Life In 19x19

Kirby wrote:

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

So then, first off, just to make sure I have this clear - you believe that non-AGA members should be allowed as AGA representatives in international competitions(and remember, it is AGA organization that received an invite for the event, they are not sent as an American representative, they are an AGA representative specifically)? Second, you believe that a viable strategy for attracting members to an organization is to remove one of the benefits that membership to that organization has?

Also, once again I would like to mention the Toyota-Denso cup (World Oza), which was an open tournament with potential for international travel, required only 1 weekend's commitment, had two locations for ease of travel arrangements, and ran from 2003-2008...however seemed to generate little to no significant "extra" interest amongst strong players who were not already active in the AGA...

It hardly seems a hardship to require membership to be sent as a representative... I suppose the "rated games" / "other form of beneficial activity" / "nothing at all" choices can be debated, but are there really any exceptionally strong players (to really say that someone is being overlooked we'd have to be talking about somebody at least as strong as Jie Li or Thomas Hsiang, after all) who find 30 dollars a year to be so onerous?

I rather think the problem is one of promotion. Nobody joins if they don't know that it exists.

The continual year membership requirement is rather to reward people who don't just show up once and go away than it is to punish people who do that... although the effect may be similar.

The multiple preliminaries are actually something that other sports do - when one joins the U.S. pro tennis organization (whatever it is called) they don't go straight to Wimbledon. They play the U.S. circuit first. The current system (at least I think they still use it) of acknowledged "circuit" tournaments that count as points toward Representative status seems fine in that regard, but it could do with more publicity. I only know about it at all because I was talking with someone who used to be on the board of directors and it came up in the conversation.

It would be good if the AGA website gave more distinction to these on th tournaments page (or even their own page) and they could do with being mentioned in the E-Journal too. Something like "NEXT CIRCUIT MATCH: The Cotsen Open is in 4 weeks and the Open section players will earn points toward becoming the next U.S. Representative*! Games will be broadcast on KGS!"

*Some restrictions apply. Must hold U.S. Residency or Citizenship status.

The AGAGD could show a player's point standing, and show the top ten in contention.

Actually... thinking about it, did they do away with the circuit when I wasn't looking? Because it doesn't even seem necessary to have either the continual membership or the ten rated games if the circuit is active. You have to play rated games to earn tournament points, and you have to be a member to play rated games. So maybe all that has to be done is to let people know that the circuit exists rather than almost have it be marked TOP SECRET. That would ensure that the top players (the ones in contention for representing the U.S. anyway) would try to make it to as many circuit tourneys as possible, hence keeping their memberships and their number of games up...

Making this be the official position would mean that you could please the people who don't mind if somebody has a lapse of a couple of weeks or a month as well; if somebody lapses for more than a month, they're likely to have missed a tournament anyway, and so they could find themselves behind on points.

Mef wrote:...
Also, once again I would like to mention the Toyota-Denso cup (World Oza), which was an open tournament with potential for international travel, required only 1 weekend's commitment, had two locations for ease of travel arrangements, and ran from 2003-2008...however seemed to generate little to no significant "extra" interest amongst strong players who were not already active in the AGA...

I will try to illustrate what I am thinking by the following image:



Let's say that, in the image above, the AGA is represented by the guys in the car. The car provides fast transportation, and makes it feasible for long distance travel. Now let's say that we have a random go player in America - whether he's an AGA member or not - just somebody that likes to play go. He's the weird-looking guy in the red shirt.

Now the island represents some sort of paradise - an international tournament - some kind of utopia that everyone wants to go to. Now let's say that the road that's in the picture is several miles long. As such, it is much easier to access this utopia by car than by foot.

The current question is, "Should the AGA bother picking up random go players along the path to utopia if they are not AGA members?".

Some may argue that, if a non-AGA member wants to go to utopia, he should take the time and effort to meet the car at the starting point before they leave for utopia. After all, the AGA's the one with the car, so if a go player wants to go to utopia, he should join up with the rest of the AGA in the car.

This is certainly one possibility. We could get any random go player to utopia if they make the effort to walk down the road and get on board the car with the rest of the AGA.

