Initiatives for a Professional System in the West

[Bill Spight]

When talking about a professional organization, it alway implies the question of where the money comes from because pros by definition makes their living from the activity they are a pro at.

Pros by definition make money at what they are pros at.

[gogameguru]

A lot of the back and forth point scoring here is greatly oversimplifying the issue. From reading what everyone's said, it really seems to me that there's a consensus that a pro system in the West would be good. It's a question of when, where and how. That's what people have concerns about.

With that in mind, it would be more interesting to discuss how we get there and build something that doesn't just fall over. Note the original poster wasn't just talking about Go in the US.

For better or for worse, the Go community is still small enough that there are quite a few people here who are greatly involved in their own local Go associations. We could be having a constructive discussion instead hopping onto the pointless merry-go-round of semantic arguments.

Let's stop picking up on individual sentences (which may or may not represent the spirit of what a person was really trying to say) and contructing whole arguments about them. Logically you might be right and tactically you may be unbeatable in an argument, but strategically, what exactly is being achieved apart from some light entertainment?

This isn't an either or question. You can't say that a pro system would be more effective than education or the other way round. Because it doesn't work like that. If you look at pro football, you'll see that it's supported by a whole ecosystem of fans, semi-pro leagues, local teams, social teams, junior leagues, school programs, weekend programs, parents, teachers, promoters, media, sponsors and so on. So if we want a pro system, we also need to invest in the supporting foundations underneath. So how do we get there?

For my part, I made a decision that I could do my bit by introducing Go to more players. After going to schools to teach Go to local kids for some time, I wanted a way to make those efforts work on a larger scale. The internet is the obvious answer. That's why I started thinking about doing something like Go Game Guru.

I totally agree that having access to a pro scene, as a form of entertainment, is a great way of keeping people interested in the game. That's one of the main reasons why we publish so much pro news on GGG. That sort of thing isn't going to happen immediately in the West though. We need serious plan to get there. Airtime isn't given for free, for one thing.

So tapir is right, we need more 10 kyus, because they will be the fans. Where there are fans there's money. There's media. There's exposure for the game. There's advertising. There's a way to create an economy that supports the professionals and numerous other people in related jobs. It's about educating people enough to enjoy the game, even if most people will never want to pursue it to a high level. That's what China, Japan and Korea all had already, that enabled them to make the next step.

If, as people say, the Korean Baduk Association is going to generously support the beginnings of an institution for professionals in the US, then that's a big help - an artificial leg-up with a single point of failure, but still very helpful. KBA can't make it happen on their own though, and they may not be able to sustain it for that long, because nobody knows which boat may be scuttled in the next economic storm.

But if this is really going to happen, we need to start thinking about how to best capitalise on it, so the investment and the opportunity aren't squandered. Not just the AGA, not just US Go players, not just Western Go players, but everyone who cares about the development of Go throughout the world. Pro football got to where it is now through the sustained efforts of a great number of people, over a long time. People who loved that game.

The pro Go players in the USA could just be the beginning of this.

Maybe you think the cirumstances aren't ideal right now. Maybe (like me) you still feel that this is a bit early. But if it's going to be happening anyway, then we'd better start thinking about how we can best take advantage of it as a community. Sometimes, there's never a perfect time to get started and you just have to start doing things.

Remember, we're Go players. We know that plans work out better when all our resources are working together. We're supposed to be good at thinking strategically. We're supposed to look at the whole board...

So let's think about the strategy and stop fighting a semantic half-point ko in the corner... Otherwise I'm going pull some people up for conveniently writing the greatest Go player of the 20th century out of history...


Hint for new players: He wasn't Japanese.

[Joaz Banbeck]

...
So let's think about the strategy and stop fighting a semantic half-point ko in the corner...

I was just going to say something like this myself.

[Knotwilg]

The point is not whether or not someone calls himself a professional. It's up to an individual to call himself so. The point is whether a league can exist in which some people do earn a (part of their) living.

There are professional leagues in sports with people who cannot at all compete with other professionals in other leagues. I'm thinking of 2nd division football in Belgium vs. the Spanish first league but also about women tennis. Men can complain all they want but apparently there is a market for professional women who are far weaker than their male counterparts. They even get equal prize money, partly due to political correctness, partly due to the existing market of female players looking for role models and partly for male fans looking for something particular.

