Upcoming AGA projects, volunteers needed, info, etc etc etc

[John Fairbairn]

Mr. Fairbarn-
The reason to have an "online only rating" is because for large swathes of the central US region, commuting to tournaments is just not an option. There are any number of people who see no value in an AGA membership because they see the top benefit of membership as being the ability to play in tournaments. Now, if you can have tournaments held across sites (e.g., 5 in this coffeeshop, 10 at this local club, another few in a library, etc), then you might see a lot more interest.

Secondly, i'd like to think that having a real, honest to god person associated with an online handle can help address a lot of the problems in online go. people playing with free pseudonymous accounts will have no problem escaping, making a new one, escaping, making a new one, etc.

Thirdly, i'd like to point out that ranks have consequences. It sucks when you've improved, your rank hasn't changed, and you get nothing but easy games at tournaments. It's just as bad when it's the other way 'round. Let's not forget the point of ranks, which is especially useful for us duffers -- so that we can play games that are challenging for both players.

But this is not what I asked about nor does it relate to the point I was making.

There are ranks/grades (2-dan etc) and ratings (2345). I'm asking members why they make so much fuss about (I think) spuriously accurate ratings. Take away the fuss about that and the work on the AGA project becomes much simpler. You can have online ranks more easily than online ratings and at amateur level ranks are just as meaningful as ratings. KGS uses online ranks. UK meat-space tournaments use ranks. Possibly I've misunderstood and your system does after all also use ranks rather than ratings, but I've seen people talk about 1.95 dan, etc so the impulse to seek spurious precision is still there. Yet again, why? I understand the wish/need to have a rank. I don't understand, among people whose go strengths vary enormously from day to day through reasons nothing to do with go, the wish/need to have a rating, especially when it evidently involves so much effort by already hard-pressed administrators (which is why I think it belongs in this thread).

[daniel_the_smith]

A few comments on AGA ratings, mostly directed at Mr. Fairbairn:

* They're published as dan/kyu ranks, even though internally the system uses an Elo-like scale.
* They're published with 5 or so decimal places.
* The first decimal place is somewhat important (e.g., officially, a 2.9 dan should take white, no komi vs. a 2.1 dan, but a 3.1 dan and a 2.9 dan should play even, 7.5 komi).
* No one I've met pays any attention to the rest of the decimal places, unless it's as a way of complaining about how slowly they're going up.
* You're not allowed to enter a tournament at a lower rank than your published one.
* You can enter at a higher rank if you can convince the TD you should.

[Mef]

As an AGA member who about 99% of the time is more or less inactive in the AGA (mainly due to geographic/logistic considerations) and would like to be more active -- Do you have any tasks/projects it would be possible to work on remotely that don't involve coding? Whenever I see calls for volunteers it's usually for some type of programming solution (which may just be due to the disproportionately large number of CS people who play go....When you have a group of people with hammers, the world looks like a box of nails...). Is there anything the rest of us could be doing (aside from recruiting more go players)?

[snorri]

Truthfully I don't think any of the AGA people long term goals; they have dreams. An American professional system...

Exactly. The highest priority is and should always be promotion of Go to children and young people,
since they are the next generation. Focus on a US pro system is focusing on the top, which is completely backwards and upside down, IMHO.

I'm not sure those goals are mutually exclusive, because among the first to qualify for pro status may be players who are children today. It's a different way of focusing on children. Just, well, elite children at first. Longer team, more pros in the U.S. would mean more possibility for outreach of all kinds, though.

But like with anything, it's important to balance long-term stretch goals with shorter-term activities that provide more immediate benefit.

[daniel_the_smith]

Yeah, it's a bit of a chicken-and-egg problem; having a pro system in place may actually give kids a reason to get strong in the first place (they would no longer have to travel overseas to "be" Hikaru). Something like 1/4 of the participants at congress were kids; whatever Paul Barchilon has been doing seems to be working.

