Etower, i hope everything you say in this post is true. I have no way of knowing. All I have from the AGA is an journal piece saying that the rule has been dropped, after the Board agreed to have a meeting due to mounting pressure. I have not seen any minutes yet. I have not seen the promised statement from A Okun. Unless you attended the meeting, your remarks can have no basis but faith.

Right now, all people who share my views have is a rejection.

A statement from the board, at the time of the announcement, validating the concerns of many regarding strong player attendance at tournaments and the general decline in overall attendance, and tournament activity in general might have gone a long way towards not creating a new group of upset people.

A brief outline of ideas, plans and efforts in this area would have been
beyond nice, it should have been essential. I would like to think, as you do, that the Board shares my concerns about face to face tournaments, but disagrees with me that the ten game rule is the best way to address those shared concerns. In that context, I would feel I had been heard.

But right now all we have is an ejounal piece saying the rule was changed under pressure. Currently I have no acess to your information or faith.

I think the reason there is disagreement is because of the debate as to whether the goal is to enhance the "AGA community", or if the goal is to enhance the "go community as a whole".

That's why I think that, if we were to allow people that weren't so involved with the AGA to be a part of international tournaments, they might be expected to contribute more than the average AGA member that is in the same position.

But I do think that it's fair to include those that aren't a part of the AGA to be a part of international tournaments, because a lot of these people could still be US citizens. If the US government considers them to be "members of the country", it seems fair to give them a shot at the opportunity to represent the US.

I don't personally think such people should be given a "free ticket abroad", but as they are still a part of the "US go playing population", I think they deserve representation.

_________________
be immersed

The AGA is currently in a time of transition, which will be apparent soon and has already become apparent to those involved the AGA's administration. For example, next year's Congress is run by two young people who are dedicated to the AGA and go in the US, and who are interested in making the members of two bodies less distinct from each other. Additionally, there are hints in the EJournal, for example the short piece on the new Central Region representative's travels, that hint at changing concerns for the AGA administration. The key is that these things take time. It is easy to complain, and it is easy to want things to be better, but as all of those who volunteer know, effecting real change takes a great deal of time and planning.

I know that it takes some faith and some reading between the lines, but more than anything it takes the understanding that this is a volunteer organization that must work with a bureaucracy to ensure that decisions and changes are made properly. Actually speaking to your Board Representatives and expressing your concerns directly is the most effective way to make your concerns known.

That's quite inflexible thinking.
There are 4 categories of international events
1. Youth tournaments (indulging the youth)
2. Pair Go Tournaments and Women's Tournaments (indulging women)
3. Amateur Championships (indulging weak developing nations)
4. International Invitational Tournaments

Can children travel to tournaments easily in the USA, from other posts in this thread I'm hearing no. It was also felt they were being caught out by their parents lapses in renewing membership. The board listened to arguments on this and modified their policy. That leaves 3 other categories...

I think AGA's policies, when working, are going to be doing several things
1. Increasing attendance at tournaments
2. Utilising the knowledge of professional (and strong amateurs) in education
3. Increasing community spirit amongst the organisation
4. Naturally increasing promotion and awareness of the game (from the first 3 points).

It is clear some pros do not want to play against Amateurs. The board can either choose a flexible or a blunt approach to this.

No one is saying to not reach out to these communities, I don't understand why you consider these two options to be exclusive. I find it hard to believe that changing the rules so that one can win expensive prizes without playing a significant number of games and without paying regular dues is something that could be reasonably said to encourage growth in the community. It would seem to me the proper way to grow the community would be to try and integrate these groups within the AGA. If they are playing amongst themselves, then meeting the AGA requirements would be a non-issue if their groups were AGA clubs (since club games can be rated, and would count toward the rule). If they have no desire to join the AGA, then perhaps the better question to ask would be, "why do they see no benefit to participating with the community at large, and what can we do to make the joining the AGA an attractive option?" instead of "how can we bribe them into showing up for a weekend?".

Unless I'm mistaken, there was an open qualifying event like this in the US up until recently -- the Toyota-Denso Cup. It was advertised, had a decent prize, and involved an international trip, though looking over the player list from the last one that took place it did not appear to attract a significantly larger pool of strong players than a typical congress might be expected to (2010 Go congress had ~30 players 7d+, the 2008 Toyota Denso had ~40 players 7d+. When you consider that the Toyota-Denso had 2 locations and only required a 2 day commitment it would seem it was not an unusually large draw).