If the Western world wants to and is financially capable of supporting their strongest players to compose a professional league, based on the assumption that this will help generating more beginners, so as to catalyze the community and spiral it upwards, then it is irrelevant whether they can compete with Asian pros. There is of course a legal aspect, of discrimination. Indeed, the fact that Korean visitors have been collecting all the prize money in European tournaments has been perceived as discouraging for European go. But one cannot deny access based on nationality, usually.

Personally, I think that the catalysis will work best if a singular westerner competes for top titles, making for spontaneous press coverage and idolatry. It happened to Chess with Bobby Fischer, though chess was already grained in our popular culture. Such a "white raven" is hard to create. What you can do is foster the base in which such a rare animal can appear, which is what David is mainly stating.

[daal]

Where did the Korean and Chinese pro systems come from if not from the Japanese?

From the player base. Both Korea and China had a sufficiently large go playing population so that there was room for a pro system. They had players starting at very young ages, whose parents were willing to send them abroad at very young ages for years.

The Japanese undeniably contributed greatly to the rise of professional go in Korea and China, but I do not think it would have had much result if not for the existing fertile ground.

This it seems is the crux of the issue. If the ground is not fertile, you can plant as many seeds as you want, but they will die. Is western go ground fertile? What would constitute fertile ground? Clearly this is children and their parents. It's the children and not the current amateurs who will hopefully one day become strong enough to create a surge of national pride necessary for a fan base to develop. If a western professional league built with western amateurs and Korean money gets rolling tomorrow, will we see parents of young kids invest enough time, energy, and money to make these kids eventually competitive in a fledgling league in which they may not ever earn a dime? Will national organizations be able to discover and nurture enough talent to reach a critical mass? If not, what's the point?

The amount of talent, time and devotion that it takes to get great at go is quite large. The Koreans and Chinese were probably able to achieve this mass because go was already firmly embedded in their cultures. We all know that go is a great game, but not only is it not embedded in western culture, it leads an utterly fringe existence. Will a pro league change that? Maybe we should ask the professional frisbee golf association.

I'm certainly glad that the Koreans are showing interest in promoting go in the west because it promotes a mindset sorely lacking in our attention deficient cultures - but it seems doubtful that a professional league will offer fans more than our current kibbitz filled KGS battles between Artem92 and cheater. I personally would rather see a demonstration tournament between some top Korean professionals held in the West, perhaps with some simultaneous games against the best of the West. I'm guessing that one Lee Sedol would turn more heads than an entire Western Go League.

[Horibe]

There are Go Journalists out there who make a living playing go?

Lets focus on this:

The first pros from China and Korea would NOT fit your model of a pro. By your argument, they should never have created a pro system because their players were 3 stones weaker than Japanese pros.

You have to start somewhere,

1) Funding, I have heard there's a sponsor, if not, this whole argument is moot, the AGA doesn't HAVE the funds to divert from educational programs. So we really don't need to worry about poor orphans not learning the game so that a few stronger players can take trips to Uncle Hanguk's Summer Camp.

2) Level of players, the Koreans want to train US players so that those players can develop a pro system here. It's pointless if they stay in Korea because Korea doesn't have a shortage. The KBA obviously wants there to be a larger market for baduk, and beating the horse over there is counterproductive. Yes, the players will not be as strong to begin with. Just as the Chinese and Koreans took years to be viable against Japanese pros.

But those Chinese and Korean players did not "go it alone", they had training, they had a drive to create a system like this. It didn't suddenly appear when they were strong enough.

Where did the Korean and Chinese pro systems come from if not from the Japanese?

Allright, I will focus on what you have above.

Intro - "You have to start somewhere" You do? I mean, don't you have to support this statement? I question whether we "have to start" at all, for several reasons. First, go is not popular enough in this country to support a pro system on its own. Second, I question the benefit to go in the US. What would it accomplish? We already have amatuer go players like Andy and Eric and Michael that people are interested in and follow. Third, we are, unfortunately, Americans, and we have two unfortunate tendencies. A. - We tend to think we are the best, and we do things like this and run the risk of looking foolish. B. We tend to only want to root for the best, and I wonder whether, in fact, an American pro system will create any interest. The US tries to have a professional soccer league - but all the real fans follow Europe, because we tend to only be interested in the best, and the same may happen here.