[jts]

Truthfully I don't think any of the AGA people long term goals; they have dreams. An American professional system...

Exactly. The highest priority is and should always be promotion of Go to children and young people,
since they are the next generation. Focus on a US pro system is focusing on the top, which is completely backwards and upside down, IMHO.

Trying to threadjack a bit: what is the limiting factor in intensifying youth recruitment/education right now? Lack of plans, lack of volunteers, lack of resources?

[pwaldron]

Something like 1/4 of the participants at congress were kids; whatever Paul Barchilon has been doing seems to be working.

Depends how you count success. The AGA has been pushing youth activities for well over a decade, even before Paul came along, The kids who were teenagers then should be dues-paying members in their twenties and thirties by now. But looking at the membership rosters those players are nowhere to be seen. Past Redmond Cup winners--James Chien, Timothy Law, Dennis Liang, Jonathan Wang, Mozheng Guan--aren't playing any more. In fact, if you look at all the Redmond Cup winners and runners-up and remove those who are still youth players, not a single one is still playing go. A retention rate of zero is not a success.

The catch phrase is always that the youth players are the AGA of tomorrow, but reality doesn't bear that out. The kids stick around as long as they are being subsidized and then vanish once the money stops.

[daniel_the_smith]

Something like 1/4 of the participants at congress were kids; whatever Paul Barchilon has been doing seems to be working.

Depends how you count success. The AGA has been pushing youth activities for well over a decade, even before Paul came along, The kids who were teenagers then should be dues-paying members in their twenties and thirties by now. But looking at the membership rosters those players are nowhere to be seen. Past Redmond Cup winners--James Chien, Timothy Law, Dennis Liang, Jonathan Wang, Mozheng Guan--aren't playing any more. In fact, if you look at all the Redmond Cup winners and runners-up and remove those who are still youth players, not a single one is still playing go. A retention rate of zero is not a success.

The catch phrase is always that the youth players are the AGA of tomorrow, but reality doesn't bear that out. The kids stick around as long as they are being subsidized and then vanish once the money stops.

Good point.

I'm not sure how to count that information, however. There's lots of stuff I did as a kid that I don't do anymore, and I don't consider that a failing of my parents or the organizations involved-- my interests/priorities changed. We can't force people to keep playing. Of course, if they still play on KGS and live in an area with some AGA presence, I would count that as strong evidence in favor of your point.

Also, does looking at only past winners bias things? I wonder how good the membership database is; can we see how many people who start with a youth membership go on to continue to be members after they grow up? If that number is as near 0 as you seem to think, then I'll agree we do have problems. But that still wouldn't tell us what the problems are. It may simply be that the "real" AGA sucks compared to the AGA the youth experience, which is probably true but is also, I think, just another facet of the widely acknowledged problem that the AGA has not sufficiently answered the question, "what do I get for my membership fee?"

[Horibe]

Pwaldron-
I think your criticism is quite fair. I would ask a favor of you, though, to stop referring to it as "the AGA", and instead refer to the individual people involved. It's tougher to write sentences calling out individuals, but i ask you please to think of *who* it is who is doing all these things. We both know that there is no shortage of people willing to talk about the problems (e.g., the Board, or this forum ) but when it comes to *who* -- there's your problem. For instance, the board votes to put into place rank certificates. Who's going to actually connect all the dots? You got it 90% of the way there, and there it sits. Who did you expect to pick it up? Allan himself? Terry B, Chris K, Ken K? Which person from the AGA did you honestly see or expect to get it finished? Now i'm telling you i intend to pick it up and get it done and i hear this "the AGA can't identify a concrete goal and bring people together"... downright disheartening would be the beginning!

I have to strongly disagree with this asked favor.

I firmly believe that the people who make up the AGA are well-meaning volunteers who are trying to do what they think is best for go in this country.

They are also doing a terrible job.

