I think that I did it back in April or May of 2010 when the flood of GD refugees began. It was one of those things that I threw together in a rush ( everything was rushed back then ) and intended to go back and smooth out later.

I'm amazed that it took this long for somebody to trip over it. I had forgotton about it.

_________________
Help make L19 more organized. Make an index: https://lifein19x19.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=5207

So, I am the AGA President, and have just finished reading all the posts. Interesting and useful discussion. The substance on the 10 game policy will be discussed and decided by the Board, so just a side note on volunteers.

No one has volunteered to be the AGA volunteer coordinator for the last three years. Other key AGA posts are vacant, too. A symptom of a problem to be sure.

My policies since becoming President just over two years ago include finding new/younger leadership for the AGA, and opening the door wide for new volunteers. It is true that we may not have immediate "work" available, but I am keeping a list of interested people, and contacting them when something appropriate comes along. Our list of good ideas vastly exceeds our personnel capabilities, which is a constant frustration for all of us.

So, if anyone wants to volunteer, please contact me at President@usgo.org.

Thanks.
Allan

Reading USGO today I saw that the rule about 10 games had been removed.

Looks like the board caved, again. This is the sixth time since Sept. 2008 that the rule has been changed. They talk a good game about running major tournaments, creating a professional system and expanding membership, but it doesn't seem like they're capable of making a basic policy stick.

I'm afraid the AGA just doesn't speak to me as a relevant organization any more.

Phil:

I guess your argument cuts either way, whether they're right or wrong about this issue, they've been on both sides of it. That being said, there have been a number of changes in the AGA, I don't think this is the same association as a year before, and I don't think that organization bore much likeness to the one a year before that.

It doesn't sound to me like an organization on the ropes, it sounds like an organization in transition.

_________________
Tactics yes, Tact no...

Pretty harsh thing to say. After all, the board has to balance the opinions of their membership with their own individual strategy.
Their representation policy seems focused on rewarding participating members, that's a good motivation for a rule if you ask me. One can question the implementation of the rule, and some people have done so quite strongly. I will be interested to read what they have to say on the subject in their 'official statement'.

I don't think it's an organization on the ropes, but an organization that changes a basic policy six times in two years is not going to be one that moves forward. The policy itself isn't the problem...the way the policy came to be, and the reaction of the board when things got hot is.

Why was the board caught off guard by the firestorm from the chapter representatives? Didn't they engage in some consultation first? Wasn't there meaningful discussion about the implications and consequences of the policy? If there was, why then did they not have the fortitude to stand their ground when someone comes along to complain? If there wasn't, why not?

The idea that a new board means that old policies are automatically up for discussion is appalling. The AGA has annual board elections and they meet for about of two hours a month under normal circumstances--they'll spend more time messing around with old business than worrying about new stuff. They've been talking about the next fiscal budget since July and it's still not finalized. If it takes a quarter year to settle something as basic as the budget, how realistic is it to hope that they can move on more complicated issues in any meaningful time frame?

The board is supposed to provide strategic direction for the AGA. It's been in existence since January 2003, and not once have the members produced any kind of statement of direction or planning document. Read through the minutes of the board meetings and you'll see the same tired discussions year after year.

This decision and the way it unfolded is a microcosm of the AGA, and I don't know whether it's the result of the board's structure or its composition. Regardless, I don't think anything will improve without serious change, and I don't have any confidence that this board will deliver that change.

Actually, the fact that Allan has dropped in and left a comment I think is huge.

So I'm a brand new member of the AGA (for a few months anyway) so I don't know all of the history of the issues in the decision making process, the old guard vs new barbarians, etc. I do care about the state of the AGA now and what it will be in the future and quite honestly, what benefit the AGA will bring me besides tournament play.



A new board is exactly the time that old policies should come up for discussion. In the company that I work for we are constantly getting new updates on policies after each monthly meeting. Why? Because the environment we compete in is constantly changing and we adapt to meet those challenges. An organization that is not constantly reviewing and revising where needed to meet the current environment is the organization that is not going to be moving forward.

Unfortunately a lot of the issues with the AGA come from the fact that here is a national organization with an all volunteer staff and a total membership of only 2,000. Let's face it, geographically that's about as thin as you can get. And as in most volunteer organizations a lot of the time its the same people who are trying to get the work done. And yes they bring their own biases when completing that work, for better or worse.

When I originally voted I did vote yes for both based on my understanding at the time. Now that I have had a chance to read more information about the tournament in question and the specific circumstances there seemed to have been some room for discussion on at least providing some sort of mechanism to allow pros living in America to participate. It will be interesting to see the reasoning of the AGA board in dropping the 10 game rule and what that could mean to future AGA international representation.

_________________
"Play confidently. Make the best of mistakes."
- Janice Kim, Learn to Play Go Vol. 1

I don't know, Phil. I am glad that policy can be changed freely. The AGA is one of the only go organizations in the USA, and there are a lot of people with different ideas on how it should be run.

I'd rather see a flexible and dynamic organization than one that is cemented in its ways, refusing to change.

I think the fact that a polocy has been changed due to the reaction of the people is nothing but a good thing.

I'm glad to see an organization that can change - it's when an organization refuses to change, despite the cries of its members that I get irked.

_________________
be immersed

No, changing a policy due to the reaction of the people is not always necessarily a good idea. If a reaction of people told the board to jump off the bridge, should the board do so? Granted, it's a hyperbole, but what I have understood is that board caved instead of trying to figure out why the policy is in place the first place, and take some time to explain why such policy is in place.

By the way, congrats, you guys just made it easier to pros not to participate in any tournaments other than qualifiers for the international tournaments. Also, you guys made it easier for them to dominate representation of USA. Those are the reasons why those policies were in place the first place.

