10 Rated Games and Continuous Membership

[Horibe]

There's a misunderstanding here as to who is doing the paying. I (and Kirby) thought the AGA is shelling out for (at least some of) these trips. Horibe thinks it's the sponsor.

...if it's the sponsor, then there's no reason to charge non-AGA members extra (beyond what it costs for them to join-- you can't play in a rated tournament without joining and the qualifiers are rated). There's also no reason to heap restrictions on them, since they aren't costing the AGA any extra.

The sponsors provide these trips. The only exception was the World Mind Sports, which the AGA/AGF raised funds for and paid.

Now the plane tickets are no longer paid for in the WAGC - this is new - and the Board, at least initially - said they could not afford to pay for the ticket.

Online games are NOT AGA rated. Never have been.

[daniel_the_smith]

The sponsors provide these trips. The only exception was the World Mind Sports, which the AGA/AGF raised funds for and paid.

Now the plane tickets are no longer paid for in the WAGC - this is new - and the Board, at least initially - said they could not afford to pay for the ticket.

If that's true it seems I'm misinformed. I was thinking about the World Mind Sports, but thought the AGA paid for other events, too. Where can we find out exactly what the AGA pays for?

If the *sponsors* are the ones paying for the trips, I suddenly have an even harder time understanding why people think the 10 game rule and/or 12 month continuous membership rules were/are good ideas. I can understand the desire to punish perceived freeloaders (even if I think other courses of action would be more profitable), but if it's not costing the AGA money then I can't see a meaningful sense in which some people can even be considered freeloaders...

Online games are NOT AGA rated. Never have been.

Yes, I know, I should have added a disclaimer.

[hyperpape]

I'm not confident in point 2. I think the point Shapenaji makes, that competition for spots in international tournaments is a draw to communities that don't associate with the AGA much is probably right. But saying go would be more popular if we could field stronger players in international events seems like a stretch. How does it make a difference? Short of winning an international event, I can't see any way. If an American won (which is a stretch even for the WAGC and KPMC), that would give us positive newspaper coverage, and might bring in people, but it would be a splash in the pan.

[Horibe]

If the *sponsors* are the ones paying for the trips, I suddenly have an even harder time understanding why people think the 10 game rule and/or 12 month continuous membership rules were/are good ideas. I can understand the desire to punish perceived freeloaders (even if I think other courses of action would be more profitable), but if it's not costing the AGA money then I can't see a meaningful sense in which some people can even be considered freeloaders...

If the focus is on what it costs the AGA, then I can understand how you would feel that this new info strengthens your position.

Of course I disagee, but I really do not want to argue the point. I would like to argue the rhetoric. The rule was not designed to punish anyone. The two rules were designed to establish a certain minumum participation level, not to punish. I would be shocked if in any of the Board debates the statement "We must punish the freeloaders" was ever made. They were not designed to exclude anyone - they were designed to give people a reason to join by placing a value on supporting the AGA.

That does not mean the rules were working, that does not mean they were not causing more problems then they were worth, or that they were not unfair to youth or less fair to people in less go populated areas. I am just saying they were not intended to exclude or punish anyone.

[Kirby]

Question One. Sponsor tells AGA to pick someone to represent U.S. and will pay the expenses. AGA sends someone, charges them and pockets the money. Or perhaps you want the AGA to get into the habit of telling sponsors, we do not need your help? Either way, I think it is at least possible that the sponsor will be offended.

In regard to "Question One", thanks for the clarification you provided. I was going to comment on this, but I think that daniel_the_smith expressed a viewpoint similar to my own regarding this issue.

Question Two. No that is not what I am saying. You stated it is better to open quailification up as much as possible, and that will mean we have a better player, and that will create more excitement. I am saying that picking the best online player, unless he does significantly better than the people we have sent in the past, will not necessarily create more excitement than sending someone people have had the opportunity to meet, like and root for in the type of face to face match they will play in overseas. The point I am addressing, which is the point I read in your post, is your statement that it would create more excitement. You turn that point in your summary to a more vague value "better", which is a different thing. I am not saying this should be a popularity contest, but I was addressing your comment about creating excitement, and popular players do bring excitement.

Well, my original statement was actually that I thought that having the strongest representatives possible would make go more "popular", which may be different than creating excitement.

Considering your comments, along with my own thoughts, I think it might be difficult to measure popularity, because it totally depends on your audience.

Will active AGA members be more popular to other AGA members? Probably. Will active AGA members be more popular to other groups of go players in the USA? Not necessarily.