But the last thing I want is to start having individuals called out and attacked. While the recent efforts of the AGA fall short of what I would like, and as such it would be disingenuous of me to suggest that the individuals in the AGA deserve all of our support - they do not need to be singled out and attacked publicly either.

I believe, given pwaldron's concerns and experiences - the fact that he is still here making suggestions speaks volumes about his passion for go, and his character. The fact that he refuses to single out individuals speaks volumes about his compassionate restraint.

The more the AGA continues down a road of convincing itself that the only progress that can be made is online, the sooner it will arrive at its destination - not a shining City on a Hill, but rather a depressing suburb of KGS.

[Joaz Banbeck]

The above post may be the most insightful thing ever written about the AGA. It just needs one slight modification to be the perfect post...

...

I firmly believe that MOST OF the people who make up the AGA are well-meaning volunteers who are trying to do what they think is best for go in this country.

They are also doing a terrible job.

But the last thing I want is to start having individuals called out and attacked. While the recent efforts of the AGA fall short of what I would like, and as such it would be disingenuous of me to suggest that the individuals in the AGA deserve all of our support - they do not need to be singled out and attacked publicly either.

I believe, given pwaldron's concerns and experiences - the fact that he is still here making suggestions speaks volumes about his passion for go, and his character. The fact that he refuses to single out individuals speaks volumes about his compassionate restraint.

The more the AGA continues down a road of convincing itself that the only progress that can be made is online, the sooner it will arrive at its destination - not a shining City on a Hill, but rather a depressing suburb of KGS.

There...fixed that for you.

[seigenblues]

But the last thing I want is to start having individuals called out and attacked. While the recent efforts of the AGA fall short of what I would like, and as such it would be disingenuous of me to suggest that the individuals in the AGA deserve all of our support - they do not need to be singled out and attacked publicly either.

Also the last thing i want. Not to go too far down a rabbit hole here, but my hope is to avoid speaking of "the AGA" as being a broad label used for whatever actions are rhetorically handy. That's a naming convention that leads to "the AGA" being synonymous with the worst actions taken by the most ineffectual for the least benefit.

Rather than worry about assigning blame, or attacking, my goal is to Get Things Done, which means answering a few questions: How are things going to be done. Who is going to do it. When is it going to happen. What is needed.

When people complain about the AGA, and/or its effectiveness, they generally aren't thinking about the answers to those questions. So when there's hand wringing done, and it targets "the AGA", it inevitably targets the good along with the bad, and generally just demoralizes everyone.
Far from asking people to "attack" or "name names", i'm merely looking for some constructive feedback. Who should do these things? Who will do these things? Who were you expecting to do these things, and was that a reasonable expectation?


And certainly, i am very much aware of pwaldron's "compassionate restraint." I'd nominate him for sainthood, myself.

The more the AGA continues down a road of convincing itself that the only progress that can be made is online, the sooner it will arrive at its destination - not a shining City on a Hill, but rather a depressing suburb of KGS.

This, again, suggests that you should consider the questions listed above, as well as this one:
What can only a handful of volunteers do for all members in an offline way?

And if you can answer that (and i hope you can! and do! And tell the board about it!), the questions of "How can it be done? Who will do it? How will it be paid for?" will remain.

For myself, I'm making progress with online services for members because online services cost us nothing on a marginal basis.

It may simply be that the "real" AGA sucks compared to the AGA the youth experience, which is probably true but is also, I think, just another facet of the widely acknowledged problem that the AGA has not sufficiently answered the question, "what do I get for my membership fee?"

I cannot agree more strongly with this statement. Right now, that question is answered:

1) the ability to play in AGA tournaments. (manifested by a rating & a rank.)
1a) records & statistics of all the tournaments you've ever played in & ways to track your progress. (AGAGD)
2) advanced content in the e-journal.
3) a yearbook.
4) a membership card.
5) The warm, fuzzy feeling of supporting your favorite hobby & furthering the US's representation of it (scoff if you like )
6) The ability to join a chapter & make your voice heard to the AGA board.