1. Funding. We agree that this is a no go without a sponsor. What money do you think the AGA is putting into educational programs? There is no money. But there is also a dearth of volunteers. This thing will not run itself, it will only benefit a few and it will be, or seem, a high profile cool thing to work on and take volunteer talent from other areas. Will calling a few top players who already have fans pros really create the kind of difference and enthusiasm that will offset the volunteer effort and manpower to support it?

2. Your final point is fine, I do not necessarily have a problem with it. I think your history is a bit flawed. My understanding is that the Japanese did the same thing for Korea and China that they have done here. They took promising folks to Japan and developed them as pros, and they sent pros overseas to teach and to play and support the spread of go. I am not sure the Japanese played the sort of seed money role you are suggesting Korea is going to play here. The fact of the matter is that China and Korea had the go population, interest and funding to support the players - and Japan played its part in helping to bring up the level of play.

In fact, we do NOT have to start somewhere. It may indeed be foolish to turn down Korea on its offer, but even that is not a win win. It can be argued that there was no reason not to take the Ing money, and for years that money did a lot of good. But did it also make us dependant on that money, stifled other areas of growth, made the AGA leadership lazy, and now the AGA is sinking and unable to find its footing?

[shapenaji]

Allright, I will focus on what you have above.

Intro - "You have to start somewhere" You do? I mean, don't you have to support this statement? I question whether we "have to start" at all, for several reasons. First, go is not popular enough in this country to support a pro system on its own. Second, I question the benefit to go in the US. What would it accomplish? We already have amatuer go players like Andy and Eric and Michael that people are interested in and follow. Third, we are, unfortunately, Americans, and we have two unfortunate tendencies. A. - We tend to think we are the best, and we do things like this and run the risk of looking foolish. B. We tend to only want to root for the best, and I wonder whether, in fact, an American pro system will create any interest. The US tries to have a professional soccer league - but all the real fans follow Europe, because we tend to only be interested in the best, and the same may happen here.

The reason why you have to start somewhere is that ultimately, go is a conversation, and currently there's a language barrier with the best countries in the world. That barrier exists because they have players whose career is to get better. We may get some talented amateurs, but without a professional training regime, history shows us that that's all they'll be. Our best players are at the limit of Amateurs sans pro-training.

Korea is offering training, the one thing our best players lack. And they are not requiring them to devote the rest of their life to living in Korea. It is the next step in our advancement.



It's funny that you bring up professional soccer, (I also don't know what you mean by "real fans", I think there's a stadium of LA Galaxy folks who would disagree with your statement that they are not real fans), How are those US Women doing again?

as far as your points:
A)We don't think we're the best, but we believe in our potential. Support of small professional organizations around the country for Soccer, Women's Basketball, Roller Derby, suggests that, while an American Pro organization might not bring home multi-million dollar contracts, it can certainly bag a few sponsors.

B)We watch interesting stories, the quality of the team doesn't matter quite as much. If you can suck people in with a good story, they'll even watch a LeBron-less Cleveland.

1. Funding. We agree that this is a no go without a sponsor. What money do you think the AGA is putting into educational programs? There is no money. But there is also a dearth of volunteers. This thing will not run itself, it will only benefit a few and it will be, or seem, a high profile cool thing to work on and take volunteer talent from other areas. Will calling a few top players who already have fans pros really create the kind of difference and enthusiasm that will offset the volunteer effort and manpower to support it?

I think you're reaching to say that it will take volunteer talent from other areas, I think there's no evidence to support that.

As far as "Calling top players pros". That is not what is being suggested. It's about making top players into pros. It's about collecting that talent and managing the fanbase. And currently the AGA does not do this.

A pro organization would be tasked with having games between their pros and broadcasting those in a way that would improve viewership for their sponsors. There's an incentive there that the AGA doesn't have.

2. Your final point is fine, I do not necessarily have a problem with it. I think your history is a bit flawed. My understanding is that the Japanese did the same thing for Korea and China that they have done here. They took promising folks to Japan and developed them as pros, and they sent pros overseas to teach and to play and support the spread of go. I am not sure the Japanese played the sort of seed money role you are suggesting Korea is going to play here. The fact of the matter is that China and Korea had the go population, interest and funding to support the players - and Japan played its part in helping to bring up the level of play.

Okay, somewhere along the way, someone injected "Korean funds" into this debate (and it was not me), that is not what is happening. The Koreans are offering training, but they want us to find a sponsor, according to sources, a sponsor has been found.

