Future projects/goals of the AGA

[jts]

Nevertheless, if your primary reasons for joining any volunteer organization are focused on the personal benefits that you gain, then you're better off looking elsewhere.

Your motive for joining any organization should be to help somebody. Some people join charitable organizations whose mission is not intended to benefit the volunteers at all, but they do provide benefits (food, shelter, medical care, education) that would be equally desirable for the volunteers and for the recipients of charity. Now, most volunteers in these sorts of groups already have access to the goods that they work to provide to others, but their own personal benefit is a good roadmap to the sort of benefits that they try to provide for others. Other organizations are almost wholly selfish (many businesses, for example), and don't directly intend to benefit others at all. Most organizations are somewhere in between.

Think of the members of a neighborhood beautification committee. Are they improving the neighborhood merely for their own selfish benefit? No, there are certainly other people who will benefit as well. But should you feel proud of working for a beautification committee which doesn't benefit you at all, and whose accomplishments don't benefit any of the members? Of course not. Such a committee has manifestly failed to beautify the neighborhood.

The AGA, I would assume, is more like a neighborhood beautification committee than Oxfam. If anyone benefits from what the AGA does, it will be the American go players who are dedicated enough to volunteer; it's their neighborhood, so to speak. If they don't benefit, no one does.

[deja]

Nevertheless, if your primary reasons for joining any volunteer organization are focused on the personal benefits that you gain, then you're better off looking elsewhere.

Your motive for joining any organization should be to help somebody. Some people join charitable organizations whose mission is not intended to benefit the volunteers at all, but they do provide benefits (food, shelter, medical care, education) that would be equally desirable for the volunteers and for the recipients of charity. Now, most volunteers in these sorts of groups already have access to the goods that they work to provide to others, but their own personal benefit is a good roadmap to the sort of benefits that they try to provide for others. Other organizations are almost wholly selfish (many businesses, for example), and don't directly intend to benefit others at all. Most organizations are somewhere in between.

Think of the members of a neighborhood beautification committee. Are they improving the neighborhood merely for their own selfish benefit? No, there are certainly other people who will benefit as well. But should you feel proud of working for a beautification committee which doesn't benefit you at all, and whose accomplishments don't benefit any of the members? Of course not. Such a committee has manifestly failed to beautify the neighborhood.

The AGA, I would assume, is more like a neighborhood beautification committee than Oxfam. If anyone benefits from what the AGA does, it will be the American go players who are dedicated enough to volunteer; it's their neighborhood, so to speak. If they don't benefit, no one does.

You left this part out when you selectively quoted my post

That obviously doesn't mean you shouldn't get anything in return from being a member. What it does mean is that volunteer organizations like the AGA are what they are because of active member participation, i.e., what members do for the organization.

[gaius]

Although I do not know the AGA at all, the following question struck me while reading this thread: would I pay 40 euros per year to join the European Go Federation? Honestly, I don't know. While that organisation undoubtedly does a lot of useful things, it really is a "far-away" institution which I do not directly encounter very often - aside from the Congresses, of course. Yet, I have gladly been a member of the Dutch go federation since I started playing, and I never even considered cancelling my membership even though it is more expensive than 40 euros per year. Of course, the Dutch go federation then pays some money to be a member of the EGF, and I think this is perfectly natural. Hence, the real problem might be the shear size of the US, rendering the AGA a "far-away show" with no real benefit for many people. As mentioned before, this might be changed by using new media and online rankings more.

But my main feeling is that focusing on regional organisations would be more productive. When people feel part of some community and have real-life friends there, paying a few bucks every year to support that community is just not so much of an issue. Of course, traveling distances are bigger in the US than in Europe. But, provided that there are dedicated volunteers, things like low-cost regional go camps (get together in a cheap group accomodation for a week or so without high budget for pros or prize money) and all-day or all-weekend events like tournaments bind a community together. My feeling is that people would not have so many objections towards paying a bunch of money to become a member of, let's say, the California AGA Chapter, which uses most of the money to organise local events and forwards maybe 20-30% of the money to a small overarching national association.

By the way, what's up with the idea that people have to be an AGA member to play in tournaments? That's pretty unfriendly, and kind of unwelcoming to newcomers and irregular players (plus: what do you do with foreigners who want to play?)... Instead, let people become part of the go community first; then they will want to pay their share!

Of course, these are just my 2 cents. But first and foremostly, I believe that any regional or national go association should be as friendly and welcoming as possible. People should join a federation because they want to support its goals and support the community, not because they are somehow forced to.

[hyperpape]

1. Why does the EGF seem far away? Is it national identification, or something else? If something else, California is 770 miles from North to South, making it a "far away" organization.

2. There are terms for joining the AGA at a tournament, more cheaply than normal ($10 for a one day pass, $15 for a one year promotional membership). You become a member when you go to the tournament, along with receiving your rating.

[gowan]

[rant] At my curmudgeonly age I think almost all the resources of the AGA should be devoted to promoting face-to-face go. Back in the good old days there was no internet and the only way you could play was face to face. You developed real relationships with real people and when you went to a club or tournament you had real interactions with groups of people with common interests. This just doesn't happen with internet go. That's about as real a relationship as text messaging lol (not!).

And what's with this obsession with ranks? When all play was in person and mostly at your local club, you mostly played for the social aspect and ranks just helped you get a good game at an appropriate handicap. Now I see threads devoted to paralysis due to fear of rank lowering. I think this is an internet-related phenomenon. Even blitz games were more fun. I'm thinking of a couple of players at a club I once frequented who played blitz all the time and frequently ended with angry exchanges on the theme of "I would have won if ..." followed by sulking and/or stomping out of the club. But they'd be back the next week. There was no "escaping" when people played in person.

And then there is the greedy attitude that you only contribute to the go community if you get immediate and concrete return on your investment. Bah! [/rant]

[deja]

There was no "escaping" when people played in person.

Well, I do recall one guy causally getting up to stretch during a quadruple ko fight and then suddenly bolting out the door. We left the board as it was for the next six months just in case he returned...

[Kirby]

...

And what's with this obsession with ranks? ...

I hear what you're saying, but this seems easy to say coming from a 5d.

[gowan]

...

And what's with this obsession with ranks? ...

I hear what you're saying, but this seems easy to say coming from a 5d.

I suppose you are saying that higher-ranked people would be more satisfied with their rank. But I don't see reaching any particular rank as being an especially important goal. I learned that when I reached 1d and realized that I didn't really feel much stronger than I did at lower ranks. And even at 5d I still feel weak when I think of how much more there is to learn. What's important is understanding go better, and usually that is reflected in the rank, but for me the key thing is the learning, not the rank.

[jdl]

The rank is a measure of the knowledge, otherwise for someone who doesn't care about rank why display yours publicly? My assumption is that you want your advice to be taken more seriously than if you had nothing or 30-kyu listed next to your name.