But I don't think that this is necessary at all. It is just as easy for the AGA to pick up the random go player on the way to utopia. Why do we have to make random go players jump through hoops to go to utopia if it doesn't cost the AGA anything at all? Instead, I propose having the random go player pay for his portion of gas. We don't require a random go player to go out of his way to meet up at the AGA's house or anything. We just agree to pick him up on the way if he pays for his own gas.

Sure, the AGA owns the car. It can make it as difficult as it wants to to give people rides. But I thought that the AGA's purpose was to spread go in America.

Certainly allowing people more access to utopia is a good way to do this. Just have non-AGA members pay their fair share of gas (i.e. the costs of participating in the international tournament).

Yes, it's the AGA's car, so it can make as many rules as it wants to. But what's the point? Why not give these go players some slack? They still love the game, and we can make it so it costs the AGA nothing at all to give them a chance.

Mef wrote:
Second, you believe that a viable strategy for attracting members to an organization is to remove one of the benefits that membership to that organization has?

No, I believe (and I believe Kirby does too) that that benefit should be replaced by a different one. I think AGA members SHOULD get some preferential treatment, however, I believe this should be in the form of a price point. AGA players end up spending considerably less. (in my previous example, around 1/3 as much) on entry fees.

American players outside the AGA system then have an incentive to enter into the system. It's a different benefit to be sure, but it could really help boost attendance at these tournaments, which have steadily had to drop the minimum rank to even get enough players to hold it. (Once upon a time it was 6d and above, with a possible 5d if the field wasn't large enough. Now it's 4d and above)

Another thing to consider is that for players in the upper brackets, the trip abroad is NOT the primary reason we go to the tournament, it's not why we go to other tournaments around the year either. (Cuz to be honest, it tends to come down to Ming-Jiu, Jie Li, Feng Yun, Myung-Wan Kim, etc...)

We come to those tournaments because they have a very high level of play, as the level of play drops, the level of interest also drops, because not only do we still not have a good chance at the prize, but now we end up playing a number of games which should not be even.

So the way I see it, this is a way to pay off the stronger players by giving them access to strong opponents, a way for the AGA to make more money to cover its costs, and a way to make friends in the other Go playing communities.

The only counter-argument I can see having any merit is that some players would avoid 2 tournaments a year and just go to the qualifiers (As either a non-AGA member, or an AGA member in bad standing). With triple the entry fee, there's no advantage to this position, and so they'd likely show up to maintain good standing.

Is there something wrong with the logic here?

shapenaji wrote:Is there something wrong with the logic here?

Yes, it's not vindictive in the slightest. If people don't want to maintain their memberships with the AGA, it's clearly because they want to swoop in and freeload off of everyone and not because they don't see the AGA doing anything significant for them. The best way to make them keep their memberships current is to punish them if they don't!!

[/sarcasm]

How come none of these random go players has yet seen fit to do anything about joining the AGA or attending a tournament? If they are going to get the benefit, they surely must do something of their own. All the talk that I see is that the AGA must change the rules, open up the system to the poor excluded outsider, when the door is not shut, locked and bolted, but is, in fact wide open for them to walk through, if they want to.

Best wishes.

TMark wrote:How come none of these random go players has yet seen fit to do anything about joining the AGA or attending a tournament? If they are going to get the benefit, they surely must do something of their own. All the talk that I see is that the AGA must change the rules, open up the system to the poor excluded outsider, when the door is not shut, locked and bolted, but is, in fact wide open for them to walk through, if they want to.

Best wishes.

Read back, I'm sure you'll find comments about why they haven't joined the AGA so far... and see my last 3 arguments, which I have repeated in hopes that you would respond to at least one. I'm not your straw man, I suggested that they do something, look real hard and see if you can find what that was. I'm getting tired of this constant harping about how "They need to do something", when NOWHERE will you find me arguing that they shouldn't. I'm arguing that it makes no sense to have them do "THIS THING"

Well, tough! There are a number of simple steps that any Go player can do to represent his/her national organisation. One is to become and remain a member of that organisation. There appears to be a theme running through some of the arguments that one single national organisation is a bad thing and that creative anarchy would produce much better or stronger players to represent the nation. It doesn't work. I now consider at least two people contributing to this thread as trolls, and I am not going to respond to them again.

