10 Rated Games and Continuous Membership

[Joaz Banbeck]

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

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

I think that I did it back in April or May of 2010 when the flood of GD refugees began. It was one of those things that I threw together in a rush ( everything was rushed back then ) and intended to go back and smooth out later.

I'm amazed that it took this long for somebody to trip over it. I had forgotton about it.

[GoAddict]

So, I am the AGA President, and have just finished reading all the posts. Interesting and useful discussion. The substance on the 10 game policy will be discussed and decided by the Board, so just a side note on volunteers.

No one has volunteered to be the AGA volunteer coordinator for the last three years. Other key AGA posts are vacant, too. A symptom of a problem to be sure.

My policies since becoming President just over two years ago include finding new/younger leadership for the AGA, and opening the door wide for new volunteers. It is true that we may not have immediate "work" available, but I am keeping a list of interested people, and contacting them when something appropriate comes along. Our list of good ideas vastly exceeds our personnel capabilities, which is a constant frustration for all of us.

So, if anyone wants to volunteer, please contact me at President@usgo.org.

Thanks.
Allan

[Javaness]

Reading USGO today I saw that the rule about 10 games had been removed.

[pwaldron]

Reading USGO today I saw that the rule about 10 games had been removed.

Looks like the board caved, again. This is the sixth time since Sept. 2008 that the rule has been changed. They talk a good game about running major tournaments, creating a professional system and expanding membership, but it doesn't seem like they're capable of making a basic policy stick.

I'm afraid the AGA just doesn't speak to me as a relevant organization any more.

[shapenaji]

Phil:

I guess your argument cuts either way, whether they're right or wrong about this issue, they've been on both sides of it. That being said, there have been a number of changes in the AGA, I don't think this is the same association as a year before, and I don't think that organization bore much likeness to the one a year before that.

It doesn't sound to me like an organization on the ropes, it sounds like an organization in transition.

[Javaness]

Looks like the board caved, again. This is the sixth time since Sept. 2008 that the rule has been changed. -snip- I'm afraid the AGA just doesn't speak to me as a relevant organization any more.

Pretty harsh thing to say. After all, the board has to balance the opinions of their membership with their own individual strategy.
Their representation policy seems focused on rewarding participating members, that's a good motivation for a rule if you ask me. One can question the implementation of the rule, and some people have done so quite strongly. I will be interested to read what they have to say on the subject in their 'official statement'.

[pwaldron]

...It doesn't sound to me like an organization on the ropes, it sounds like an organization in transition.

I don't think it's an organization on the ropes, but an organization that changes a basic policy six times in two years is not going to be one that moves forward. The policy itself isn't the problem...the way the policy came to be, and the reaction of the board when things got hot is.

Why was the board caught off guard by the firestorm from the chapter representatives? Didn't they engage in some consultation first? Wasn't there meaningful discussion about the implications and consequences of the policy? If there was, why then did they not have the fortitude to stand their ground when someone comes along to complain? If there wasn't, why not?

The idea that a new board means that old policies are automatically up for discussion is appalling. The AGA has annual board elections and they meet for about of two hours a month under normal circumstances--they'll spend more time messing around with old business than worrying about new stuff. They've been talking about the next fiscal budget since July and it's still not finalized. If it takes a quarter year to settle something as basic as the budget, how realistic is it to hope that they can move on more complicated issues in any meaningful time frame?

The board is supposed to provide strategic direction for the AGA. It's been in existence since January 2003, and not once have the members produced any kind of statement of direction or planning document. Read through the minutes of the board meetings and you'll see the same tired discussions year after year.

This decision and the way it unfolded is a microcosm of the AGA, and I don't know whether it's the result of the board's structure or its composition. Regardless, I don't think anything will improve without serious change, and I don't have any confidence that this board will deliver that change.

[psk31]

Actually, the fact that Allan has dropped in and left a comment I think is huge.

So I'm a brand new member of the AGA (for a few months anyway) so I don't know all of the history of the issues in the decision making process, the old guard vs new barbarians, etc. I do care about the state of the AGA now and what it will be in the future and quite honestly, what benefit the AGA will bring me besides tournament play.

The idea that a new board means that old policies are automatically up for discussion is appalling.

A new board is exactly the time that old policies should come up for discussion. In the company that I work for we are constantly getting new updates on policies after each monthly meeting. Why? Because the environment we compete in is constantly changing and we adapt to meet those challenges. An organization that is not constantly reviewing and revising where needed to meet the current environment is the organization that is not going to be moving forward.

Unfortunately a lot of the issues with the AGA come from the fact that here is a national organization with an all volunteer staff and a total membership of only 2,000. Let's face it, geographically that's about as thin as you can get. And as in most volunteer organizations a lot of the time its the same people who are trying to get the work done. And yes they bring their own biases when completing that work, for better or worse.

