Life In 19x19

Kirby wrote:You say my perspective is "all about me". I think this is bogus, because the 30 dollars I would spend for membership could be used - altruistically - to buy go books for my neighbor down the street.

That kind of gesture - with a real person that knows me - means more to the go community than my membership fee will.

How many of your neighbors have you given go books?

Kirby wrote:I won't think you're selfish for not buying my iphone app. I hope the same can be said to me for not buying a membership hat does nothing for me.
You say my perspective is "all about me". I think this is bogus, because the 30 dollars I would spend for membership could be used - altruistically - to buy go books for my neighbor down the street.

That kind of gesture - with a real person that knows me - means more to the go community than my membership fee will.

Actually, Kirby, I was mostly agreeing with you (for this part of the discussion) until you said this. Both the iphone app maker and the fictitious neighbor are weak analogies. We don't view an app maker as someone primarily interested in doing something for the go community, but rather this is a possible side benefit of his striving to make a buck. Purchasing his app does not support go, it just supports the I-guy. As for your neighbor, in contrast with the AGA, he is fictitious - not the neighbor himself, but rather the neighbor as happy recipient of your generosity and future go buddy. This is not to say that you wouldn't do it or that you're not generous enough, but rather that he seems more of a maybe than the AGA, an organization with a proven (even if meager) track record, so the comparison seems dubious.


Just going back a moment, HKA said "...Because it seems to me if you are a go player, you belong to your national association." and xed'over upped the ante with: "ask not 'what can the AGA do for me?', but ask 'what can I do for the AGA?'" Their arguments are based on the idea that if you belong to a community, and there is an organization that does something for that community, that you should support it. Now comparing the AGA to the USA (which has built roads, provided national security etc., ) seems a bit far fetched. On the other hand, comparing the AGA to a fellow making an iphone app is setting the bar too low.

The AGA as a volunteer organization is indeed a product of the go-playing community in the US, and so what comes out is what comes in. While many seem to have issues about what is coming out, it seems reasonable to assume that what is coming out is the result of the interests, expectations and abilities of the community as a whole and of those who contribute in particular. It is also reasonable to assume that while organizations can be wasteful and misguided, they nonetheless can get things done that individuals can't. While these things may not be as significant as roads or national security, it seems worth asking whether or not the activities of such an organization in fact "does nothing" for you. I'd be willing to bet for example, that were there no national go organizations such as the AGA or the British Go Association, that there would be no KGS - or at least not in such an active form as we know it.

Nonetheless, I am sympathetic. Just as the NCAA does not necessarily have the best interests of the collegiate athletes at heart (see here), who knows whether the AGA is the best way to bring go players together and to promote go. For me personally, the services L19 provides are far more valuable. L19 promotes go, helps people with similar interests get in contact with each other across the globe, and invites my participation. And doesn't cost a dime. Then again, there are things - mostly in the real world - that L19 can't get done such as run events, because it has neither the structure nor the organization nor the funds to do so.

But I don't go to events. I don't like tournaments. I don't even enjoy playing irl. These are the reasons that I am not a member of a national organization. And yet, three years ago when I moved from the sticks to a city, I was thrilled to discover that there was a go club here. I went a few times, the thrill wore off, but for some reason, I'm still glad that it's there. It's a sign that there is a community here where I live...

But hey, who am I kidding? I'm not a member. But I'm thinking about it.

tapir wrote:I found it kind of ironic that after talking about cutting expenses, corporate turnaround and all that one of the proposals of bearzbearz was to create full time staff positions. Another point I found odd was quoting what Mr. Smith said at AGA meetings as evidence how bad things are. For DTS being at those meetings and saying those things is already part of the change.

And finally a question from an European perspective:

Did you ever consider to change the collection membership fees from individual payment to payment by / through the chapters? Or are most members outside of chapters anyway?

Dear Tapir,

You missed the full scope of what I suggested?

The idea is to cut expenses and get the basic organization into a fully functional state.

Two of the main functions, most basic functions are 1)collecting dues and soliciting membership, and 2)interfacing with members. What I suggested is to maybe fund full-time or part-timepersons to do these functions. Without the overheads of a physical office.

This is merely one suggestion that to be implemented requires in a neutral income situation for something else to give way. A possible benefit to having persons, maybe only one or two being paid not all that much is continuity over time, as compared to a volunteer who may or may not have kept proper records, etc...

(I gave suggestions because people were screaming about being more specific - but I first tried to explain the general concept(s), how the target is met can be debated and adjusted once the nature of what needs to be done can be agreed upon in the first place) (many people have said that there is nothing wrong, so not much to do...)