Best wishes.

TMark wrote:...national organisation is a bad thing and that creative anarchy would produce much better or stronger players to represent the nation. It doesn't work. I now consider at least two people contributing to this thread as trolls, and I am not going to respond to them again.
...

You mean the people that hold a different viewpoint than your own, right?

TMark wrote:How come none of these random go players has yet seen fit to do anything about joining the AGA or attending a tournament? If they are going to get the benefit, they surely must do something of their own...

Yes, that's the way it is now. But the question is, "Why?". There's no reason to make it so difficult.

If you go back to my example, if a random go player is going to pay for his own gas, and the AGA doesn't have to go out of its way to give him a ride, there's no harm in doing so - unless you have something against the random go player.

I do not think that letting others ride in the car that AGA has available to him is certainly not a form of "anarchy". If anything, it will just make the AGA seem like a nicer organization.

Kirby wrote:If you go back to my example, if a random go player is going to pay for his own gas, and the AGA doesn't have to go out of its way to give him a ride, there's no harm in doing so - unless you have something against the random go player.

I do not think that letting others ride in the car that AGA has available to him is certainly not a form of "anarchy". If anything, it will just make the AGA seem like a nicer organization.

the cost of the car does not come only from gas gas. The owner of the car pays for service, insurance, byus new tires some times etc.

Kirby wrote: There's no reason to make it so difficult.

Assuming a player lives in one of the two coasts, or near Chicago, Houston or Denver, it is not difficult to meet the now defunct requirement.

Certainly, that leaves some strong players out, and maybe the rule is wrong because there is not enough tournament activity, nationwide, to make complying with this rule easy for everyone. And maybe we need better ways to encourage tournaments so we can get to this point.

But lets be clear here. The AGA was asking a go player to pay 30 dollars a year, and play go two or three times a year.

In the abstract - that is "so difficult"?

Bear in mind, the abstract person who feels this is so difficult is perfectly willing to pack for a trip, miss some work, make sure his passport is uptodate, and fly all the way around the world...to play some go.

In comparison, which is more difficult?

Horibe wrote:Assuming a player lives in one of the two coasts, or near Chicago, Houston or Denver, it is not difficult to meet the now defunct requirement.

To be pedantic, Houston seems to only rarely host tournaments nowadays. There was one in the last year, but I think they're otherwise rare. Austin is the place that has sufficient tournaments for AGA ratings. This statement has no rhetorical intent nad does not disprove what you said, I am just trying to correct what seems to be outdated information.

Chew Terr wrote:

Horibe wrote:Assuming a player lives in one of the two coasts, or near Chicago, Houston or Denver, it is not difficult to meet the now defunct requirement.

To be pedantic, Houston seems to only rarely host tournaments nowadays. There was one in the last year, but I think they're otherwise rare. Austin is the place that has sufficient tournaments for AGA ratings. This statement has no rhetorical intent nad does not disprove what you said, I am just trying to correct what seems to be outdated information.

Thanks for the update. And I am sure I am missing some other pockets of go activity.

I have no problem with folks arguing that the requirement is a bad idea, and that it does not further any real AGA goals, or does not actually effect behavior positively, or might effect behavior negatively.

I just do not think, in the abstract, for most of the players in question, it is particularly difficult to meet. Again, that does not make it a good idea, I am just saying it is not difficult.

Kirby wrote:

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?

This confuses me. Are you saying the only way that the AGA can represent a player is by allowing that player unconditional access to anything the AGA does? That seems to be a peculiar way of understanding representation.

Matti wrote:...
the cost of the car does not come only from gas gas. The owner of the car pays for service, insurance, byus new tires some times etc.

There is no such cost in this scenario. If the AGA is more open to allowing members to participate in international tournaments, it costs them nothing if we invoke an additional cost to those that don't meet whatever requirements.

Basically, the "random go player" is paying for his way, and it costs the AGA nothing at all.