10 Rated Games and Continuous Membership

[daniel_the_smith]

Can we all at least agree that there ought to be an exemption from these two rules for those who have never been AGA members at all?

[shapenaji]

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

Alright,

A) If cost is the problem, I've already said: increase their entrance fees to help cover those costs. Suddenly, existing members are contributing less to these "prize funds" than they would otherwise.

B) I have not suggested Carte Blanche. What I suggested was very simple: A qualifier is an amazing form of outreach, require AGA memberships but allow players who hear about it from a local Korean Daily or through word of mouth to attend and compete with additional costs owing to their previous standing as non-AGA members. Afterwards, they would BE AGA members, and they might show up to other tournaments as well.

C) It's not academic, while the number of "superstar" go players that actually have a good chance of winning is quite small. The number who are of a level to compete (5d and above) is actually quite large. Most of these little clubs have 6+ members who fit that description, When these stronger players attend an AGA function, they end up bringing along the rest of their club, who end up rooting for them. This can be 5-20 people in the region of 5k-5d. When they show that it's okay to attend an AGA tournament, the others will start giving the AGA more credit.

D) It has nothing to do with poverty, at these clubs the typical entrance fee is around $10-15 per day (and there are regulars). They're open every day, and these players can get their fix for strong games far more regularly than those in the AGA can. As a result, typical tournaments are not very interesting to them, and one of the reasons that they don't join the AGA is because in general, they don't need the AGA to get very high quality games.

A Qualifier is special, it offers something that they can't get in their own environments, and it's a way to bridge the cultural gap.

E) the AGA DOES need these people, Not only do they have a very high level of play, but they have resources and connections which the AGA could use.

F) Just for effect, one more time, I am not suggesting a "non-member membership" I am suggesting that a continuous membership for a year prior loses an opportunity, and that we could make them members by waiving this, (See Daniel's comment).

Let them pay a registration fee; let them pay a tournament fee. If they win, let them pay for some of the cost of travel. But let them play.

[Javaness]

I think in most national Go organisations it is impossible to get an international trip by visiting only one tournament. However, if it were possible, it would be a potential tidy profit to allow outsiders to compete for a hefty fee on top of a compulsory 1 year membership. What would be the chances that an outsider would win.

Really though, the mercenary mindset disappoints me. I have seen it only once in European events - was it really so common in the USA?

[xed_over]

B) I have not suggested Carte Blanche. What I suggested was very simple: A qualifier is an amazing form of outreach, require AGA memberships but allow players who hear about it from a local Korean Daily or through word of mouth to attend and compete with additional costs owing to their previous standing as non-AGA members. Afterwards, they would BE AGA members, and they might show up to other tournaments as well.

ok, look at it this way... these requirements are simply a small portion of a year long qualifying event -- not unlike qualifiers for the Meijin, Honinbo, etc.

you just have to start your outreach earlier.

[shapenaji]

B) I have not suggested Carte Blanche. What I suggested was very simple: A qualifier is an amazing form of outreach, require AGA memberships but allow players who hear about it from a local Korean Daily or through word of mouth to attend and compete with additional costs owing to their previous standing as non-AGA members. Afterwards, they would BE AGA members, and they might show up to other tournaments as well.

ok, look at it this way... these requirements are simply a small portion of a year long qualifying event -- not unlike qualifiers for the Meijin, Honinbo, etc.

you just have to start your outreach earlier.

Right, I'm saying that will have extremely limited effectiveness. I want to be able to call up a newspaper, tell them to run an advert about the:

"Fujitsu Qualifier to select the American Representative

Host: The American Go Association: http://www.usgo.org
Prize: Subsidized trip to the competition in Japan.

Entry fee:
$20 for AGA members with a year of good-standing
$60 for all others (includes AGA membership)

Location: (etc..)"

If I try to run an advert for the qualifier in 12 months, "Get your AGA memberships now and start on your year of good-standing!", I think I'm going to get laughed at.

[xed_over]

If I try to run an advert for the qualifier in 12 months, "Get your AGA memberships now and start on your year of good-standing!", I think I'm going to get laughed at.

Not if the actual qualifier was a series of events spread out over 12 months time.

[deja]

@shapenaji

After a quick read, I see nothing unreasonable with what you're suggesting per se. Perhaps a one-time waiver to get the ball rolling might be a smart move, but the sort of fair-weather member approach sets a bad precedent for an organization like the AGA and should be avoided in my opinion. The AGA is not a business and should not be governed as such. My yearly dues does not give me stock options and it never should.