We also have a go population, a population that stands right now at about a few thousand fans. This isn't enough to snag Pepsi, but it's enough for a small start-up endowment.

You seem to be under the illusion that all professional systems need to be the NFL.

In fact, we do NOT have to start somewhere. It may indeed be foolish to turn down Korea on its offer, but even that is not a win win. It can be argued that there was no reason not to take the Ing money, and for years that money did a lot of good. But did it also make us dependant on that money, stifled other areas of growth, made the AGA leadership lazy, and now the AGA is sinking and unable to find its footing?

Alright, we're talking about a new organization, funded by sponsors and beholden to those sponsors. This is a business we're talking about.

That's a lot of blame you're putting on Ing funding, I just don't think there's a causal link.

[tetron]

Some interesting debate on here.

What makes most pro-games flourish is an audience. The question is does the US (Europe doesn't) have an exiting audience base that would be able to finance a professional league in the long-term.

Games with high luck can easily develop a pro-base because there is money to be made from the gambling mind set. So poker, backgammon, elimintation blackjack and Magic the Gathering have all taken off easily in the internet age. I can't really see there being many takers for $1000 against a 9P in an even game.

For games of high skill, you need the audience. It doesn't even matter if it is played at the top level as long as there is drama in the event. If you can't build a domestic audience you need to pump in enough money to attract the pro's from abroad. I can't see this happening.

If you hold open competitions that pay prizes down to 20th ~$1000. The pro scene will create itself through players being able to make a living. There will be greater drive for new players. I think go has enough of a latent audience for the events then to continue but there are lots of other games out there. The marketers have people believing poker is a game of high skill

It would be nice to see the game grow but I am not convinced sending players to train in Korea is the best approach. (Strong players may choose this for themselves). you could perhaps hire a pro as a national coach. The real danger with this system is you allow players to be chosen whereas to really improve takes competition and drive.

[Horibe]

[The reason why you have to start somewhere is that ultimately, go is a conversation

What you seem to be saying is that we must be more competitive with the rest of the world and have stronger players. That is fine, but what I am saying is I am not sure that is (A) what are first goal should be right now, and (B) that a professional system would be the best way to serve that goal.

You simply say things like "it can certainly bag a few sponsors". Unless you can predict the future - you are certainly using heavy rhetoric.

Meanwhile, you say I am reaching by suggesting the effort might take volunteer talent from other areas - "there is no evidence to support that" Well, after your short stint as AGA Volunteer Coordinator I suppose I should defer to your expertise here. I am assuming you found a plethora of eager volunteers, filled all the needed slots and left after a job well done. If not, well, that might be some evidence that there is, in fact, not an unlimited number of volunteers.

You mistake my reference to "calling top players pros" as diminishing them. I am not. I am simply suggesting they already have fans, Curtis already trained in China, these guys are already accomplished (Eric finishing 3rd in the World Amatuers) the AGA should be able to find very interesting stories indeed about them. They will put in the work they will earn what they earn - but will the name change make enough of a difference to justify the program?

Yeah, LA Galaxy has some fans - substantially because of years of community level soccer programs, high school and college competition, Hispanic immigration and a couple of European Stars. The Womens Professional league is losing money, to answer that question. Sure, there are lots of Beckham jerseys sold, but look at the crowds, alot of folks are wearing Barcelona and Chelsea and ManUnited jerseys - and those are the teams people follow on TV, on the web and on their game boxes. My point is, even with MILLIONS of kids playing soccer, our best players go abroad to find success, and US fans are used to following the best in the world.

We do not have millions of players, we have thousands, and barely that. I did not blame ING - I asked a question - a relevant question. All you seem to be really saying is we have to start somewhere and now, the sponsors will come, it will not take any effort on our part and there will be great benefit.

I see nothing in your arguments that proves anything. We need to be teaching people go, getting go in the media and getting a better handle on the players we have. And please do not argue that ESPN is going to cover our new young pros triumphal return from Korea - it is not going to happen until enough people here care.

[shapenaji]

What you seem to be saying is that we must be more competitive with the rest of the world and have stronger players. That is fine, but what I am saying is I am not sure that is (A) what are first goal should be right now, and (B) that a professional system would be the best way to serve that goal.

And here we disagree, the AGA has trouble with funding, and its events are not easily sponsored, in the way that professional events are. A professional organization would take little away from the AGA, while serving to popularize the game. I certainly hope we're only focusing on one thing at a time as a community.