And when these "real" players show this type of interest, pay to join the AGA, pay tournament fees and put gas in their cars to travel and take time to follow their passion, ....

I think that this statement about following "passion" really depends on how you define somebody "taking time to follow their passion". I have recently been discussing volunteering with the AGA more over email. But a couple of years ago, I wouldn't have said that I was super active in the AGA.

Did I have any less passion for go at that time? Not in the slightest. I think that passion for go and "activeness in the AGA" are different things, don't you think?

[Horibe]

Well, my original statement was actually that I thought that having the strongest representatives possible would make go more "popular", which may be different than creating excitement.

Considering your comments, along with my own thoughts, I think it might be difficult to measure popularity, because it totally depends on your audience.

Will active AGA members be more popular to other AGA members? Probably. Will active AGA members be more popular to other groups of go players in the USA? Not necessarily.

I think that this statement about following "passion" really depends on how you define somebody "taking time to follow their passion". I have recently been discussing volunteering with the AGA more over email. But a couple of years ago, I wouldn't have said that I was super active in the AGA.

Did I have any less passion for go at that time? Not in the slightest. I think that passion for go and "activeness in the AGA" are different things, don't you think?

You are right, you did speak of publicity and making go more popular, but I am not even sure people who did not already follow go would even hear if a US rep won an event, let alone simply did better. So I addressed excitement amongst people who already play. And you are right, a "unknown" Korean representative might get some attention in Korean American newspapers, but I am not sure that would make go more popular, nor do I think Korean American newspapers would ignore the efforts of a more known US representative.

The talk of passion is a bit of a meander, and it is as much mine as it is yours. But if Go in the US is going to be able to support pros, or big events, it needs organization and large sponsors, it has to become something that players are not simply passionate about - playing all day obsessively on a free go server or posting obsessively on a forum. Players have to demonstrate that passion in pocketbook ways that will convince sponsors that associating their name with this game will produce results and benefit for their companies. That is the measure of passion that counts.

[daniel_the_smith]

I would like to argue the rhetoric. The rule was not designed to punish anyone. The two rules were designed to establish a certain minumum participation level, not to punish. I would be shocked if in any of the Board debates the statement "We must punish the freeloaders" was ever made. They were not designed to exclude anyone - they were designed to give people a reason to join by placing a value on supporting the AGA.

That does not mean the rules were working, that does not mean they were not causing more problems then they were worth, or that they were not unfair to youth or less fair to people in less go populated areas. I am just saying they were not intended to exclude or punish anyone.

Intentional or no (and I'm sure they weren't), I think that is how they were perceived by non-AGA members and a good amount of strong AGA players.

Did they succeed in their goal? In one sense, yes, because those selected met that minimum participation level--but that is a tautology, of course. In regards to the broader goals of increasing participation overall, I think we can conclude that they were a total failure. Look at the entry ratings of the NAIM; if the rules increased participation, there should have been more competition, leading to higher entry ratings. Instead the ratings dropped by several stones.

I think the lesson is that fewer barriers to entry = more people entering.

[Kirby]

I'm not confident in point 2. I think the point Shapenaji makes, that competition for spots in international tournaments is a draw to communities that don't associate with the AGA much is probably right. But saying go would be more popular if we could field stronger players in international events seems like a stretch. How does it make a difference? Short of winning an international event, I can't see any way. If an American won (which is a stretch even for the WAGC and KPMC), that would give us positive newspaper coverage, and might bring in people, but it would be a splash in the pan.

While we are having this discussion, I'm reminded a little bit of the character, "Mitani" from the popular go anime, "Hikaru no Go". Many times throughout the series, Mitani is not interested in doing much with the go club. But the fact is, early in the series, Mitani is one of the strongest players there. He might be the closest one to giving the other schools competition.

So Hikaru and the others eagerly outreach to Mitani and try to get him to participate in the tournament. They have a goal: "To beat Kaio". It doesn't matter that Mitani showed little interest in the club during the school year. It'd be nice if he did, but even though he didn't, everyone wanted him to participate in the tournament because he could be a strong representative for their school.

For international tournaments, if the USA is going to be represented, I want to have the strongest people that we can out there.

I subscribe to some Korean magazines, and you can already see some ads for European and American go. At least Korea - and probably other Asian countries as well - is starting to notice the presence of go in the West.

I want to gather all of the "Mitani"s that we have out there, along with all of the faithful club members, and put together the best team that we can. By having the strongest turnout possible, we can produce the strongest results, and make the biggest dent on the impression of go in the West.