My point was that in my view the AGA would do well to move to a more professional organizational model at least in some ways.

The reason that dues can not be collected through chapters is that the AGA does not really control or know the state of many chapters, most have few memebers, and they are very weak to non-existent. National dues is a good model.

_-_-bearzbear

daal wrote:

Kirby wrote:<snip> For me personally, the services L19 provides are far more valuable. L19 promotes go, helps people with similar interests get in contact with each other across the globe, and invites my participation. And doesn't cost a dime. <snip>

Which is an interesting observation.

Two thoughts come to mind immediately.

First, why did the AGA not start a forum early on (or now), and before the age of internet forums a listserve? Why was the only place to discuss Go at one time Rec.games.go?? It seems to me a logical thing for the national Go organization to have done.

It's emblematic, sitting out here, of the attitude and focus of the AGA historically.

Secondly, "It doesn't cost a dime" right! The $$ cost of maintaining a forum is pretty darn small in the scope of things. It's just a smart, effective way of getting people together and talking. Pretty easy and simple to implement. So many other things are also smart, effective and pretty easy to implement. A good idea is make a list of those things and implement.

Part of that: the website. Websites have been BIG for more than a decade (more than that, but...) so why has the AGA's website been so weak for this long? What does that say? What does it say about the organization and the organization's image? What does it say about the leadership, their perceptions and priorities?

It's nice that Daniel has personally chosen to speak for himself here, and Andy O came in once I think, but this points to the underlying issue - why have the leadership of the AGA never(historically) made themselves particularly approachable or available in to the memebers, or in public forums (reachable by the members) and more to the point willing or able to listen to critical reports and factor them back into bonafide action and response?

_-_-bearzbear

tapir wrote:... Another point I found odd was quoting what Mr. Smith said at AGA meetings as evidence how bad things are. For DTS being at those meetings and saying those things is already part of the change. ...

For the record (unless I missed one) the quotes from the minutes that have shown up in this thread have not been of me, and while they are based on truths, I would not say they are 100% accurate. But I'm not ready to say more publicly on this topic.

mmm... and I just want to reiterate what shapenaji said, "And about the worst way you can convince a person to join your organization is by berating them for not joining..." The path to getting Kirby to rejoin is to change the universe to make his arguments invalid, not to try and make him change his mind. The side benefit of changing the universe is that it also attracts everyone with similar thoughts at the same time. (Not that I begrudge you your own position on the matter, of course!!)

jts wrote:

Kirby wrote:You say my perspective is "all about me". I think this is bogus, because the 30 dollars I would spend for membership could be used - altruistically - to buy go books for my neighbor down the street.

That kind of gesture - with a real person that knows me - means more to the go community than my membership fee will.

How many of your neighbors have you given go books?

I for one have given many of my baduk books away, and I have received many from non-AGA members

Actually, Kirby, I was mostly agreeing with you (for this part of the discussion) until you said this. Both the iphone app maker and the fictitious neighbor are weak analogies. We don't view an app maker as someone primarily interested in doing something for the go community, but rather this is a possible side benefit of his striving to make a buck. Purchasing his app does not support go, it just supports the I-guy. As for your neighbor, in contrast with the AGA, he is fictitious - not the neighbor himself, but rather the neighbor as happy recipient of your generosity and future go buddy. This is not to say that you wouldn't do it or that you're not generous enough, but rather that he seems more of a maybe than the AGA, an organization with a proven (even if meager) track record, so the comparison seems dubious.

I'm pretty sure Kirby has a proven track record in supporting the baduk community, both online and offline.

ask not "what can the AGA do for me?", but ask "what can I do for the AGA?"

so when the AGA helps a new go club get started and expanded, its not the AGA that helped them, its you and I (well, apparently not you).

I like helping other people learn to play, whether I do it myself in person, or vicariously through an organization. "I" helped Mississippi get equipment, and I helped teach new players there -- and I never even met them.

No, sorry, the AGA is not a charity. AGA should support current players. Maybe you are thinking of what the AGF does? Again, the "well, apparently not you" comment is an absolute farce considering what Kirby has done.

Dear all,

My name is Lisa Scott, and I am another of the board members. Although I have been reading this thread since close to when it started, I have not been commenting because I am not sure of what I can add to the conversation, and I have no desire to join in any of smaller parts of the argument that seem to be less fruitful.

I cannot really speak to the state of the organization before the end of 2006, when I joined. However, as an AGA member, I can speak to my experiences over the past 5 years. I joined the AGA because club members encouraged me to attend a tournament, and when I did I instantly met a lot people who were very involved in the AGA and passionate about go. One reason that there was such a large community was that I was living in the Baltimore area at the time, but nonetheless it made an impression on me.

