Ask Board member Peter Shive

[keithjohnson]

Originally Posted by petershive

To johnrock, johnbiscoe, keithjohnson:

The Board has already discussed this idea at the recent Summit, and approved the broad concept. The Devil, as they say, is in the details. Everyone would like a membership that catered to their precise needs, for an appropriate price. That would be an impossibility -- an administrative nightmare.

We do want to add to existing membership categories, acknowledging that some members may not need or desire all of the services the PDGA provides (ratings, tournament tracking, magazine etc). We need to define the categories, and decide on a fair price for those services. The Board is not well-suited to make that kind of decision, so we asked the Staff to come up with a plan. My recommendation/desire is to keep it simple at first, just one or two new categories, and then see how it works out.

Peter,

I respectfully disagree - Breiner's system is/can be geared to any and all pricing and the admin side would be exactly the same as it is for a Supporting member going to full but in reverse - the system can see who is who on the PDGA side when batches are uploaded and non-members - are turned "on" when the dues are paid now, so it would be just the same idea - there is no need to try and make it a huge undertaking - price it at $30 like a student membership - if they decide to play in Events and not just be a TD - then they pay full membership fee of AM or PRO - it just adds 1 more set of codes to the database -Non member, Supporting member, TD or non-playing member, and full member.

Pretty darn (can't say dam thanks to a only allowing a pc set of words in the last 8 years) simple and I would bet that the goodwill gained and the monies earned by people supporting the sport as well as not lost by members dropping out would be well worth the week or so of someone coding the system to regulate and maintain it.

Just my opinion - and as someone who has been a full time 5 year renewing at a time member since 1996, TD for 16 years running over 40 PDGA Events and over 60 total Events, and State coordinator for the last 5 years - it sounds like an idea whose time is long overdue.

I hope the staff gives serious consideration to these types of ideas and that the BOD will support efforts to grow the membership base which should be in 25-50,000 renewing every year instead of just at 50,000+ TOTAL members now.

Keith

[petershive]

to keithjohnson:

We aren't in disagreement, Keith. A plan like yours has the kind of simplicity that I am hoping for and could support. Is it the best plan? You are actually more qualified to judge than I, because I don't have the kind of experience you have had. I am sure that the staff is looking into ideas like this one. I believe that they read this thread, but if you wanted to be sure you could send your idea directly to Brian Graham.

And certainly the Board is anxious to support measures designed to increase member signup and retention. Our concerns during our discussion were much like the ones you express in your last paragraph.

[underparmike]

Dear Mr. Shive:

I'm a bit underwhelmed by your response and the pDGA's response to my request for an explanation of what benefits the pDGA would provide if I decided to sanction the biggest tournament in Louisiana with the pDGA.

Do you think it is wise to act as though the pDGA has a monopoly on sanctioning? It's been my observation that businesses that adopt the attitude you all have displayed usually end up being destroyed by competitors with better customer service and an
eagerness to attract new business.

[petershive]

Everyone,

I need your advice. When the PDGA launches its new website, we may lose the Discussion Board, and have no other PDGA-supported forum for free exchange of ideas. If we do, I will want to continue communicating with the membership on an outside forum. I have two questions.

In the past I have used discgolfersrus and discgolfreviews. One problem with these is that they lack the detailed internal structure of the PDGA Discussion Board. As a result, individual threads can be overwhelmed by posts on unrelated topics, and it becomes difficult to follow the thrust of complex issues.

Are there other forums I should consider? Are there solutions to the problem I note above?

[krupicka]

I think disc golf course review has a little better organized message board than either discgolfersrus and discgolfreviews.

[Jeff_LaG]

I'm waiting to reserve judgement until we see what the communications portion of new website will entail. It will supposedly be a combination of social-based media outlets such as Facebook and Twitter, and a traditional message board-based interface. If this new social-based website does not meet the satisfaction of the members, or if the powers that be decide to eventually transition away from a message board interface despite strong opposition from the membership, I am sure there will be considerable protest, and rightfully so.

