My question relates to the PDGA Constitution: Article 3 sections 1 and 3; regarding a 'supporting member'.

"ARTICLE 3 MEMBERSHIP
Section 1. All applications for membership shall be accompanied by remittance of annual dues and/or the appropriate fee. Membership shall become effective upon verification of the applicant�s qualifications and receipt of annual dues and/or appropriate fee. The classes of membership shall be Active, Supporting, Non-Active, and Honorary. These classes are distinct from the classification of players in the Rules of Play. member to lose all rights and privileges for Active membership for the period in question.

Section 3. Supporting members are individuals who are interested in disc golf, agree to obey and uphold the PDGA Constitution, and who meet the requirements of Supporting membership as established by the Board."

Can someone elaborate of how obtain the 'Boards' established requirements of what it would take to be a supporting member?

The reason ask is that I think Felix Sung would join the PDGA as a supporting member, but can not find out how this is possible. Having Felix back on the PDGA board and actively involved with the PDGA and PDGA events would add great value to the PDGA. Clarification of this may well encourage others to join for whom an Active or "player" tenet does not fit their philosophy.

Thanks, Sheffy

Having Felix Sung (aka: <font color="blue"> fore </font>) back on the message board would definitely be a good thing. What does it take to be an Honorary member? Can we nominate Felix to be an Honorary member of the PDGA?

i miss felix's wisdom.

good luck getting the current PDGA leadership to see the value of anyone's opinion other than their own. i doubt any of them have even read the Constitution. a couple of them can't even spell constitution.

The PDGA has never implemented the portion of the Constitution that calls for the existence of a class of members called supporting members. Given the use of the word "shall" in the description of the classes of memberships, the PDGA would seem to be in violation of its Constitution in this regard.

Having Felix Sung (aka: <font color="blue"> fore </font>) back on the message board would definitely be a good thing. What does it take to be an Honorary member? Can we nominate Felix to be an Honorary member of the PDGA?



I'll gladly second the nomination if Felix donates $55 to the PDGA (doesn't need to be a membership fee...). I'm not quite ready to pay him $55 for his contributions to the PDGA, particularly if solely based on his message board activity.

Mr. X-Oversight Director Man:
The PDGA has never implemented the portion of the Constitution that calls for the existence of a class of members called supporting members. Given the use of the word "shall" in the description of the classes of memberships, the PDGA would seem to be in violation of its Constitution in this regard.



And you would seem to need to read the Constitution again in this regard, because no where does it say that they must provide such memberships; rather:

<font color="blue"> Section 3. Supporting members are individuals who are interested in disc golf, agree to obey and uphold the PDGA
Constitution, and who meet the requirements of Supporting membership as established by the Board. </font>

As established by the board, there is are no requirements within the constitution other than the board will create them if they choose to.

What precisely is your dillio Brrrrruce? Why all the agenda? Do tell...

Section 1. All applications for membership shall be accompanied by remittance of annual dues and/or the appropriat e fee. Membership shall become effective upon verification of the applicant�s qualifications and receipt of annual dues and/or appropriate fee. The classes of membership shall be Active, Supporting, Non-Active, and Honorary.



It sounds pretty plain to me.
Maybe the supporting members are already defined as Birdie, Ace, and Eagle members. It doesn't say anywhere that the supporting members are a level below active.

Honorary sounds like a membership that conveys no playing status.

The PDGA Constitution clearly only says what the different classes of membership shall be, not that they shall be established. Nonetheless, the argument that the PDGA is in violation of this section of the Constitution is moot because these classes already exist.

The document goes on to describe each category of membership. Active (basic dues), Supporting (Ace and Birdie Club), Non-active (those who used to be Active but choose not to meet the obligations of active or supporting membership), and Honorary (promo give-aways for a TBD length of time).

Honorary sounds like a membership that conveys no playing status.



right, which is why i nominate Felix Sung for just such a status. if he wants to play in PDGA events he'll either pay the $5 rental fee or for a full privilege membership, DGWN subscription included. not sure why Nick had to be a smart ***** about it...

We have a small organization in New England called NEFA (some say the F stands for Frisbee, though there be patent implications), and we rewrite the NEFA Charter each year, to better reflect reality. This year we made a single change to it, moving the elections up a month, from January to December for 2007. It's two pages long. There's lots of room in it. For those of you who like the black and white, at NEFA Events, beer is allowed during rounds, because our charters don't explicitly forbid it. Within the same charters is the ability of any NEFA Points TD to change whatever rules he/she wishes to change. Oh yeah anarchy rules here in NEFAland. You can understand the requirements, which are few, and involve specific fees. With the PDGA you need a lawyer to explain it to you.