You simply say things like "it can certainly bag a few sponsors". Unless you can predict the future - you are certainly using heavy rhetoric.

I DID NOT simply say that, I pointed out that small professional organizations get sponsors, despite not having millions of fans. Please try to address the points I made, not the ones you think I made.

Meanwhile, you say I am reaching by suggesting the effort might take volunteer talent from other areas - "there is no evidence to support that" Well, after your short stint as AGA Volunteer Coordinator I suppose I should defer to your expertise here. I am assuming you found a plethora of eager volunteers, filled all the needed slots and left after a job well done. If not, well, that might be some evidence that there is, in fact, not an unlimited number of volunteers.

Thank you for the ad hominem attack, it will make it so much easier for me to respond in kind later.

What I found, was that people have a specific job in mind when they volunteer, they aren't widgets you can apply to anything. What is more likely is that more people would come forward to volunteer. Not that people would start leaving their posts.

You mistake my reference to "calling top players pros" as diminishing them. I am not. I am simply suggesting they already have fans, Curtis already trained in China, these guys are already accomplished (Eric finishing 3rd in the World Amatuers) the AGA should be able to find very interesting stories indeed about them. They will put in the work they will earn what they earn - but will the name change make enough of a difference to justify the program?

No, I do not, your reference suggested that that was all we were doing, "CALLING" them pros. I made clear that there was, in fact, a state-change taking place, not a name change.

Yeah, LA Galaxy has some fans - substantially because of years of community level soccer programs, high school and college competition, Hispanic immigration and a couple of European Stars. The Womens Professional league is losing money, to answer that question. Sure, there are lots of Beckham jerseys sold, but look at the crowds, alot of folks are wearing Barcelona and Chelsea and ManUnited jerseys - and those are the teams people follow on TV, on the web and on their game boxes. My point is, even with MILLIONS of kids playing soccer, our best players go abroad to find success, and US fans are used to following the best in the world.

I was pointing out that your definition of fans did not include the LA galaxy kids. The Women's professional system MAY be losing money, but it still has sponsors. Did it go under when I wasn't looking?

Can't you think of more than a few professional organizations in the US that are small and get by?

That's what we're talking about, not building massive stadiums.

We do not have millions of players, we have thousands, and barely that. I did not blame ING - I asked a question - a relevant question. All you seem to be really saying is we have to start somewhere and now, the sponsors will come, it will not take any effort on our part and there will be great benefit.

We have thousands of players, which is enough for a small sponsor and a small pro organization with a few part-time players to start off with.

I did not say it would not take any effort, I said that there was ALREADY A SPONSOR.

I see nothing in your arguments that proves anything. We need to be teaching people go, getting go in the media and getting a better handle on the players we have. And please do not argue that ESPN is going to cover our new young pros triumphal return from Korea - it is not going to happen until enough people here care.

I refuse to keep discussing with the willfully deaf.

[Horibe]

I refuse to keep discussing with the willfully deaf.

One more try.

You said an American Pro Organization "can certainly bag a few sponsors" Certainly? You site several "small" pro organizations that fill stadiums, small and large, with more fans than your entire admitted go population of the US at prices that are more than we charge for a year's AGA membership. How can you be so certain?

Yet when I suggest that this would take volunteer support that could be used in other areas - you state "there is no evidence to support that." I would submit you could be right here, I cannot predict the future - but neither can you, for all your certainty.

I made no adhominen attack. I am sorry if you took offense. I did not say you did a bad job. I would suggest that the AGA is still in need of volunteers in crucial areas. My point is not that you are at fault, but that volunteers are hard to come by.

Now calling me willfully deaf...

For a third time - my point is not that this is simply a name change. I will accept, for purposes of argument, that this is "state changing" that this new pro will be transformed by his year away and will have benifitted greatly and be a respected pro. My point is one of focus. Can you explain how the AGA, or American Go in general, is going to derive greater benefit from this tranformed person, than it does from having Eric Lui finish third in the Worlds, or Jie Li defeating a pro in an invitational event?

I have always been skeptical of the create stars and the people will follow. And I think there is ample argument the the AGA has failed to leverage the stars that is has. But whether they are struggling amatuers or meaningfully tranformed pros - you still have to deal with the fact that only a couple thousand people care or know the difference - and that is simply not enough to "certainly" bag a few sponsors.