I know virtually none of the details, but I do think it is safe to say that I think it's a little premature to paint a "sky is falling scenario" that a "PDGA-supported forum for free exchange of ideas" is going to essentially disappear altogether. Despite other advances with communications on the website, if the membership is overwhelmingly opposed to the removal of a message board-type interface, I'm sure they will let our elected Board of Directors and PDGA Office know about it.

[petershive]

Jeff,

I agree with you, to a point. I'll be thrilled if the PDGA makes a committment to an open Discussion Board on the new site. And it may. But it hasn't yet.

And if it doesn't, I want to explore all possible options beforehand. I don't want to wait until after the sky falls to begin to think about the future. There is no harm in preparing for possible disappointment, and much to gain.

[johnrock]

Hey Peter,

As disappointing as it is to hear about possibly losing the Discussion Board, why not take a closer look at the Disc Golf Course Review site? Tim G. has posted there that he would entertain the idea of a pDGA only thread (or section). Even though the pDGA couldn't work out a way to use his course directory services, maybe the board over there would suffice for pDGA info and chatter.

[petershive]

johnrock:

That's a great idea. I'll check into it today. Maybe it could become a good fallback position for us.

[Jeff_LaG]

Peter, while I agree with you 100% that there is no harm in preparing for possible disappointment and much to gain, this seems to me like a "we'll cross that bridge when we need to" scenario. Additionally, surely you and the rest of the BoD have a lot more pressing issues which demand more immediate attention and resources. Surely there are some more important issues which should be hammered out now so that folks know well ahead of time whether they want to renew with the PDGA in 2012 or not. That has been one complaint for some time now - relatively important changes which may have affected their membership renewal being dumped on them in the spring.

It just seems to me like a waste of time to make preparations and go through all the labor & effort for something that may never even come to fruition and you'll never even need to address. I don't claim to know anything about the agenda or workings of the BoD, but I have to think that there are a lot more important issues right now than preparing for the potential loss years down the road of an internet message board, which nobody definitively said was ever going to happen anyway.

[petershive]

Jeff:

You worry that I'm "fiddling while Rome burns". I believe in accountability to the membership, so I have to take your concern seriously even though it requires a response that is uncomfortably self-serving.

I have faults as a Board member, but they do not include laziness, inattention to pressing business, lack of anticipation or slowness of response. Of course my saying this doesn't make it so. You'd need candid unbiased private opinion, and you are welcome to request it from any source, including Brian Graham or any Board member.

Or you could consider the very point you raised, attention to issues that are important to new and renewing members. I consider the two most urgent of these to be smoking and consideration of new membership categories. Smoking 2012 is a done deal. I raised the need for expedition in this matter, and the Board acted promptly. The Office has already raised the need for new membership categories. I expressed enthusiasm for the idea, and made the motion to have the Office move forward with the development of a specific plan. It's "in the works" as much as it could be, and if you have any specific recommendations you could contact the Office directly.

What else would you like me to be working on? I'd be happy to consider it, and even give you an opinion about it.

[Jeff_LaG]

Peter, I'm not aware of what the most pressing topics facing the BoD currently are, so I can't give any suggestions. But I'd ask that you just continue doing the fantastic job you've been doing in addressing the most important issues, as well as communicating your opinions on them to the membership. This has been a very refreshing change from past Boards and I for one appreciate your candor.

[discette]

I started a thread about the survey PDGA sent to state and provincial reps, but no one seems interested.

Would you please review the second question from the survey and my response.

Question 2

One of the biggest problems we have in the PDGA Office is tracking registered players for those events requiring PDGA membership and passing of the Officials Exam. We try to help out TDs by calling those players displayed on their pre-reg lists as either non-current or not having passed the exam, but quite often the TDs don’t keep those pre-reg lists updated daily and we end up in a crunch just prior to the start of the tournament trying to track down those late-listed people or the TD ends up in a bind to collect memberships and/or get people to pass the test before they can tee off.

We are working on tying in the pdgasignup.com registrations into the database to provide automatic updates to the on-line pre-reg lists. Once this is done, those pre-reg lists will always be up-to-date and we can provide automatic alerts for those players who are not members or need to pass the official’s exam.

