Life In 19x19

Etower, i hope everything you say in this post is true. I have no way of knowing. All I have from the AGA is an journal piece saying that the rule has been dropped, after the Board agreed to have a meeting due to mounting pressure. I have not seen any minutes yet. I have not seen the promised statement from A Okun. Unless you attended the meeting, your remarks can have no basis but faith.

Right now, all people who share my views have is a rejection.

A statement from the board, at the time of the announcement, validating the concerns of many regarding strong player attendance at tournaments and the general decline in overall attendance, and tournament activity in general might have gone a long way towards not creating a new group of upset people.

A brief outline of ideas, plans and efforts in this area would have been
beyond nice, it should have been essential. I would like to think, as you do, that the Board shares my concerns about face to face tournaments, but disagrees with me that the ten game rule is the best way to address those shared concerns. In that context, I would feel I had been heard.

But right now all we have is an ejounal piece saying the rule was changed under pressure. Currently I have no acess to your information or faith.

Mef wrote:...

I understand that there are communities like this (and as someone who was involved with a go club at a university with a very large international community I know how sometimes they can be secluded / secretive), however is that what the primary aim of these awards are? I don't think anyone is suggesting we shouldn't be reaching out to these communities, however I'm not sure the intent of these trips is for someone who has otherwise been uninvolved with the AGA to suddenly get a trip overseas. Surely these events can be used as a means to promote the AGA, but if all it takes is winning one tournament then it doesn't seem to promote the idea of joining and contributing to the AGA community.

I think the reason there is disagreement is because of the debate as to whether the goal is to enhance the "AGA community", or if the goal is to enhance the "go community as a whole".

That's why I think that, if we were to allow people that weren't so involved with the AGA to be a part of international tournaments, they might be expected to contribute more than the average AGA member that is in the same position.

But I do think that it's fair to include those that aren't a part of the AGA to be a part of international tournaments, because a lot of these people could still be US citizens. If the US government considers them to be "members of the country", it seems fair to give them a shot at the opportunity to represent the US.

I don't personally think such people should be given a "free ticket abroad", but as they are still a part of the "US go playing population", I think they deserve representation.

The AGA is currently in a time of transition, which will be apparent soon and has already become apparent to those involved the AGA's administration. For example, next year's Congress is run by two young people who are dedicated to the AGA and go in the US, and who are interested in making the members of two bodies less distinct from each other. Additionally, there are hints in the EJournal, for example the short piece on the new Central Region representative's travels, that hint at changing concerns for the AGA administration. The key is that these things take time. It is easy to complain, and it is easy to want things to be better, but as all of those who volunteer know, effecting real change takes a great deal of time and planning.

I know that it takes some faith and some reading between the lines, but more than anything it takes the understanding that this is a volunteer organization that must work with a bureaucracy to ensure that decisions and changes are made properly. Actually speaking to your Board Representatives and expressing your concerns directly is the most effective way to make your concerns known.

Horibe wrote:This discussion has become a bit disjointed.

This rule is not, and certainly should not, be about Feng Yun. The AGA would be foolish to base its policies on one person. The ten game rule is either good for everyone, good for amatuers with pros exempted, or bad for everyone.

That's quite inflexible thinking.
There are 4 categories of international events
1. Youth tournaments (indulging the youth)
2. Pair Go Tournaments and Women's Tournaments (indulging women)
3. Amateur Championships (indulging weak developing nations)
4. International Invitational Tournaments

Can children travel to tournaments easily in the USA, from other posts in this thread I'm hearing no. It was also felt they were being caught out by their parents lapses in renewing membership. The board listened to arguments on this and modified their policy. That leaves 3 other categories...

I think AGA's policies, when working, are going to be doing several things
1. Increasing attendance at tournaments
2. Utilising the knowledge of professional (and strong amateurs) in education
3. Increasing community spirit amongst the organisation
4. Naturally increasing promotion and awareness of the game (from the first 3 points).

It is clear some pros do not want to play against Amateurs. The board can either choose a flexible or a blunt approach to this.

shapenaji wrote:Well, My understanding is that the primary reason that the AGA receives invitations to international tournaments (along with other go-playing nations) is because the "Big 3", would like to see go spread around the world. They know that they stand to gain if more people play.

The intent is to select a representative candidate from each nation to show the level of go in each country.

Now, the AGA's intent is to encourage participation within the AGA. And I believe that reaching out to the communities accomplishes that too. It's a longer term benefit, imo, to tie together all the go playing communities in America. "All united under tengen" as it were

But even if this is not the AGA's long-term goal, they stand to gain more in the short term by including these populations as well. More players, more and more expensive entry fees, the same number of prizes, and possibly, in future, more members in good standing.

Having an open qualifying system is thus a good decision for the AGA.

This may not be the original intent of the prizes, but it works.. multi-purpose moves are a good thing, as any go player knows.