[Javaness2]

I would support a new pro system if I could feel it would have some chance of working. From what I see at the moment, top players are not prepared to travel around the country (USA) to play games. Will there be enough money to change that, or would they all just move to the same place?

There is still some talk of making a European pro system... nobody tells us any details though.

[oren]

I would support a new pro system if I could feel it would have some chance of working. From what I see at the moment, top players are not prepared to travel around the country (USA) to play games. Will there be enough money to change that, or would they all just move to the same place?

I would guess it could only exist online through most of the year with finals at US Open unless sponsorship is much larger than I'm thinking. We have strong players about as far apart as you could get in this country.

[hailthorn011]

A lot of the back and forth point scoring here is greatly oversimplifying the issue. From reading what everyone's said, it really seems to me that there's a consensus that a pro system in the West would be good. It's a question of when, where and how. That's what people have concerns about.

With that in mind, it would be more interesting to discuss how we get there and build something that doesn't just fall over. Note the original poster wasn't just talking about Go in the US.

For better or for worse, the Go community is still small enough that there are quite a few people here who are greatly involved in their own local Go associations. We could be having a constructive discussion instead hopping onto the pointless merry-go-round of semantic arguments.

Let's stop picking up on individual sentences (which may or may not represent the spirit of what a person was really trying to say) and contructing whole arguments about them. Logically you might be right and tactically you may be unbeatable in an argument, but strategically, what exactly is being achieved apart from some light entertainment?

This isn't an either or question. You can't say that a pro system would be more effective than education or the other way round. Because it doesn't work like that. If you look at pro football, you'll see that it's supported by a whole ecosystem of fans, semi-pro leagues, local teams, social teams, junior leagues, school programs, weekend programs, parents, teachers, promoters, media, sponsors and so on. So if we want a pro system, we also need to invest in the supporting foundations underneath. So how do we get there?

For my part, I made a decision that I could do my bit by introducing Go to more players. After going to schools to teach Go to local kids for some time, I wanted a way to make those efforts work on a larger scale. The internet is the obvious answer. That's why I started thinking about doing something like Go Game Guru.

I totally agree that having access to a pro scene, as a form of entertainment, is a great way of keeping people interested in the game. That's one of the main reasons why we publish so much pro news on GGG. That sort of thing isn't going to happen immediately in the West though. We need serious plan to get there. Airtime isn't given for free, for one thing.

So tapir is right, we need more 10 kyus, because they will be the fans. Where there are fans there's money. There's media. There's exposure for the game. There's advertising. There's a way to create an economy that supports the professionals and numerous other people in related jobs. It's about educating people enough to enjoy the game, even if most people will never want to pursue it to a high level. That's what China, Japan and Korea all had already, that enabled them to make the next step.

If, as people say, the Korean Baduk Association is going to generously support the beginnings of an institution for professionals in the US, then that's a big help - an artificial leg-up with a single point of failure, but still very helpful. KBA can't make it happen on their own though, and they may not be able to sustain it for that long, because nobody knows which boat may be scuttled in the next economic storm.

But if this is really going to happen, we need to start thinking about how to best capitalise on it, so the investment and the opportunity aren't squandered. Not just the AGA, not just US Go players, not just Western Go players, but everyone who cares about the development of Go throughout the world. Pro football got to where it is now through the sustained efforts of a great number of people, over a long time. People who loved that game.

The pro Go players in the USA could just be the beginning of this.

Maybe you think the cirumstances aren't ideal right now. Maybe (like me) you still feel that this is a bit early. But if it's going to be happening anyway, then we'd better start thinking about how we can best take advantage of it as a community. Sometimes, there's never a perfect time to get started and you just have to start doing things.

Remember, we're Go players. We know that plans work out better when all our resources are working together. We're supposed to be good at thinking strategically. We're supposed to look at the whole board...

So let's think about the strategy and stop fighting a semantic half-point ko in the corner... Otherwise I'm going pull some people up for conveniently writing the greatest Go player of the 20th century out of history...


Hint for new players: He wasn't Japanese.

I don't quite think they're going to listen. Someone always has to be right in the end. But I think you're right. Instead of bickering and looking for how it will fail, we should look for how it could succeed.

[hyperpape]

When Horibe said "your short stint as Volunteer Coordinator" I thought "I'm not sure if that's meant to be snide, but it certainly will be heard that way." I'm willing to believe that wasn't your intent, Horibe, but I also wouldn't expect the person on the receiving end to think anything else.