Life In 19x19

LocoRon wrote:

kirkmc wrote:I see it as a commitment to the organization that promotes the activity.

These rules don't promote the activity; they promote the activity within the organization.

What shapenaji is suggesting is more in line with promoting the activity itself.

Honestly, I think it promotes go in the organization too,

AGA membership is, what, $30/year? If they pay 40-60 per tournament, and they like playing in the tournaments, I don't think it'll be very long before they become members.

So how about this format:

Qualifying Tournament:

$20 with a year of continuous AGA membership and 10 rated games
$40 for all others

The AGA is going to end up shelling out the same amount of money that it would anyway, but now the additional players are just gravy.

TMark wrote:...
I am happy to say that this would not work. ...

The discussion has already kind of moved on, but I'm curious... Why are you "happy to say" that it would not work? Are you saying that you're glad the AGA is the only way for people in America to get into the international tournaments being discussed?

Why would any organization set up and sponsor a series of events for a group of people who want nothing to do with the organization, who complain that requiring membership is punitive, that participating in officially sponsored events is too burdensome, that the organization should cater to their needs, their schedules, their financial circumstances, and so on just for the sake of promoting what – themselves?

As Kirk has said, if these folks want to create their own organization, with their own rules, their own membership requirements, and their own financial backing... wonderful! They can then legitimately complain about their own organization's membership requirements and event participation rules.

Honestly, being a member of the AGA and playing 10 tournament games per year is a "hurdle" for these prima-donna strong players? if that's what it takes to promote the AGA and Go on this continent, count me out.

I find it rather strange that AGA qualification tournaments are not used like they are used in many European countries. Qualification tournaments for international events are excellent opportunities to make the strongest players to give something back to the community.

It appears that if some strong players play in a qualification tournament, that is not considered any kind of a contribution to the community. On the other hand, playing 10 games in any random tournament is considered giving something to the community. In my opinion, this gives me the impression that the qualification tournaments don't work like they should.

As an example, I don't understand how there are complaints that face-to-face go is not doing well in America and at the same time many qualification tournaments seem to be held online. If some existing face-to-face tournament would be declared a qualification tournament for some international event, I think at least that tournament would get a very nice boost in attendance. I am also rather certain that this would make many already hard-working tournament directors happier.

deja wrote:Why would any organization set up and sponsor a series of events for a group of people who want nothing to do with the organization, who complain that requiring membership is punitive, that participating in officially sponsored events is too burdensome, that the organization should cater to their needs, their schedules, their financial circumstances, and so on just for the sake of promoting what – themselves?

As Kirk has said, if these folks want to create their own organization, with their own rules, their own membership requirements, and their own financial backing... wonderful! They can then legitimately complain about their own organization's membership requirements and event participation rules.
...

As shapenaji pointed out, other go playing demographics already exist. But the AGA has been given a very valuable resource: the ability to send people to participate in international tournaments.

I think that a big part of the debate is whether this valuable resource should be used to send a representative of the AGA or of America. Some would think that it would be more fair to allow for other American go playing groups that are not a part of the AGA to be given the opportunity to share in this gift that the AGA has received.

There is the side discussion that also happened of how I felt that the AGA was a relatively closed organization (and hard to change), and that this affected my opinion on the matter. But maybe that's not totally relevant.

Kirby wrote:

deja wrote:Why would any organization set up and sponsor a series of events for a group of people who want nothing to do with the organization, who complain that requiring membership is punitive, that participating in officially sponsored events is too burdensome, that the organization should cater to their needs, their schedules, their financial circumstances, and so on just for the sake of promoting what – themselves?

As Kirk has said, if these folks want to create their own organization, with their own rules, their own membership requirements, and their own financial backing... wonderful! They can then legitimately complain about their own organization's membership requirements and event participation rules.
...

Honestly, being a member of the AGA and playing 10 tournament games per year is a "hurdle" for these prima-donna strong players? if that's what it takes to promote the AGA and Go on this continent, count me out.

As shapenaji pointed out, other go playing demographics already exist. But the AGA has been given a very valuable resource: the ability to send people to participate in international tournaments.

I think that a big part of the debate is whether this valuable resource should be used to send a representative of the AGA or of America. Some would think that it would be more fair to allow for other American go playing groups that are not a part of the AGA to be given the opportunity to share in this gift that the AGA has received.

There is the side discussion that also happened of how I felt that the AGA was a relatively closed organization (and hard to change), and that this affected my opinion on the matter. But maybe that's not totally relevant.

The AGA is asking very little from those who wish to share in this so-called "valuable gift." It's a pittance in comparison to the potential rewards it reaps for those who wish to participate. There are many other dedicated volunteers who give their time and money to make this happen and have absolutely no chance of sharing in this "valuable gift" and somehow it's unreasonable to ask these strong players to make a very minimal commitment to those who are making the whole thing possible for them?

Kirby wrote:

TMark wrote:...
I am happy to say that this would not work. ...

The discussion has already kind of moved on, but I'm curious... Why are you "happy to say" that it would not work? Are you saying that you're glad the AGA is the only way for people in America to get into the international tournaments being discussed?

Exactly that; there has to be some kind of organisation that establishes the tournaments, ratings and other criteria for sending representatives to the various tournaments in the Far East. To suggest that some kind of benevolent anarchy would produce representatives just as good would not work. If AGA members living in the US (I am one not living in the US) believe that the system is broken, lobby the AGA about it. If they feel that the AGA is broken, then fix it. But, as things stand, only the AGA can nominate representatives from the US to those events.