I continued to attend a great number of tournaments over the next few years, including congresses. At these events, I found it very easy to get to know people of all ages and a variety of backgrounds, even though I was only 20 at my first Congress and was still relatively new to the game. I also found it very easy to talk to people about the AGA, although this may be in part because so much of the AGA's organization lives in the Baltimore-DC area.

I also found encouragement to take on any role that I was willing and able to do. This began with running the women's tournament in 2007, and continued very quickly to running the 2011 Congress and running for the Board. Because I had such good experiences, I wanted to take on these roles. This isn't to say that I haven't run into my share of current and past political issues, but I have also run into political issues in other jobs and areas of interest, and I am not sure that it is just an AGA issue.

Because of my experience, I wanted to make sure that other people had equal access to the AGA leadership, particularly in my central region that has historically been overlooked. Someone mentioned that I visited every state in my region; this is not quite true, although I would have liked to. I have visited with clubs in person in 13 states out of the 26 that make up my region, and have visited with other clubs over the phone. If I had the leisure time, I would absolutely visit the other states and revisit those that I visited 18 months ago, but running last year's Congress and getting married this summer, while working on my PhD, make that difficult. Nonetheless, just like Daniel, I encourage everyone to contact me about any AGA- or go-related issue.

My enthusiasm for the AGA certainly doesn't mean that I don't recognize the many problems that we have. General dissatisfaction with how problems were being handled and solved in why I ran for the board. Like Daniel, after being elected I realized that many of the AGA's issues are harder to solved than I had thought. There are a number of reasons for this, many of them very hard to put a finger on and even harder to fix. There is no doubt that part of the problem is that we are a volunteer organization, and I am very aware that if we would like to develop further and become more professional, we will have to develop a model that includes employees who can handle many of the day-to-day problems. This is, however, extremely difficult to do. Our entire year budget is currently around $60,000, after having been trimmed a great deal over the past few years (I'm sorry, off the top of my head I don't know how much, particularly since much of the trimming happened before I joined the board). While there may be items that I occasionally think we could trim, many of these costs are very very hard to eliminate. This means that in order to grow, and spend money on promotion, full-time accountable staff, etc., we need more income.

Personally, I have qualms about depending on donations for our day-to-day needs. I believe that, particularly in a world where financial stability is questionable, this is not the best business model. This means that we need to grow income through membership and sales of various kinds, something that is difficult to do without the means to successfully solicit members, or really to invest in promotion and services the way that most of us would like to do. This is a real issue, but one that needs real ideas in order to be solved.

We have started working on the long-called-for strategic plan. The list of tasks that Daniel referred to a few days ago was our stop-gap effort to create a specific list of tasks that we would like to accomplish or start accomplishing over the next 6 months, while we work on a more long-term plan. In the minutes, you can see that we agreed to make a new medium-term plan every year, with the hopes of creating long-term plans in the near future. I know that Daniel conscientiously watches what people say here on L19, and he frequently refers to what he has learned here when expressing ideas about what we can do to improve.

I have tried to briefly and abstractly touch on a number of topics with this post. I hope that I have not given fodder to nit-picky arguments, since this was not my intention. My intention was to express agreement with the sentiment that HKA expressed, and to show how positive my experience has been (of course, not without its ups and downs, but on the whole). I am extremely happy that the AGA exists, and that it has introduced me to a community of go players here and around the world. Because of my experience with tournaments and go clubs here, I have attended clubs and events in Madrid, Prague, and Vienna while visiting or living in those places, and I have made friends around the world. Of course, this can be done online as well, but there is something wonderful about actually making friends in another country or city, and having real "locals" who I can talk to when traveling. Of course, experiences vary.

Right now, I believe that a large portion of the AGA leadership is interested in reforming and renewing the organization, and we are working hard to do so. Just as with all things, the initial steps may not be outwardly visible, but we are working to create a more modern, more efficient organization.

I apologize if I rambled a bit, or if there is any incoherence in anything I said (it's still early).

Lisa

Kirby wrote: You only need to do one thing: do another go world promotion. To be clear, once I again live in a city where tournaments are happening more often, I will be a member for the tournaments, even if you don't do the go world promotion.

And if I were single, I may even join just to go to congress. But in my current situation, the go world promotion would make me join (or something similar).

I never used the word selfish in my post, and shapenaji claims that Kirby is not being selfish, and ultimately there is nothing wrong with being selfish, but how is this not simply making a decision based soley on its impact to the self, it is, at minimum, self-ish.

