John Fairbairn wrote:
Yes it is. They were the ones who came up with with rules you are objecting to. I repeat again that the first priority is to understand why they did and why so many people here seem to endorse the rules, at least in part. You won't make much headway until you understand why they volunteered and what their bottom line is. As I've tried to point out earlier, killer arguments on paper mean little when you are dealing with real people.
Wait, so the volunteer time in question is the time they put into crafting the rules?
It's a very, very loose connection between these rules and volunteers. I think it's a hard sell.
P.S.
as it stands:
30% of votes went to approval of one or the other rule
37% of votes went to disapproval of one or the other rule
Rest Abstain
Among AGA members (Including those who abstained and chose one of the last 3 options, I.e. giving the Pro-voters the benefit of the doubt, that those who abstained ARE AGA members, the results are rather starker)
25% of votes went to approval
37% of votes went to disapproval
37% Abstain
If we look at only those AGA members who took a position:
41% in favor of the rules
59% against
So, I would say that the "so many people who endorse these rules" are in fact a minority. They just happen to be a very vocal one.
The non-volunteers inevitably say something accidentally which the volunteers take personally.
This is one of the oddest statements I've ever seen for justifying attempted censorship. I'm gobsmacked. My flabber has never been so gasted.
Um, attempted censorship? I was observing what happened, and I believe my point was not to get off topic. If you want to make a thread about volunteer appreciation, and experience that flamewar, by all means, go ahead. But my point is that this issue is about AGA members relationship with other American Go players, not about volunteer hours.
Tactics yes, Tact no...