Once this is completed, we’d like to require that all US-based Majors and NTs use pdgasignup.com to do their registration so those events will take advantage of the system. This will not include A-tiers.

Note: the Board has already instructed pdgasignup.com to modify their registration fee structure to make it more equitable to all divisions.

Do you agree or disagree with this approach?

My reply

If the "biggest problem" the PDGA office has is tracking players requiring an Officials Exam - perhaps they should no longer require an officials exam. Also, since the certification is good for three years, I suspect the bulk of the player testing has already occurred.

Even if the PDGA decides to keep the Official's Exam requirement, they still don't need to force events to use pdgasignup. Players already get instant notification when they pass the Online Officials Exam. They can simply forward the email to the TD or print it out for verification. Same goes with memberships - print out the receipt or show your soft card to the TD. Since players can already easily verify test results or membership, the PDGA does not need to force any events to use pdgasignup.

In short, the PDGA should not be able to force Majors and NTs to use pdgasignup to solve a problem the PDGA created when it decided to require Officials Exams for players at Majors and NT's.

Will you be voting in support of forcing Majors and NT events to use pdgasignup?


(PS - I can certainly understand the PDGA using pdgasignup for Worlds and any events at the IDGC since the PDGA "runs" these events. However, use of pdgasignup should not be forced on all the other Majors and NT's because required testing is causing problems for the office.)

[petershive]

Discette,

I have already seen your post on another thread, and almost responded to it there. Thank you for reposting it here.

Very complex issue. The PDGA would make the following points:
1) They should be able to require such things for events that they "own" as well as ones they run. That includes showcase events to which they provide a stipend, like NT's.
2) They won't require compliance until the system is brought to the point that it can offer seamless and rapid updates. That would remove some of your objections.
3) They have accepted modifications to PDGAsignup (see the PDGAsignup section of post #7 above) that will make it more generally attractive to the membership and to TD's.

I am sympathetic to all these arguments, and I might be persuaded to vote "yes". However, I doubt it. I have two objections, somewhat different from yours, and somewhat more fundamental than the above sympathies.
1) I feel that TD's are our most important resource. I have said that they are more important, even, than the PDGA. I would like to allow them the maximum possible freedom of choice.
2) I worry about the precedent. I do not want to see the requirement steadily extended until all events are forced to use PDGAsignup.

I'm probably missing some relevant arguments, and I invite other opinions from all. Also, I assure you that the PDGA will be very interested in the results of that survey.

[nez]

Originally Posted by petershive

Discette,

I have already seen your post on another thread, and almost responded to it there. Thank you for reposting it here.

Very complex issue. The PDGA would make the following points:
1) They should be able to require such things for events that they "own" as well as ones they run. That includes showcase events to which they provide a stipend, like NT's.
2) They won't require compliance until the system is brought to the point that it can offer seamless and rapid updates. That would remove some of your objections.
3) They have accepted modifications to PDGAsignup (see the PDGAsignup section of post #7 above) that will make it more generally attractive to the membership and to TD's.

I am sympathetic to all these arguments, and I might be persuaded to vote "yes". However, I doubt it. I have two objections, somewhat different from yours, and somewhat more fundamental than the above sympathies.
1) I feel that TD's are our most important resource. I have said that they are more important, even, than the PDGA. I would like to allow them the maximum possible freedom of choice.
2) I worry about the precedent. I do not want to see the requirement steadily extended until all events are forced to use PDGAsignup.

I'm probably missing some relevant arguments, and I invite other opinions from all. Also, I assure you that the PDGA will be very interested in the results of that survey.

I'll chime in so you can see another board member's view:
1. I completely support the required use of pdgasignup.com for PDGA Majors and NT events, but I would not support its use in any other events that are not PDGA controlled, funded or owned. This should be applicable to events that the PDGA provides major financial, marketing and resource benefits. TDs/clubs are not required to host or become Majors or NT events - they do so in partnership with the PDGA,and this is one minor requirement of this partnership.

2. I support the PDGA exam requirement for these same events for the same reasons. I could see this requirement moving downward to A-tiers. Competency of rules should be a basic premise of playing our top events IMHO.

