10 Rated Games and Continuous Membership

[gowan]

...

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?

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".

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?

[shapenaji]

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

[Kirby]

...


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.

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?

...

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 association. So ... isn't it reasonable to expect an association to make its own requirements for its representatives?

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

[shapenaji]

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?

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

[TMark]

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.

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.

[shapenaji]

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.

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.

[daniel_the_smith]

... 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.

QFT

[deja]

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.

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.

[palapiku]

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.

[shapenaji]

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.

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.

<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.

[Joaz Banbeck]

Speaking as an admin...

[admin]
Can you folks please address your fellow L19 posters without negative adjectives? If someone is indeed hardheaded, shortsighted, or otherwise incapable of participating in a reasonable discussion, that fact will become obvious on its own. You need not explicitly mention it.
Thanks
JB
[/admin]

[xed_over]

xed_over: I think we're being hardheaded because these restrictions were designed to get pros to come play,

No, its not.

Here is a partial repost on the topic from the AGA Chapter's mailing list (with permission)

The one year membership requirement rule is of very, very long
standing. It might take some combing through old files but it dates
from the 80s at least. The problem it was meant to address (and does
address) is that strong players would appear when it was convenient
for them to play and vie for the right to represent the US and then
vanish for a year or two or more. That seemed patently unfair to
other players who participated regularly and unfair in terms of the
support given and the benefit received.

The problem was especially true whenever we've had rules which
prevented players from going to an event year after year. We stopped
allowing anyone to go to the WAGC two years in a row and thereby
encouraged more player to play.  But if a player couldn't go the next
year, he just didn't rejoin. That was "not ok" in the AGA
leadership's opinion at the time and thus the rule.

...

The 10 game rule is a different matter and very problematic. Gordon
has set out the background better than I've ever heard it. One can
argue that it didn't have enough input but it was put in place and it
has been around now for a number of years and is due for review if
not revision. It seems to me that it has caused more trouble than it
helped the AGA.

...

Who is the target of the 10 game rule?

In my opinion, for amateurs, the 10 game rule or some point system is
a reasonable requirement before they are eligible to represent the
country (and get a valuable prize). It should be limited to that purpose.

...

Terry also says that he is more in favor of a point system over the 10-game rule.

But, to the point, these rules do exclude anyone from joining the AGA in order to participate in major international tournaments. They were designed in an attempt to prevent someone from taking away the benefits of other's hard work without having paid their dues.

[shapenaji]

xed_over: I think we're being hardheaded because these restrictions were designed to get pros to come play,

No, its not.

Here is a partial repost on the topic from the AGA Chapter's mailing list (with permission)

...

Terry also says that he is more in favor of a point system over the 10-game rule.

But, to the point, these rules do exclude anyone from joining the AGA in order to participate in major international tournaments. They were designed in an attempt to prevent someone from taking away the benefits of other's hard work without having paid their dues.

I was not aware that it was targeting the amateurs who lapsed for a year. Isn't this then a rather elaborate system of checks and balances to maintain the memberships of a very small group of people?

Those people who actually qualify (and would thus let their memberships lapse), make up what, 20 people? Lapsed for a period of a few months, we're talking about something on the order of $300-600 total...

Compare that to the potential advantages to be gained by using qualifiers as outreach.

[shapenaji]

Speaking as an admin...

[admin]
Can you folks please address your fellow L19 posters without negative adjectives? If someone is indeed hardheaded, shortsighted, or otherwise incapable of participating in a reasonable discussion, that fact will become obvious on its own. You need not explicitly mention it.
Thanks
JB
[/admin]

My apologies, I admit I was getting annoyed.

[deja]

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.

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.

<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.

No, shapenaji, I don't see them as a threat at all. But I do believe that if we (the AGA membership) are going to expend the kind of resources and rewards on these individuals as we've done in the past, and presumably in the future, the very least they can do is show some sort of minimal commitment to the organization other than being a hotshot Go player. If they're unwilling to cough up $30 a year to be a member and not simply cough it up when it means a free trip overseas, then I see no reason why we the members of the AGA should support them.

We can quibble about grace periods or the number of required AGA tournament games, but the arguments presented here have gone beyond that and suggested a carte blanche for these players because the AGA for some mysterious reason desperately needs them.

Note: all of this is likely academic anyway. I suspect the number of people who fall within the "superstar go player who is so desperately needed but cannot manage to abide by the AGA guidelines" is probably less than a handful if that even. Who are we talking about anyway? Perhaps those interested can start up a poor-strong-players fund to make sure their memberships are continuous, etc.


[sarcasm]
But you know, I've changed my mind. I'm starting to come around to your way of thinking. I now find it unreasonable to require folks like me and other members to be members of the AGA in order to be members of the AGA. So the next time my membership is up for renewal, I'm not going to pay the $30 membership fee because the AGA needs me – yes, little ole' me! Nevertheless, I expect the AGA to keep me on as a non-member member. But if they don't, I'm going to sit here and wait in my armchair, doing nothing, and letting others make the case for me because without me and every other member, the AGA would collapse.

Moreover, I'm not going to participate in any AGA event because that's asking too much of someone of my stature (busy guy) and if they want me to be a non-member member they will continue to provide me with all the benefits of membership. Think about it, what would they do without you, me and the rest of us? Yeeeaaah, we've got them over a barrel on this one.

So please join with me in protest of the AGA's shortsightedness and demand that we all be given a non-member membership. They should be investing in us the very backbone of the AGA and not require anything in return because without us American Go players, they would be nothing. It's about time we start running this organization like a good business, supply-side economics and all.
[/sarcasm]

Just having fun with the above nonsense, nothing personal