Well, the inclusion of these rules certainly would NOT stop my outreach efforts. It would remove a useful tool though. In my experience, players from those communities have come when there was something interesting going on and when they had connections. Have they started playing in tournaments yet? no, and unfortunately I can't continue that push, due to geographical difficulties. But I believe persistence with this community will pay off.

And who's bribing them? I think I've already stated, numerous times, that they would cover their expected value of winning the prize + AGA membership dues + bad standing penalty. They would not be getting any better treatment than anyone else.

To turn to your anecdote, where was it advertised, on usgo's website? The number one complaint I heard from my Korean friends is that they just hadn't heard about any of this stuff and that the AGA should advertise in the Korean Dailies.

I'm really skeptical of the conditions of this so-called proof that the Koreans are ignoring us and our qualifiers.

_________________
Tactics yes, Tact no...

The point does not seem to be getting through; if they wish to obtain the benefit of a prize/trip it is up to them to pull their collective finger out, join the AGA, attend a couple of tournaments, do something, because all I can gather from your postings is that they expect the AGA to come to them, advertise for them and make extra concessions. Perhaps this is the reverse of leading the horse to water. Here, you provide the facilities but you just can't lead the players to them.

Best wishes.

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

The point does not seem to be getting through on either side of the debate

Of course, with the current rules in place, if you want the benefit of participating in an international tournament, you have to meet the requirements that you state. But we can control exactly what these requirements are, and it is worth considering whether the requirements for participating in an international tournament are reasonable or necessary.

I think that it is reasonable - and maybe necessary - to require players that aren't involved with the AGA to pay their way if they want to participate in an international tournament. OTOH, I do not think that it is reasonable or necessary to prevent go players in America from being given the chance to participate in international tournaments if they are not involved with the AGA.

Why? Because go players in the USA that are not affiliated with the AGA are still just that - go players in the USA. It may be infeasible for the AGA to support these players financially, but it is certainly within the realm of feasibility to allow such players to participate in a qualifier.

I think I mentioned it before, but I'll say it again. The AGA is a great organization for promoting go - but I don't think that all go activities in the USA need to be funneled through the AGA. This just restricts us.

_________________
be immersed

The point indeed is not getting through. Because you guys have been repeating that in some form or other. Support your argument, I supported mine.

"They don't deserve to play unless they're AGA members and go to other tournaments before this one"

Why? Why can't they pay more? The bulk of your argument appears to be that "You just don't think it's fair"

EDIT: we're not asking the AGA to provide anything more than what it already does (no extra work is required). We're suggesting that you open the field, so that the AGA can earn more money. Apparently, this idea of "paying for a service" is a complicated one for people to wrap their minds around

_________________
Tactics yes, Tact no...

While I agree we have more or less reached an impasse regarding this discussion, I guess can try and put it once more as succinctly as I can...Let's start with the fundamental issue of this thread:



In order to represent the AGA in international competition, I would expect that a player has consistently paid dues to support the organization, and maintained a reasonable level of activity in organization events. I feel the two criteria listed to a good good of ensuring that these two conditions are met. I do not think that someone who has neither paid dues to support the organization, nor participated in organization events should be allowed to represent that organization.

If you feel it is reasonable that players who have not participated in organization events, nor maintained membership in the organization are viable candidates for being organization representatives, I guess that is your prerogative, however I would say it lends itself to an interesting definition of "representative" and also calls into question the purpose of the organization in the first place.

I will repeat what I've said already: You can replace "the AGA" by "America" to see the other perspective more easily. The AGA is not the only body of go players in America - but it holds the sole passageway to international events representing America.

Of course other go players in America can also try to gain access to international events. But I think that the goal of the AGA and other organizations should be to work together, not in competition with one another.