But, lets face it, if responding to xed over's Kennedyeque call makes you feel good, then that is selfish too, and indeed, some would argue, if the AGA is a mess, then you are stupidly feeling good and wasting your money.

Look, go is a hobby, a pastime. People swim in an out of it. Sometimes they are focused on spawning and lose interest. Sometimes they get really hooked, but the hook slips, and they swim away. The AGA needs to find better ways to set that hook, and reel players in. This is more and more difficult as more and more online ways of swimming develop.

So, my comments are not directed to the new players, the casual players, the occaisional players. If Go is not important enough for them to spend $30 a year, I completly get that, and the AGA is failing, too often, to reach out to this initial and tentative interest and bring these folks into the fold. I am in no way suggesting that the key to AGA growth is leading with the line "Give us $30 - you owe it to us" Before the internet, while there were less players, it was easier to get them and easier to keep them. Now this is a real problem.

My comments were reacting to Kirby's remarks and I certainly do not mean to attack him. Indeed, I praise his interest and enthusiasm. To me, he is someone who gets Go, who is hooked. This is all to the good. I simply disagree with him.

He is not a casual player, in my view. He seems pretty committed to the game, I would assume he loves the game in fact. He cares enough to belong and interact with go players that he has posted over 3,000 times here. He has a child, as I do, for whom this game is a part of the child's culture. He wishes there were more tournaments in his area. He loves reading about go events in the ejournal, he attends go events when he visits Korea.

Apparently, he believes that in the future, there will simply be tournaments in his area, spontaneously. That opportunities for his child to play and learn go with other children will appear serendiptiously and at his convenience. That the go activities he loves to read about online for free organize themselves - both here and in Asia - without the financial support of sponsors and fans. That when he and his family are ready to go to a Go Congress in eight or ten or twelve years, Paul Barchilon will still be there ready to entertain and teach as only he can.

I do not see Kirby as someone who is just trying out go. I think he sees it as part of his future, and perhaps hopes his child's future. He cares deeply about the game and is not shy to share his opinions about go, and the AGA in particular - and he has even made the effort to volunteer to do things for it.

It seems to me, that Kirby understands what go is all about, he is commited to having this game be a part of his life and a part of his future.

It seems to me that Kirby should realize that supporting the AGA does, selfishly, support his future hopes for this game. I think most of the serious posters here should be able to see that $30, a forgettable dinner for two without alcholol, is a small price to pay for the future.

It is right to criticize and suggest better ways of doing things - but for those of us who care about this game, it is foolish to assume that tournaments and congresses will be there in the future and only care about a few Go Worlds.

There seem to be quite a few people who really have little to do directly with face-to-face go but almost entirely play on line. On line go is about the only option for people who live in areas where there are no clubs. I liked the comment that without go organizations there might well be no on line go for English speakers. All the go servers arose from face-to-face playing. Yes, when the internet came into existence it was probably inevitable that go servers would be created. But even now the biggest and most active servers are in Asian countries and are close to inaccessible for most Western players. As for money, how does kgs exist? Is it "sponsored" by some generous person or company or does it depend on donations or advertising?

If you don't play face-to-face go it may seem like you get no benefit from supporting the AGA. However, as I tried to say above, without the AGA the go world would likely be very different, with many things people like not existing. Without the AGA there would be no USA participation in the WAGC, pros from the Asian countries mostly wouldn't visit, and there would be even less corporate sponsorship of go in the USA. A final question, how does organized go in the USA (the AGA) differ from similar organizations in Europe? We hear a lot about AGA politics here on L19x19 but there is similar stuff going on in Europe (e.g. Italy and Russia).

To HKA:

yeah, clearly I'm not as good with words as I like to think I am. I had/have no intention of guilting anyone into joining. And Kirby (and anyone else) has every right to join or not join -- his choice. Its just beyond my understanding why any committed go player would not want to be a part of their national organization, especially at such a low fee.

I think KGS used to have a sponsorship from Kiseido, but they went their separate ways. Now I believe it supports itself via KGS Plus subscriptions.

I'm a bit wary about "virtuous" arguments. A parable may be relevant here:

In the Spring and Autumn Period, there was a country called Lu. Lu had a policy that gives rewards to citizens who see a fellow countrymen in slavery and frees them (usually through purchasing them and then releasing them). One of Confucius's disciples (Zi Gong) was pretty well-off, and freed a number of slaves but declined the rewards.