Ads in Korean go magazines already provide evidence that Western go is starting to be recognized. Let's do our best to blow them away with skill.

I think that this, in turn, will lead to greater popularity of go in the West.

[Kirby]

...But if Go in the US is going to be able to support pros, or big events, it needs organization and large sponsors, it has to become something that players are not simply passionate about - playing all day obsessively on a free go server or posting obsessively on a forum. Players have to demonstrate that passion in pocketbook ways that will convince sponsors that associating their name with this game will produce results and benefit for their companies. That is the measure of passion that counts.

I think that this argument is somewhat convincing - it is good to have an organization to help with organizing events. And we have that. But I'm not sure that it takes away from the fact that we should aim to have the strongest players possible attend international events, even if they are not in the AGA.

Maybe it would help me to understand better if you could concisely summarize why you think it is a good thing to restrict people that haven't played enough AGA rated games from the qualifier, for example.

[Horibe]

[
Intentional or no (and I'm sure they weren't), I think that is how they were perceived by non-AGA members and a good amount of strong AGA players.

Did they succeed in their goal? In one sense, yes, because those selected met that minimum participation level--but that is a tautology, of course. In regards to the broader goals of increasing participation overall, I think we can conclude that they were a total failure. Look at the entry ratings of the NAIM; if the rules increased participation, there should have been more competition, leading to higher entry ratings. Instead the ratings dropped by several stones.

I think the lesson is that fewer barriers to entry = more people entering.

I think "non AGA members" did not notice this rule. "sometimes AGA members" who got caught in the enforcement of the rule, certainly felt agrieved.

I think it is not conclusive to look at short term impacts - the NAIM field this summer - and predict long term failure. Other factors contributed - the year before the rule was enforced, and the field, while not as strong as I would like, was as strong as it had been in the past
.
Your final statement is certainly correct short term - for qualifiers. It is not proven for other AGA events or long term for interest in organized go in the U.S.

[Horibe]

Maybe it would help me to understand better if you could concisely summarize why you think it is a good thing to restrict people that haven't played enough AGA rated games from the qualifier, for example.

I do not think it is a good thing to restrict people from qualifiers.

I think it is a good thing to have lots of tournaments and have strong players attend those tournaments.

I will not ask you to consisely summarize why you think supporting tournaments is a bad idea.

I am not trying to keep people out of tournaments, and I am trying to get them in.

So I would be glad to tell you why I think tournaments, and strong players at tournaments are fun, but I do not think that is the argument. I assume you agree.

I am willing to say "sorry" or "wait a year" to some people, if in the long run it means we have more people participating in more AGA events. That does mean I think it is a "good idea" to exclude people, it means I want to include more people.

It may be a bad plan, but my goal is not to exclude people.

[Kirby]

I do not think it is a good thing to restrict people from qualifiers.
...

It may be a bad plan, but my goal is not to exclude people.

I think I understand your position, now. You are saying that, "By restricting people in the short term, they will be more likely to join the AGA, and therefore, be included in the long run". Is this correct?

By the way, I am simply trying to understand your position - not put words in your mouth.

[etower366i2]

I skipped the five or so intervening responses in order to say this, so forgive me if I speak out of turn, but the AGA pays at least the travel costs for most tournaments. Once the representative reaches his or her destination, often some or all of the expenses are paid for by the sponsor, but this is not always the case. I believe that the situation was different in a better economic climate, but that is how most tournaments are conducted today.

[kokomi]

I think that this argument is somewhat convincing - it is good to have an organization to help with organizing events. And we have that. But I'm not sure that it takes away from the fact that we should aim to have the strongest players possible attend international events, even if they are not in the AGA.

For strong non-AGA players, they can ask the sponsors to give them a wild card if the sponsors agree so, just because they are 'strong' players. Well, just an idea.

[Kirby]

So I think that I understand Horibe's position. I think that one of the main ideas can be summarized by this:

I am willing to say "sorry" or "wait a year" to some people, if in the long run it means we have more people participating in more AGA events. That does mean I think it is a "good idea" to exclude people, it means I want to include more people.

I think that it is admirable to try to include more people in events. And, it's a good goal. I just wonder if there is a way to accomplish this goal without having to say "sorry" or "wait a year". In other words, is it possible to have more people participating in more go events, without having the restrictions on who can participate in the international qualifiers?

I think that, if we could accomplish this, it would be ideal.

One way to do this is to simply have more tournaments, as Lisa already pointed out. Perhaps it would be beneficial for us to try to brainstorm additional ideas.