_________________
be immersed

You can replace AGA with America and see a different perspective, however you could also replace "go" with "tennis" and "international" with "intramural" and you might get a whole other group of reasonable perspectives...that are equally unrelated to the issue at hand. This thread was about the criteria the AGA uses to select AGA representatives for competition...right now it is true that the AGA is virtually the only vehicle for participating in international tournaments as an American, however that would seem to suggest that if you want to participate in international tournaments you should join the AGA. The ability to participate in international tournaments is one of the benefits offered by an organization to its members...It would stand to reason that if you wish to enjoy the benefits of an organization you may want to join it. Equally I feel it should stand to reason that if you are not a member of the organization that you should not expect to enjoy equal benefits to paying members of that organization.

Kirby, am I missing something? It's true that not all go players in the US are part of the US, and there are real communities of go players outside the AGA, but surely the AGA is the preeminent association here. Is there any other association in the US that is anywhere near as inclusive, widespread or active? I take it the answer is obviously no. The AGA has the best claim of anyone to represent go players in the US. That's not to say that you can't have worthy discussions about how best to reach out to other communities, or engage players, or whether we should eliminate any restrictions on who in the US can represent the AGA. Still, I find the idea that the AGA is just one association among many to be baffling, and borderling insulting.

Maybe I can simplify my point: the AGA tries, however well or poorly, to represent all go players in America. Is anyone else even trying?

_________________
Occupy Babel!

I disagree. I think that it is the core issue at hand in this scenario. One organization has a monopoly on a particular benefit that I believe should be available to all. In my opinion, international events should be able to have true international representation. Ignoring groups of go players does not accomplish this.



Yes, if the AGA does not change, the implication to attend such an event is that joining the AGA becomes necessary. But part of the reason we are discussing this, I thought, was so that we could determine if this is something that the AGA should change.

In my opinion, if the AGA allowed non-AGA go players to participate in the event, it could only have positive effects. As the saying goes, you can catch more flies with honey...

Plus, the American representative would actually be just that - an American representative. :-p

_________________
be immersed

Does it? Then, how about letting any go player in America participate in a tournament qualifier for an international tournament?

_________________
be immersed

So then, first off, just to make sure I have this clear - you believe that non-AGA members should be allowed as AGA representatives in international competitions(and remember, it is AGA organization that received an invite for the event, they are not sent as an American representative, they are an AGA representative specifically)? Second, you believe that a viable strategy for attracting members to an organization is to remove one of the benefits that membership to that organization has?

Also, once again I would like to mention the Toyota-Denso cup (World Oza), which was an open tournament with potential for international travel, required only 1 weekend's commitment, had two locations for ease of travel arrangements, and ran from 2003-2008...however seemed to generate little to no significant "extra" interest amongst strong players who were not already active in the AGA...

It hardly seems a hardship to require membership to be sent as a representative... I suppose the "rated games" / "other form of beneficial activity" / "nothing at all" choices can be debated, but are there really any exceptionally strong players (to really say that someone is being overlooked we'd have to be talking about somebody at least as strong as Jie Li or Thomas Hsiang, after all) who find 30 dollars a year to be so onerous?

I rather think the problem is one of promotion. Nobody joins if they don't know that it exists.

The continual year membership requirement is rather to reward people who don't just show up once and go away than it is to punish people who do that... although the effect may be similar.

The multiple preliminaries are actually something that other sports do - when one joins the U.S. pro tennis organization (whatever it is called) they don't go straight to Wimbledon. They play the U.S. circuit first. The current system (at least I think they still use it) of acknowledged "circuit" tournaments that count as points toward Representative status seems fine in that regard, but it could do with more publicity. I only know about it at all because I was talking with someone who used to be on the board of directors and it came up in the conversation.

It would be good if the AGA website gave more distinction to these on th tournaments page (or even their own page) and they could do with being mentioned in the E-Journal too. Something like "NEXT CIRCUIT MATCH: The Cotsen Open is in 4 weeks and the Open section players will earn points toward becoming the next U.S. Representative*! Games will be broadcast on KGS!"

*Some restrictions apply. Must hold U.S. Residency or Citizenship status.

The AGAGD could show a player's point standing, and show the top ten in contention.