[Kirby]

...
Entry fee:
$20 for AGA members with a year of good-standing
$60 for all others (includes AGA membership)

...

I think that this is a great idea.

1.) It allows people that aren't a part of the AGA to participate in international events.

2.) For AGA advocates, it has the side-effect of potentially drawing more people into more AGA events.

3.) It promotes go, in general, in the USA - and not just the AGA itself. This is important. Let's face it - as people have already brought up, the AGA can't please everybody. But it would still be good if go was promoted to as many people as possible. Allowing for anybody to have the chance to participate in international events like this could really help spread the popularity of go in America. I think it's a great thing.

If we force everything down the funnel of a single organization, it will be harder to spread go across the nation. But if we focus on one thing: promoting go, it becomes a much easier task.

Anyway, +1 to this idea.

[Kirby]

...My yearly dues does not give me stock options and it never should.

Are you suggesting that AGA members should just keep quiet if they see an area for improvement?

[gowan]

I remember many years ago being involved in a go club in a city where there were many Korean and Chinese players who never came to the established non-Asian go clubs and would only enter the tournaments, which had 5d+ "white" players when the strongest American players were 5d or 6d), unless there was a significant prize. They'd pay the $5 limited AGA membership fee, play, and usually one of them would win the first prize, and then they'd disappear until the next tournament. They weren't interested in being part of the go community. Much effort was put into inviting them to come to our clubs, trying to get them involved, to no avail. I think the problem is that for them, go, baduk, or weiqi was a cultural thing, a way to preserve their own culture in a foreign environment. So they really had no interest in participating in the game outside their own clubs unless they had a chance to win a lot of money or merchandise (e.g. donated TV). It's irrelevant whether such players are stronger than more active players, they don't care about the American national go community and they don't "represent" the American national go community.

On a similar topic, there are a lot of fairly strong players on KGS or other servers who appear to live in the USA but who are not AGA members. I don't consider them to be members of the American go community. They might as well be living anywhere else in the world judging from their support and participation.

Shapenaji's proposed fees are too small. If someone who lives in the USA wants to try to represent the US but can't meet the current requirements they should be charged a serious surcharge, enough to make them reconsider, say $200 entrance fee. I really don't believe that entering a tournament will encourage these people to participate in the AGA if that's all they want to do.

[Kirby]

...They weren't interested in being part of the go community.

You are defining "go community" to be equal to the AGA. That is where the difference of opinion lies.

On a similar topic, there are a lot of fairly strong players on KGS or other servers who appear to live in the USA but who are not AGA members. I don't consider them to be members of the American go community. ...

Why in the world not?

I think people should stop using the phrase, "American go community" in this context, and start using, "AGA go community".

[xed_over]

I think people should stop using the phrase, "American go community" in this context, and start using, "AGA go community".

Have you got another American go community in mind that's recognized by the International Go Federation and is involved in promoting go across the country?

I'll be glad to join that one to assist them.

[deja]

...My yearly dues does not give me stock options and it never should.

Are you suggesting that AGA members should just keep quiet if they see an area for improvement?

Really, Kirby? Is that what you honestly think I'm suggesting? Oh well, that's my cue to exit. Cheers!

[Kirby]

I think people should stop using the phrase, "American go community" in this context, and start using, "AGA go community".

Have you got another American go community in mind that's recognized by the International Go Federation and is involved in promoting go across the country?

I'll be glad to join that one to assist them.

Consider someone like DrStraw here on the forums. I don't know if he still considers himself a part of the American go community, but I definitely do. If he's stopped being an AGA member, does that exclude him from the American go community? I don't know about him, but if I were in his shoes, I'd be insulted.

How does the AGA expect to spread go across the country if they ignore anybody outside of its borders? This type of closed attitude is exactly what I'm against.

If I find a non-AGA go player in my neighborhood, I'll be happy to meet him and consider him as a part of the go community. I'm flabbergasted that others here would not (if he hasn't paid his AGA dues).

---

deja,
I thought that was the implication of the part I quoted. Feel free to elaborate if you'd wish, as that's the purpose behind discussion.

[daniel_the_smith]

This thread is kinda making me glad I did not get elected to the board...