[wsfaplau]

Now that the PDGA has required the rules test and therefore assured competency of rules at our top events has anyone noticed a difference?

I haven't been at these top events so I have no idea. The message board community might have commented on that previously but since it is dying I haven't heard a word about it.

Has anyone noticed a difference? If not, it seems hard to discount Discette's solution of just dropping the requirement if this is one of the bigger problems facing the PDGA office and there isn't a noticible in having this requirement. I understand the theory of the rules exam but what is reality?

[wsfaplau]

Peter, yet another deadline on the website improvement has come and gone. After announcing and missing the late September deadline I haven't seen another word.

What is going on? You surely agree this is ridiculous. The website should be the primary interface with all things PDGA. It has turned into a joke instead.

When they said the fix would be up and running by late September I assumed they meant 2011. Looking closer, a year was never specified. Are we just 11 short months away from getting this done?

[underparmike]

I played 2 majors this year and in my opinion, rules knowledge is much improved. I think the exams have proven useful in reducing rules questions/controversies. I support continuing to require a rules exam for eligibility for pDGA majors.

[petershive]

Pete:

1) Feedback about the effect of the rules exam has been anecdotal but, in my opinion, generally quite positive (see for example Mike's comment above). Complaints about it have been mostly about cost, glitches in the test interface and communication problems like the one Discette noted. No one seriously argues that it doesn't improve players' knowledge of the rules. I would not vote to dump it.

2) Yes, it's ridiculous. I agree and I'm sure the rest of the Board agrees. This is, and was even before I joined the Board, a paramount Board and Office concern. We all wish that it were possible to snap our fingers and fix it quick, but it's not. And if you want the quick fix then I'm probably not your cup of tea because the solution I proposed as a candidate (dumping Accuvent) could indeed take 11 months to put in place.

There's a lot of justified anger about this situation, but it is not the fault of the present or even the previous Board. If blame is to be assigned you might as well blame me, because I helped negotiate the original contract with Ciphent (now Accuvent) in 2008. If I had only known . . . .

[wsfaplau]

Peter and Mike, thx for the anecdotal evidence on improved rules awareness. I am pleased but would love to hear more opinions on that as well.

As for the website, I don't want to fix blame for the problem. I merely want the problem fixed. OK< I want better communication too.

Thanks

[Jeff_LaG]

Please just dump Accuvent...they've strung us along for far too long. At least four (maybe even five?) deadlines have been missed now. In what line of work is this an acceptable business practice?

[WhiteyBear]

...disregard

[johnbiscoe]

hi peter,
i received my membership renewal email on november 16. there appears to be no lower priced "partial" membership option... was this idea tabled by the board?

thanks,
john biscoe

[petershive]

John,

From the Fall Summit minutes:
"An Entry Level PDGA Membership Plan by Sara Nicholson
‐ At the previous board meeting Sara was tasked with developing a solution for an entry‐level or noncompetitive membership while simplifying the current structure. Sara went over the details of the current membership structure. Sara came up with a plan to help to get new people to join by reducing the cost of their membership.
This needed to be done without adding to the already complex membership structure. The solution was to offer a discount of $20 (40% off) with a coupon code usable at pdgasignup.com.
The benefits of a discounted membership verses adding another membership level to choose from:
• Keeps it simple for members
• Does not diminish current structure (taking away from the membership levels already in place)
• Prevents potential problems or difficulty to the Tournament Directors
11/16/11
• Works with current IT infrastructure
• Keeps us on schedule for the 2012 membership year
• Saves the PDGA a great deal of money on printing costs and marketing
• Turns current members into ambassadors (including our affiliate club programs and state
coordinators)
• Target marketing which is able to be tracked. (Answering the questions: Where are the newmembers coming from? How did we get them?) Sara then discussed the different costs associated with the different membership levels and new versus renewal memberships.
The board discussed the pros and cons of this type of membership, what the revenue implications might be and whether this was to be used to gain new members or also to entice non‐current members to
renew. The code option is very flexible and can be used for target marketing which will let us know exactly where the members are coming from that use the codes.
MOTION:
Peter Shive motions that the office be responsible to manage a membership marketing program.
Bob Decker seconds.
Motion passes unanimously."