No one is saying to not reach out to these communities, I don't understand why you consider these two options to be exclusive. I find it hard to believe that changing the rules so that one can win expensive prizes without playing a significant number of games and without paying regular dues is something that could be reasonably said to encourage growth in the community. It would seem to me the proper way to grow the community would be to try and integrate these groups within the AGA. If they are playing amongst themselves, then meeting the AGA requirements would be a non-issue if their groups were AGA clubs (since club games can be rated, and would count toward the rule). If they have no desire to join the AGA, then perhaps the better question to ask would be, "why do they see no benefit to participating with the community at large, and what can we do to make the joining the AGA an attractive option?" instead of "how can we bribe them into showing up for a weekend?".

Unless I'm mistaken, there was an open qualifying event like this in the US up until recently -- the Toyota-Denso Cup. It was advertised, had a decent prize, and involved an international trip, though looking over the player list from the last one that took place it did not appear to attract a significantly larger pool of strong players than a typical congress might be expected to (2010 Go congress had ~30 players 7d+, the 2008 Toyota Denso had ~40 players 7d+. When you consider that the Toyota-Denso had 2 locations and only required a 2 day commitment it would seem it was not an unusually large draw).

Mef wrote:
No one is saying to not reach out to these communities, I don't understand why you consider these two options to be exclusive. I find it hard to believe that changing the rules so that one can win expensive prizes without playing a significant number of games and without paying regular dues is something that could be reasonably said to encourage growth in the community. It would seem to me the proper way to grow the community would be to try and integrate these groups within the AGA. If they are playing amongst themselves, then meeting the AGA requirements would be a non-issue if their groups were AGA clubs (since club games can be rated, and would count toward the rule). If they have no desire to join the AGA, then perhaps the better question to ask would be, "why do they see no benefit to participating with the community at large, and what can we do to make the joining the AGA an attractive option?" instead of "how can we bribe them into showing up for a weekend?".

Unless I'm mistaken, there was an open qualifying event like this in the US up until recently -- the Toyota-Denso Cup. It was advertised, had a decent prize, and involved an international trip, though looking over the player list from the last one that took place it did not appear to attract a significantly larger pool of strong players than a typical congress might be expected to (2010 Go congress had ~30 players 7d+, the 2008 Toyota Denso had ~40 players 7d+. When you consider that the Toyota-Denso had 2 locations and only required a 2 day commitment it would seem it was not an unusually large draw).

Well, the inclusion of these rules certainly would NOT stop my outreach efforts. It would remove a useful tool though. In my experience, players from those communities have come when there was something interesting going on and when they had connections. Have they started playing in tournaments yet? no, and unfortunately I can't continue that push, due to geographical difficulties. But I believe persistence with this community will pay off.

And who's bribing them? I think I've already stated, numerous times, that they would cover their expected value of winning the prize + AGA membership dues + bad standing penalty. They would not be getting any better treatment than anyone else.

To turn to your anecdote, where was it advertised, on usgo's website? The number one complaint I heard from my Korean friends is that they just hadn't heard about any of this stuff and that the AGA should advertise in the Korean Dailies.

I'm really skeptical of the conditions of this so-called proof that the Koreans are ignoring us and our qualifiers.

The point does not seem to be getting through; if they wish to obtain the benefit of a prize/trip it is up to them to pull their collective finger out, join the AGA, attend a couple of tournaments, do something, because all I can gather from your postings is that they expect the AGA to come to them, advertise for them and make extra concessions. Perhaps this is the reverse of leading the horse to water. Here, you provide the facilities but you just can't lead the players to them.

Best wishes.

TMark wrote:The point does not seem to be getting through; if they wish to obtain the benefit of a prize/trip it is up to them to pull their collective finger out, join the AGA, attend a couple of tournaments, do something, because all I can gather from your postings is that they expect the AGA to come to them, advertise for them and make extra concessions. Perhaps this is the reverse of leading the horse to water. Here, you provide the facilities but you just can't lead the players to them.

Best wishes.

The point does not seem to be getting through on either side of the debate

Of course, with the current rules in place, if you want the benefit of participating in an international tournament, you have to meet the requirements that you state. But we can control exactly what these requirements are, and it is worth considering whether the requirements for participating in an international tournament are reasonable or necessary.

I think that it is reasonable - and maybe necessary - to require players that aren't involved with the AGA to pay their way if they want to participate in an international tournament. OTOH, I do not think that it is reasonable or necessary to prevent go players in America from being given the chance to participate in international tournaments if they are not involved with the AGA.

Why? Because go players in the USA that are not affiliated with the AGA are still just that - go players in the USA. It may be infeasible for the AGA to support these players financially, but it is certainly within the realm of feasibility to allow such players to participate in a qualifier.

I think I mentioned it before, but I'll say it again. The AGA is a great organization for promoting go - but I don't think that all go activities in the USA need to be funneled through the AGA. This just restricts us.

The point indeed is not getting through. Because you guys have been repeating that in some form or other. Support your argument, I supported mine.