Actually... thinking about it, did they do away with the circuit when I wasn't looking? Because it doesn't even seem necessary to have either the continual membership or the ten rated games if the circuit is active. You have to play rated games to earn tournament points, and you have to be a member to play rated games. So maybe all that has to be done is to let people know that the circuit exists rather than almost have it be marked TOP SECRET. That would ensure that the top players (the ones in contention for representing the U.S. anyway) would try to make it to as many circuit tourneys as possible, hence keeping their memberships and their number of games up...

Making this be the official position would mean that you could please the people who don't mind if somebody has a lapse of a couple of weeks or a month as well; if somebody lapses for more than a month, they're likely to have missed a tournament anyway, and so they could find themselves behind on points.

I will try to illustrate what I am thinking by the following image:



Let's say that, in the image above, the AGA is represented by the guys in the car. The car provides fast transportation, and makes it feasible for long distance travel. Now let's say that we have a random go player in America - whether he's an AGA member or not - just somebody that likes to play go. He's the weird-looking guy in the red shirt.

Now the island represents some sort of paradise - an international tournament - some kind of utopia that everyone wants to go to. Now let's say that the road that's in the picture is several miles long. As such, it is much easier to access this utopia by car than by foot.

The current question is, "Should the AGA bother picking up random go players along the path to utopia if they are not AGA members?".

Some may argue that, if a non-AGA member wants to go to utopia, he should take the time and effort to meet the car at the starting point before they leave for utopia. After all, the AGA's the one with the car, so if a go player wants to go to utopia, he should join up with the rest of the AGA in the car.

This is certainly one possibility. We could get any random go player to utopia if they make the effort to walk down the road and get on board the car with the rest of the AGA.

But I don't think that this is necessary at all. It is just as easy for the AGA to pick up the random go player on the way to utopia. Why do we have to make random go players jump through hoops to go to utopia if it doesn't cost the AGA anything at all? Instead, I propose having the random go player pay for his portion of gas. We don't require a random go player to go out of his way to meet up at the AGA's house or anything. We just agree to pick him up on the way if he pays for his own gas.

Sure, the AGA owns the car. It can make it as difficult as it wants to to give people rides. But I thought that the AGA's purpose was to spread go in America.

Certainly allowing people more access to utopia is a good way to do this. Just have non-AGA members pay their fair share of gas (i.e. the costs of participating in the international tournament).

Yes, it's the AGA's car, so it can make as many rules as it wants to. But what's the point? Why not give these go players some slack? They still love the game, and we can make it so it costs the AGA nothing at all to give them a chance.

_________________
be immersed

No, I believe (and I believe Kirby does too) that that benefit should be replaced by a different one. I think AGA members SHOULD get some preferential treatment, however, I believe this should be in the form of a price point. AGA players end up spending considerably less. (in my previous example, around 1/3 as much) on entry fees.

American players outside the AGA system then have an incentive to enter into the system. It's a different benefit to be sure, but it could really help boost attendance at these tournaments, which have steadily had to drop the minimum rank to even get enough players to hold it. (Once upon a time it was 6d and above, with a possible 5d if the field wasn't large enough. Now it's 4d and above)

Another thing to consider is that for players in the upper brackets, the trip abroad is NOT the primary reason we go to the tournament, it's not why we go to other tournaments around the year either. (Cuz to be honest, it tends to come down to Ming-Jiu, Jie Li, Feng Yun, Myung-Wan Kim, etc...)

We come to those tournaments because they have a very high level of play, as the level of play drops, the level of interest also drops, because not only do we still not have a good chance at the prize, but now we end up playing a number of games which should not be even.

So the way I see it, this is a way to pay off the stronger players by giving them access to strong opponents, a way for the AGA to make more money to cover its costs, and a way to make friends in the other Go playing communities.

The only counter-argument I can see having any merit is that some players would avoid 2 tournaments a year and just go to the qualifiers (As either a non-AGA member, or an AGA member in bad standing). With triple the entry fee, there's no advantage to this position, and so they'd likely show up to maintain good standing.

Is there something wrong with the logic here?

_________________
Tactics yes, Tact no...

Yes, it's not vindictive in the slightest. If people don't want to maintain their memberships with the AGA, it's clearly because they want to swoop in and freeload off of everyone and not because they don't see the AGA doing anything significant for them. The best way to make them keep their memberships current is to punish them if they don't!!

[/sarcasm]

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