Yes, I'm intentionally incendiary, but there it is. Nobody even cared to research the history behind policies that used to exist.

In Santa Barbara last night I was talking to a board member during some of the pre-Cotsen socializing. And the rumor is that the continuous membership issue will be raised soon, and that the majority is in favor of some kind of grace period.

_________________
Help make L19 more organized. Make an index: https://lifein19x19.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=5207

I'm quite happy to see such rapid action from the board. I'm also happy with this decision. And the grace period one, should they decide that.

Now, I think we need to come up with actual solutions to the problems that caused us to make this rule in the first place: How can the AGA become more valuable to people? I hope the board, after they take care of the old business, will start charting a course for the future.

_________________
That which can be destroyed by the truth should be.
--
My (sadly neglected, but not forgotten) project: http://dailyjoseki.com

So there was a good reason for the 10 game rule. All the noise about it and the rescission will mean is that strong players, including pros, won't have to participate in the go life of the country except to play in the qualifying tournament. Since the board is so maleable I think we should lobby for the reinstatement of the 10 game rule. What the 10 game rule really means is that people only need to play in two or three tournaments per year, say the US Open and the qualifying tournament. Is that too much to ask?

That's a pretty scathing criticism of democratic politics... It also assumes that they needed to know why it was in place. Perhaps the negatives of the policy were enough. I certainly think that the negatives that I've stated earlier in this thread were enough.

And as far as pros not participating in tournaments...

There are other ways to address this, why is this the only solution?

Furthermore, in Japan, China, or Korea, Insei aren't even allowed to play in Amateur tournaments. Why do we need to force them to attend and play in little tournaments? I fail to see how it's anything but a waste of their time.

_________________
Tactics yes, Tact no...

Apparently yes, it is too much to ask. I'm reminded of this every time i venture down to Virginia(6hr drive) to play in a tournament, and mainly to see people i like to hang out with, that its $60-70 extra for gas. Then I remember all the people who come to our tournament that mostly live within 3 hours of us.

_________________
Decisions are made by those who show up.
and possibly those willing to attend secret meetings in ancient basements

It is not about doing what people want. It is about doing the right things that may not be popular, but necessary for future development. We put people to the board, trusting them to do the right things for development of AGA. If AGA caved to every demands, we would not have any cohesive strategy for any long-term development. By the way, I don't think I remember any long-term strategies. What I am saying is that AGA needs to listen to people, but AGA shouldn't cave in to all demands. Throwing out 10-game rule is not the solution. Solutions need to be developed by the board, but trouble is, there are several /certain/ members who care only for what benefits them the most, especially with the 10-game rule.

tldr; I do not believe that AGA should change on whims of people...including, pro players, instead they need to seek out solutions that brings some kind of compromise.

This isn't Japan, China, or Korea. We also don't currently have insei or a system that creates pros.

Of course, I agree that it is not good for the AGA to "not do the right thing".

But I think it's important to listen to people, and consider their reasoning.

There are different ways to run an organization. You can compare two tech companies, IBM and Google.

IBM is very hierarchical. If you have a new idea or want to do something new, it's somewhat difficult to do. If you aren't high up in the hierarchy, it's difficult for your voice to be heard. Even if you're completely logical and have really good ideas - you're just not heard until you've put in enough time to move up in the hierarchy.

Google, on the other hand (from what I've heard), has a rather flat hierarchy. There are a bunch of smart engineers, and then maybe a level of managers. If you have a good idea, or a better way of doing things at Google, it's much easier to get it implemented than at IBM.

The reason is that there's a lot less focus on bureaucracy, and a lot more focus on innovation.

Both approaches have advantages and disadvantages. However, I believe that the innovation that can come about by taking into account all ideas, and making judgment based on reason is the best way for an organization to thrive.

When making decisions, it's important to make sure that reason is being followed, and that the "right decisions" are being made, as you said. But I think that listening to people and their reasoning is definitely the way to go.

Listening to people does not always mean following them blindly. But if they have good ideas, I think that there shouldn't be anything stopping them from being put into action - so I think that the fact that the AGA is listening to people is definitely a good thing. The only thing left to discuss is if the current decision was actually the correct decision.

_________________
be immersed

You're right, this isn't Japan, China, or Korea... they have more pros than we do, and so they are familiar enough with the level of pros that they don't subject them to a pointless series of 10 games each year outside of qualifiers/preliminary tournaments.

It makes sense for Pro's to play in qualifiers, the level is high, and they have a chance to stand up against strong players from the big 3 (not a good chance, but a chance). Unless those pros are feeling particularly generous with their time, it doesn't make sense for them to attend tournaments where all they're going to do is thrash the amateurs.

Pros coming to "friendly" tournaments is great... but this was a heavy-handed measure to encourage them to do so. And forcing them to come waste 5-10 hours on a foregone conclusion is likely less valuable than if they were encouraged to come review or comment on variations.

_________________
Tactics yes, Tact no...

Erm... so what should they change on?
I'm not seeing a whole lot of alternatives to people. Maybe we should toss this problem over to the almighty random number generator...

Seriously though, I'm reading a lot about AGA ineptitude here, and seeing very little in the way of arguments for the 10-game rule.

I honestly think that's all that matters:
A) What is this rule trying to accomplish? And are these goals that we want?
B) Does this rule succeed in accomplishing its goals?

Whether or not the AGA is consistent should hardly matter if they are continually applying new information to solving these problems. If, on the other hand, they are not asking these questions, then that's easily solved via a ballot box.

If you feel the AGA board is waffling, make a thread on here and reveal the voting record of each AGA board member (based on the minutes), and display the trend.

However, THIS thread, is about a pair of regulations, and the above A) and B).

If you're going to hijack it, I recommend hijacking it with new arguments for/against.

_________________
Tactics yes, Tact no...