"They don't deserve to play unless they're AGA members and go to other tournaments before this one"

Why? Why can't they pay more? The bulk of your argument appears to be that "You just don't think it's fair"

EDIT: we're not asking the AGA to provide anything more than what it already does (no extra work is required). We're suggesting that you open the field, so that the AGA can earn more money. Apparently, this idea of "paying for a service" is a complicated one for people to wrap their minds around

shapenaji wrote:The point indeed is not getting through. Because you guys have been repeating that in some form or other. Support your argument, I supported mine.

"They don't deserve to play unless they're AGA members and go to other tournaments before this one"

Why? Why can't they pay more? The bulk of your argument appears to be that "You just don't think it's fair"

EDIT: we're not asking the AGA to provide anything more than what it already does (no extra work is required). We're suggesting that you open the field, so that the AGA can earn more money. Apparently, this idea of "paying for a service" is a complicated one for people to wrap their minds around

While I agree we have more or less reached an impasse regarding this discussion, I guess can try and put it once more as succinctly as I can...Let's start with the fundamental issue of this thread:

Javaness wrote:To represent the AGA you normally have to have both [1] Played 10 rated games in the last year and [2] had no membership lapse for 2 years or something? maybe more Recently I read a long post on the AGA Chapters about these 2 rules from a strong player and wanted to know how AGA members viewed them.

In order to represent the AGA in international competition, I would expect that a player has consistently paid dues to support the organization, and maintained a reasonable level of activity in organization events. I feel the two criteria listed to a good good of ensuring that these two conditions are met. I do not think that someone who has neither paid dues to support the organization, nor participated in organization events should be allowed to represent that organization.

If you feel it is reasonable that players who have not participated in organization events, nor maintained membership in the organization are viable candidates for being organization representatives, I guess that is your prerogative, however I would say it lends itself to an interesting definition of "representative" and also calls into question the purpose of the organization in the first place.

Mef wrote:...

In order to represent the AGA in international competition ... should be allowed to represent that organization.
...

I will repeat what I've said already: You can replace "the AGA" by "America" to see the other perspective more easily. The AGA is not the only body of go players in America - but it holds the sole passageway to international events representing America.

Of course other go players in America can also try to gain access to international events. But I think that the goal of the AGA and other organizations should be to work together, not in competition with one another.

Kirby wrote:

Mef wrote:...

In order to represent the AGA in international competition ... should be allowed to represent that organization.
...

I will repeat what I've said already: You can replace "the AGA" by "America" to see the other perspective more easily. The AGA is not the only body of go players in America - but it holds the sole passageway to international events representing America.

Of course other go players in America can also try to gain access to international events. But I think that the goal of the AGA and other organizations should be to work together, not in competition with one another.

You can replace AGA with America and see a different perspective, however you could also replace "go" with "tennis" and "international" with "intramural" and you might get a whole other group of reasonable perspectives...that are equally unrelated to the issue at hand. This thread was about the criteria the AGA uses to select AGA representatives for competition...right now it is true that the AGA is virtually the only vehicle for participating in international tournaments as an American, however that would seem to suggest that if you want to participate in international tournaments you should join the AGA. The ability to participate in international tournaments is one of the benefits offered by an organization to its members...It would stand to reason that if you wish to enjoy the benefits of an organization you may want to join it. Equally I feel it should stand to reason that if you are not a member of the organization that you should not expect to enjoy equal benefits to paying members of that organization.

Kirby, am I missing something? It's true that not all go players in the US are part of the US, and there are real communities of go players outside the AGA, but surely the AGA is the preeminent association here. Is there any other association in the US that is anywhere near as inclusive, widespread or active? I take it the answer is obviously no. The AGA has the best claim of anyone to represent go players in the US. That's not to say that you can't have worthy discussions about how best to reach out to other communities, or engage players, or whether we should eliminate any restrictions on who in the US can represent the AGA. Still, I find the idea that the AGA is just one association among many to be baffling, and borderling insulting.

Maybe I can simplify my point: the AGA tries, however well or poorly, to represent all go players in America. Is anyone else even trying?

Mef wrote:...that are equally unrelated to the issue at hand.

I disagree. I think that it is the core issue at hand in this scenario. One organization has a monopoly on a particular benefit that I believe should be available to all. In my opinion, international events should be able to have true international representation. Ignoring groups of go players does not accomplish this.

This thread was about the criteria the AGA uses to select AGA representatives for competition...right now it is true that the AGA is virtually the only vehicle for participating in international tournaments as an American, however that would seem to suggest that if you want to participate in international tournaments you should join the AGA...

Yes, if the AGA does not change, the implication to attend such an event is that joining the AGA becomes necessary. But part of the reason we are discussing this, I thought, was so that we could determine if this is something that the AGA should change.

In my opinion, if the AGA allowed non-AGA go players to participate in the event, it could only have positive effects. As the saying goes, you can catch more flies with honey...

Plus, the American representative would actually be just that - an American representative. :-p

hyperpape wrote:...the AGA tries, however well or poorly, to represent all go players in America.

Does it? Then, how about letting any go player in America participate in a tournament qualifier for an international tournament?