing list - AGA in this instance being American Go Association, which is why it is posted on the American Go Association forum. America in this instance being USA.

Thanks
That is all well and good. (I understood the abbrevations, and why it was posted here)

But it would just be so much more informative if a copy of that email was visuable in the thread.
(It would at least reduce the numbers for "What are you talking about?" and maybe "Don't care")

Although i wonder if it would reduce the 8 (correction 6) staunch republicans who still think that Richard Nixon will reappear.
Or are they talking about somebody else than Richard Milhous Nixon (January 9, 1913 – April 22, 1994) ?

_________________
Promotor and Librarian of Sensei's Library

I think that it is improper to copy a message sent to a private list to a wider audience. My questions were only derived from that email, you did not need to have read it to answer the poll.