I would also add that we also have not answered "What do I get for paying my chapter dues & joining an AGA chapter?"
For this one, i can hardly muster a list


Again, to return to the original purpose of this thread: There are some additional items to add to these lists. Enabling club tournaments, for instance, could be a real value, encouraging people to pay their chapter dues. Rank certificates. Adding an online rating might be another one, etc. The other items listed at the opening of this thread are things that i hope can one day be added as a compelling answer -- once we've gotten them done.



~
Lastly, to EdLee & others who point out the importance of "The Youth", i'd like to point out that there is a separate organization for promotion of youth go. It's the AGF.

[Horibe]

Joaz - thanks for the compliment, but I do not appreciate your "fix". While the quote - still in my name in your post - may accurately reflect your view - it does not reflect mine.

The people who make up the AGA, the ones who keep working, keep attending endless mind numbing meetings, sifting through emails and keep trying are uniformly well meaning and doing their best, however much we disagree with them or the results. If they were not, they would simply quit the first time they did not get their way.

My point is that it is unproductive to single out individual failings and we should concentrate on positively trying to improve the organization as a whole - which I believe pwaldron has been trying to do. It is fine to be interested in specifics, but specifics failings attached to specific people will contribute a pound of distraction (or worse) for each ounce of prevention.

[seigenblues]

Horibe- I completely agree with you -- being interested in specific failings is not a good idea, and not what i was calling for.

I believe we can only "improve the organization as a whole," by concentrating on improving specific things. That's really all we can do. Calls for general reform are about as old as the AGA -- if they haven't worked by now, maybe there's a better approach.

[Horibe]

[

The more the AGA continues down a road of convincing itself that the only progress that can be made is online, the sooner it will arrive at its destination - not a shining City on a Hill, but rather a depressing suburb of KGS.

This, again, suggests that you should consider the questions listed above, as well as this one:
What can only a handful of volunteers do for all members in an offline way?

And if you can answer that (and i hope you can! and do! And tell the board about it!), the questions of "How can it be done? Who will do it? How will it be paid for?" will remain.

For myself, I'm making progress with online services for members because online services cost us nothing on a marginal basis.



Lastly, to EdLee & others who point out the importance of "The Youth", i'd like to point out that there is a separate organization for promotion of youth go. It's the AGF.

It is hard to deny the advantages of technnology and the ability to provide "services" to membership online and cost effectively. Certainly, the AGA can have members, news, archives, tournaments and ratings all online. And you can make a strong argument that the AGA is providing real value with these services.

Except that KGS provides them for free.

It is all well and good for the AGA to take the road well and easily travelled but, again, at the end of that road is simply oblivion. If our policy is to accept that some parts of the country will never have tournaments, if we make no effort to support face to face events and if we abdicate supporting youth to the AGF then the AGA needs to seriously accept its doom.

Do not get me wrong, I think KGS is great, and of course the AGA must leverage online resources as much as possible, but the AGA must provide something that cannot be provided online - real connections - not just of stones - but of people, meeting and demonstrating a willingness to really work, and travel, and pay in both time and money, to support this game.

This is the type of activity - not playing for free on a server - that demonstrates a real interest in the game that could impress a sponsor.

Sorry, no specifics here, and no easy answer. But fundamentally, the AGA must have its ultimate goal real life club and tournament support. Everything wonderful and cool online must be designed to better serve this goal. Every proposal must be vetted by "How will this help get us a club in North Dakota, or an epic event in New York".

Right now AGA policy appears to turn its back on supporting face to face go where it exists, and to admit defeat where it does not.

We must take the less travelled road - it could make all the difference.

[vash3g]

Horibe: as ive asked of others on this very board in other topics:

What will You do to help the organization? What ideas can you bring forth?


I propose to all who read this to either Put Up or Shut Up. The time for bitching about what the AGA has not done or failed to do is over. The time to do something is now. If we all put in a little effort we could do a whole lot.