When Confucius heard of Zi Gong's actions, he criticized it harshly because he expects that those who are not as well-off (the majority of Lu's population) would be less inclined to free slaves. For Zi Gong the acceptance the reward has no cost since his virtuous actions is not harmed, but the refusal to accept "raises the bar" (those who do accept rewards may be thought of as being greedy) on what is expected and for those who are not well-off it may become too costly for them to free slaves without the reward.

Confucius considered that everything boils down to 义 (I guess "morals/righteousness" is not a great translation, but will suffice) and 利 (profit). Zi Gong's actions have made what was a win-win situation for all sides (Lu promotes righteous acts from citizens/helps citizens who are enslaved, citizens are given a chance to be righteous without monetary loss) into a trade-off between profit and ethics.

Coincidentally, there is another parable in which another of Confucius's student saves a drowning man and accepts a cow/bull as payment. Confucius praised him because it encourages others to save those in danger.

It's not completely relevant since $30 is not as costly, but I think there is a real disutility in not seeing value for what was paid. It may make more sense to try to increase the perceived value to members (and in this case I think spreading the game is an acceptable benefit - but it must be demonstrated to members instead of rhetorics*) rather than simply claiming that it is "good" to pay.

TL;DR version: reducing the gap between perceived value and what is paid makes more sense than "ask not what AGA can do for you...".

* Again, I have no clue how the AGA is doing. It might be that they are doing a good job and communicating it well or that they are doing a good job but not communicating it well.

HKA wrote:...

My comments were reacting to Kirby's remarks and I certainly do not mean to attack him. Indeed, I praise his interest and enthusiasm. To me, he is someone who gets Go, who is hooked. This is all to the good. I simply disagree with him.

He is not a casual player, in my view. He seems pretty committed to the game, I would assume he loves the game in fact. He cares enough to belong and interact with go players that he has posted over 3,000 times here. He has a child, as I do, for whom this game is a part of the child's culture. He wishes there were more tournaments in his area. He loves reading about go events in the ejournal, he attends go events when he visits Korea.

Apparently, he believes that in the future, there will simply be tournaments in his area, spontaneously. That opportunities for his child to play and learn go with other children will appear serendiptiously and at his convenience. That the go activities he loves to read about online for free organize themselves - both here and in Asia - without the financial support of sponsors and fans. That when he and his family are ready to go to a Go Congress in eight or ten or twelve years, Paul Barchilon will still be there ready to entertain and teach as only he can.

I do not see Kirby as someone who is just trying out go. I think he sees it as part of his future, and perhaps hopes his child's future. He cares deeply about the game and is not shy to share his opinions about go, and the AGA in particular - and he has even made the effort to volunteer to do things for it.

It seems to me, that Kirby understands what go is all about, he is commited to having this game be a part of his life and a part of his future.

It seems to me that Kirby should realize that supporting the AGA does, selfishly, support his future hopes for this game. I think most of the serious posters here should be able to see that $30, a forgettable dinner for two without alcholol, is a small price to pay for the future.

It is right to criticize and suggest better ways of doing things - but for those of us who care about this game, it is foolish to assume that tournaments and congresses will be there in the future and only care about a few Go Worlds.

Well, lets not get apocalyptic about this. Kirby's $30 will probably not be the difference between the existence of tournaments and congresses and their absence.

Kirby is, however, pretty representative of a certain group of go players in this country,

This conversation is interesting, since it gives us a very good idea of (what should be) a fertile demographic for growth. The question is, how best to bring them into the fold?

Shipping Keith around the country to convince people will probably be too expensive. (But we can try a pilot program with air-freight and see how it goes)

Keith is right about the advantages that Kirby's group gains from the AGA. But, the only way to reach out to those go players not currently considering a membership is with promotions like the one Kirby was suggesting.

We need membership drives. And promotions to hook folks.

Lisa,

Thanks very much for your post.

It seems like there are some new people on board whose perceptions indicate that there is a problem and seem to see it clearly.

With only $60k to work with, it will be difficult.

Please keep in mind that there are relatively few AGA members or potential members who read these threads. Imo, things like you just wrote would be best presented perhaps via the eJournal and/or the website. From out here in the distant parts of the Go world, the AGA comes off as rather aloof and distant, dry.

Receiving the eJournal for a number of years, you'd never know who any of the people in the AGA are except for Chris Garlock. You'd never know what was going on, being discussed, or IF ANY HELP WAS NEEDED.

If there is anything on the website, I missed it.

This might be a place to start?

Per my earlier post, I would be happy to try to help in any way that I can.

Regards,

_-_-bearzbear


PS. it is nice that there are new faces on the scene and involved now.

shapenaji wrote:We need membership drives. And promotions to hook folks.

but I think the question is, not how to hook people initially, but rather its how to keep them hooked.