When I originally voted I did vote yes for both based on my understanding at the time. Now that I have had a chance to read more information about the tournament in question and the specific circumstances there seemed to have been some room for discussion on at least providing some sort of mechanism to allow pros living in America to participate. It will be interesting to see the reasoning of the AGA board in dropping the 10 game rule and what that could mean to future AGA international representation.

[Kirby]

I don't know, Phil. I am glad that policy can be changed freely. The AGA is one of the only go organizations in the USA, and there are a lot of people with different ideas on how it should be run.

I'd rather see a flexible and dynamic organization than one that is cemented in its ways, refusing to change.

I think the fact that a polocy has been changed due to the reaction of the people is nothing but a good thing.

I'm glad to see an organization that can change - it's when an organization refuses to change, despite the cries of its members that I get irked.

[FlameBlade]

I don't know, Phil. I am glad that policy can be changed freely. The AGA is one of the only go organizations in the USA, and there are a lot of people with different ideas on how it should be run.

I'd rather see a flexible and dynamic organization than one that is cemented in its ways, refusing to change.

I think the fact that a polocy has been changed due to the reaction of the people is nothing but a good thing.

I'm glad to see an organization that can change - it's when an organization refuses to change, despite the cries of its members that I get irked.

No, changing a policy due to the reaction of the people is not always necessarily a good idea. If a reaction of people told the board to jump off the bridge, should the board do so? Granted, it's a hyperbole, but what I have understood is that board caved instead of trying to figure out why the policy is in place the first place, and take some time to explain why such policy is in place.

By the way, congrats, you guys just made it easier to pros not to participate in any tournaments other than qualifiers for the international tournaments. Also, you guys made it easier for them to dominate representation of USA. Those are the reasons why those policies were in place the first place.

Yes, I'm intentionally incendiary, but there it is. Nobody even cared to research the history behind policies that used to exist.

[Joaz Banbeck]

In Santa Barbara last night I was talking to a board member during some of the pre-Cotsen socializing. And the rumor is that the continuous membership issue will be raised soon, and that the majority is in favor of some kind of grace period.

[daniel_the_smith]

I'm quite happy to see such rapid action from the board. I'm also happy with this decision. And the grace period one, should they decide that.

Now, I think we need to come up with actual solutions to the problems that caused us to make this rule in the first place: How can the AGA become more valuable to people? I hope the board, after they take care of the old business, will start charting a course for the future.

[gowan]

So there was a good reason for the 10 game rule. All the noise about it and the rescission will mean is that strong players, including pros, won't have to participate in the go life of the country except to play in the qualifying tournament. Since the board is so maleable I think we should lobby for the reinstatement of the 10 game rule. What the 10 game rule really means is that people only need to play in two or three tournaments per year, say the US Open and the qualifying tournament. Is that too much to ask?

[shapenaji]

I don't know, Phil. I am glad that policy can be changed freely. The AGA is one of the only go organizations in the USA, and there are a lot of people with different ideas on how it should be run.

I'd rather see a flexible and dynamic organization than one that is cemented in its ways, refusing to change.

I think the fact that a polocy has been changed due to the reaction of the people is nothing but a good thing.

I'm glad to see an organization that can change - it's when an organization refuses to change, despite the cries of its members that I get irked.

No, changing a policy due to the reaction of the people is not always necessarily a good idea. If a reaction of people told the board to jump off the bridge, should the board do so? Granted, it's a hyperbole, but what I have understood is that board caved instead of trying to figure out why the policy is in place the first place, and take some time to explain why such policy is in place.

By the way, congrats, you guys just made it easier to pros not to participate in any tournaments other than qualifiers for the international tournaments. Also, you guys made it easier for them to dominate representation of USA. Those are the reasons why those policies were in place the first place.

Yes, I'm intentionally incendiary, but there it is. Nobody even cared to research the history behind policies that used to exist.

That's a pretty scathing criticism of democratic politics... It also assumes that they needed to know why it was in place. Perhaps the negatives of the policy were enough. I certainly think that the negatives that I've stated earlier in this thread were enough.

And as far as pros not participating in tournaments...

There are other ways to address this, why is this the only solution?

Furthermore, in Japan, China, or Korea, Insei aren't even allowed to play in Amateur tournaments. Why do we need to force them to attend and play in little tournaments? I fail to see how it's anything but a waste of their time.

[vash3g]

So there was a good reason for the 10 game rule. All the noise about it and the rescission will mean is that strong players, including pros, won't have to participate in the go life of the country except to play in the qualifying tournament. Since the board is so maleable I think we should lobby for the reinstatement of the 10 game rule. What the 10 game rule really means is that people only need to play in two or three tournaments per year, say the US Open and the qualifying tournament. Is that too much to ask?

Apparently yes, it is too much to ask. I'm reminded of this every time i venture down to Virginia(6hr drive) to play in a tournament, and mainly to see people i like to hang out with, that its $60-70 extra for gas. Then I remember all the people who come to our tournament that mostly live within 3 hours of us.