Note that we did not adopt Sara's suggested plan exactly as described above. We endorsed the concept of a "membership marketing program" and charged the office with the development of a specific plan. I expect that we will be asked to approve a plan at the December teleconference, so it could be in place for the 2012 season.

[johnbiscoe]

thanks peter...

am i correct in garnering from the minutes that there will be no discounted/reduced price renewal options for current members?

[johnrock]

Originally Posted by johnbiscoe

thanks peter...

am i correct in garnering from the minutes that there will be no discounted/reduced price renewal options for current members?

That's what I was thinking as I read it. Sounds like there will be discounts for AMs but not for PROs. Is the plan to get rid of long time members?

[johnbiscoe]

"turns current members into ambassadors"- i wonder who came up with that spin...

[John Hernlund]

Originally Posted by johnrock

Hey Peter,

As disappointing as it is to hear about possibly losing the Discussion Board, why not take a closer look at the Disc Golf Course Review site? Tim G. has posted there that he would entertain the idea of a pDGA only thread (or section). Even though the pDGA couldn't work out a way to use his course directory services, maybe the board over there would suffice for pDGA info and chatter.

Peter, I think this is an awful idea, and any casual internet user can find out for themselves why this is the case. Disc Golf Course Review forum posts are largely garbage. More precisely, a cluttered mixture of poorly informed but nevertheless strong opinions on a variety of topic, a huge dose of poking and ribbing between addicted regular users, armies of trolls aiming to derail threads and incite emotional responses, etc.. They have driven away all the knowledgeable and reasonable users to other forums. You can still find some nuggets at DGCR, which occasionally appear in some threads by magic, but you'll have to read dozens (if not hundreds) of pages of garbage first. The level of discussion is perhaps the lowest in the disc golf online universe.

Our club just set up a PhPBB forum. It was relatively painless, and it works great. I think PDGA should be able to manage something like this, and keep the operation in-house.

As for the larger internet issues, I'm not certain why PDGA is doing business with a firm that is chronically (perhaps fatally) unable to make any progress? I've worked (on and off, since 1994) in the website business, and I have to say that this is some of the worst performance I've ever seen.

[johnbiscoe]

amazingly enough i agree with jhern. the pdga needs to maintain a message board of it's own.

[Jeff_LaG]

Originally Posted by John Hernlund

As for the larger internet issues, I'm not certain why PDGA is doing business with a firm that is chronically (perhaps fatally) unable to make any progress? I've worked (on and offsince 1994) in the website business, and I have to say that this is some of the worst performance I've ever seen.

I could not agree more!

From the 2011 Fall Summit Minutes:

Our original launch date for the upgrade was June 28th. We ran into problems with the Drupal 7 architecture and module problems. There are portions of “Phase II” code that need to be rewritten versus a straight conversion. Currently, a new project manager has been assigned to our account. The new account manager will begin work on 9/26 and 80% of his time will be devoted to our account. We have also instituted weekly status meetings that include Nesbitt, Graham and Accuvant management.

From the latest Board Teleconference Minutes:

IT Report
New Website

The work on the new website appears to be accelerating and Accuvant has multiple resources currently assigned to the project. Dave Gentry is expecting that the course directory will be finished this week with alpha testing to start immediately afterwards. Dave had a meeting with Accuvant on Monday morning and will be working on a specification documents most of this week. They are tentatively planning on doing beta testing the week of October 24th to 31st.

Seriously, are you friggin kidding me? After everything we've been through, shouldn't multiple Accuvant project managers be spending 100% of their time on this? And as of a month ago, we're still doing beta testing?!?

This entire saga has reached comic proportions, and about the only thing that gives me of any ray of hope is seeing that Steve Ganz was added to the PDGA IT Committee. I worked with Steve out at Pro Worlds this year and he really knows his craft - he is a principal web developer at Linkedin and previously worked at eBay and McAfee. If anyone can rescue this, it's Steve.