Best wishes.

deja wrote:...

The AGA is asking very little from those who wish to share in this so-called "valuable gift." It's a pittance in comparison to the potential rewards it reaps for those who wish to participate. There are many other dedicated volunteers who give their time and money to make this happen and have absolutely no chance of sharing in this "valuable gift" and somehow it's unreasonable to ask these strong players to make a very minimal commitment to those who are making the whole thing possible for them?

Let's try to think of this in terms of another example: a worker's union at a company called "Company Inc.". Some people like workers' unions, and think that they can protect employees. However, some people don't like unions. In some cases, the demands of a worker's union can get people laid off. Maybe somebody has something that they inherently don't like about unions. That's fine - they don't have to join the union.

But they are still employees at the company, whether or not they join the union. Now let's say that the union has some (small) dues that you have to pay to be a part of the union. It's pretty cheap, and you can get benefits from being in the union.

But if you don't want to be in the union in the first place, of course you don't want to pay its dues - you don't want to be a part of the union, so why should you?

Now let's say that there is some potluck where people from different companies can get together and join in fun and eating, and to talk about their respective companies. For this potluck, they want to invite people to represent the companies in the local area. They want somebody from "Company Inc.", "Electrosoft", "Jack's Fast Food", and so on.

Now let's say that the organizers don't know who to contact to get a representative from "Company Inc.". There's not a lot of communication between the organizers and "Company Inc.", so they don't know who to ask. But then they meet "Bob", head of the worker's union at "Company Inc.". They talk to Bob and say they want a representative to join for the potluck.

Now Bob can choose a representative to join the potluck at "Company Inc.". If Bob is altruistic, he may try to find a way to fairly choose a representative from the company, regardless of whether they are in the union or not. But if he is stuck on getting people to join the union, he may make a rule: "To represent Company Inc. at the potluck, you've gotta join the union".

Does this sound familiar? Some people just don't like unions, and they want nothing to do with them. But they are still representatives of Company Inc.. It could very well be that the person that met up with Bob doesn't care about the union either. He just wants a person from "Company Inc." to represent the company at the potluck.

Why should such a representative be forced to join the union?

In this case, to get a go playing representative to play for America, why do they need to have strong ties to the AGA? Not everybody likes unions - not everybody likes organizations like the AGA.

But we are united in that we all like go - we are all members of this gaming "company".

TMark wrote:

Kirby wrote:

TMark wrote:...
I am happy to say that this would not work. ...

The discussion has already kind of moved on, but I'm curious... Why are you "happy to say" that it would not work? Are you saying that you're glad the AGA is the only way for people in America to get into the international tournaments being discussed?

Exactly that; there has to be some kind of organisation that establishes the tournaments, ratings and other criteria for sending representatives to the various tournaments in the Far East. To suggest that some kind of benevolent anarchy would produce representatives just as good would not work. ...

What about a benevolent organization, which produced representatives of the country, independently of its own agenda?

I checked around to a few other national organizations: Australian, British, Irish, and Canadian Go Associations. Their international policies have two things in common: you must be a member and you have to participate in tournaments to earn points towards international tournaments.

The AGA uses the point system for the WAGC. Anyone know of other national organizations that make you join their organization and play in many tournaments so you can play in tournaments to go overseas?

I'd just like to point out that there is a charge for viewing the Irish Rules.

The 10 game rule is pretty easy to circumvent, so easy I find it hard to understand the opposition to it. Especially if you are a teaching pro, you can submit any game, even if it's even against a 30k. Could the AGA maintain a list of certified teachers though and use this as another 'good citizen' measure? It's a good question to ask, some people are talking about excluding pros from the 10 game measure, I think they really mean excluding teachers.

Membership at qualifying tournaments is really a must for me, strict continuous membership I am not really into. I think it's healthy that their are clubs out there who aren't AGA members, but I think they have to recognise that if they take a decision not to join up, then they have to pay the price for that (No access to international events). Cotsen has its own tournaments, and it sounds like a thriving club, but that doesn't mean it has the right to buy into the international community.

Javaness wrote:I'd just like to point out that there is a charge for viewing the Irish Rules.

Wow, truly awesome! Great business sense

Javaness wrote:...but I think they have to recognise that if they take a decision not to join up, then they have to pay the price for that (No access to international events). Cotsen has its own tournaments, and it sounds like a thriving club, but that doesn't mean it has the right to buy into the international community.

I think that your stance sounds reasonable, but I'm not sure that I understand the last part. What constitutes "the right to buy into the international community"? Why should the AGA have this right, while other groups of people should not?

Kirby wrote: Why should the AGA have this right, while other groups of people should not?

Because it has been officially recognized by larger international organizations, like the IGF.

I'm surprised that most people do not see this. < Admin editing on this line by Joaz Banbeck >

Form your own group and become a member of the IGF, then you can send whomever you wish.

xed_over wrote:...
I'm surprised that most people do not see this
...

I was not aware that the IGF controls this (and how does this constitute hardheadedness?). But I don't think that it changes the point. Ideally, then, a group should become a member of the IGF and then have the graciousness to let anybody from America that would like to participate participate.

That way, the focus is on "go players from America". Not on some "organization that is in America".

By the way, I think that the AGA could be this organization. There are issues with costs of sending people abroad, but as was suggested earlier, these costs could be laid upon people that aren't as closely tied with the AGA if they end up going (eg. You had a lapse in membership, so you have to pay for your own ticket).