Hark, I hear the call of the wild, it barks and my response is silence. Together we imagine werewolves growing BIG hairy snouts, then back off suddenly into polite British tee company, pinkies extended, a few tufts of animal hair protruding from starched white collars.

Or whatever.



What the heck were we talking about?

This NEFA Charter and our NEFA Points Charter are posted at nefa.com, and contain no confusing verbiage or references to hard to find other documents.

I say rewrite the PDGA Constitution or follow it. What kind of organization doesn't follow its own consitution? See my signature below? That's been my biggest beef the whole time.

Course NEFA has maybe 300 members and the PDGA has, who knows?, 9 thousand members. But following one's owm constitution would seem fundamental. Hey just talking. Everything I say is biased.

No to be a hair splitter, but if the NEFA TDs can change any rule they want, then there "ARE" no standards at all.

You can't even have a rule that requires them to let you know before hand what oddities there are likely to be.

Rule #1 No left socks on Sunday.
Rule #2 No saying the word "the".
Rule #3 Scores will be shuffled randomly between players.

Not being a smart arse Rob, Felix just needs to pay up if he wants membership benefits. Doesn't seem so punitive to me...

Not being a smart arse Rob, Felix just needs to pay up if he wants membership benefits. Doesn't seem so punitive to me...



Nick, are you missing the point that Felix contributed to and enhanced the PDGA through his presence here on the message board by the very nature of his posting behavior? So did Blake T. (and others). To suggest Felix and Blake should pay for the privilege of posting on this message board is disconcerting when you look at what they gave here vs. what they took.

the idea that message board access will entice people to join (rather than alienate people) is a bit absurd. The decision to join the PDGA is usually more about the DGWN subscription, and the $5 discount per event, and the free disc. Iow, it is usually a practical decision and the fact that it helps competitive disc golf is a bonus. there are those philanthropists who donate money to the PDGA and that's great. Felix mentioned that he tries to give to the PDGA by volunteer work and not by sending cash. I'm not a Christian, but given the nature of his profession, i can understand and appreciate that Felix does have other charities closer to home, which are probably his priority.

Given your logic, why not limit message board access to Ace and Birdie club members and to PDGA officers? LOL

if you want "access" to be a privilege that encourages membership, have a section or sections of this board "members-only" -- not the whole thing. making the whole place members-only turns non-members away.

for what it's worth, that's my biased take on this matter

Ace Club, I would still be here :D

Why do I donate $150 per year?????

Because I support Disc golf!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I support what the PDGA has done and is trying to do, if that means paying an extra $95 per year, I have no problem with it.

(btw, I have been an Ace Club member every year so far)

Thank you for your contribution to the PDGA.
If and when i have more discretionary income -- count me in.
Is $150 the minimum?

Pizza Man, I am throwing a PDGA "B" tier in April...Gonna have some inn -color discs for sale in the next couple weeks....The event will be held at the magnificent Renny Gold disc golf course. This is my first pdga event and am trying to garner any kind of sponsorship I can for the event. I believe this event, along with the sponsors i have thus forth aquired, will help the growth of discgolf in Charlotte and North Carolina in the future. Will you help us by purchasing a fundraiser disc. That goes to you all. I believe your 25$ here may help as much as giving 300$ to the org. that governs us. Support begins on the local level(not just your local). Thanks in advance.

And long live Felix. Huge volunteer and contributer to discgolf in the Carolinas. The friZZaks support you brother.

Nick, are you missing the point that Felix contributed to and enhanced the PDGA through his presence here on the message board by the very nature of his posting behavior? So did Blake T. (and others). To suggest Felix and Blake should pay for the privilege of posting on this message board is disconcerting when you look at what they gave here vs. what they took.

in addition to what has been mentioned on this thread, felix also is an invaluable contributor on the local level for disc golf. if there is any way for him to become an honorary or supporting member, it needs to be done.

Dang the keyboard breathelizor keeps coming undone. Oh well, Nick it's true that NEFA Points TDs can change whatever PDGA rules they want, provided they communicate those changes before the event to the players. It doesn't lead to the kind of anarchy you'd expect, however. Most TDs, including the ones operating out of Leicester, go strictly by PDGA rules. Last year we did forget to address the two-meter rule a bunch of times, leading to the same vague confusion that followed that in limbo rule throughout the year.

Generally we like giving the TDs the freedom to thrive or flail, since it's their tournament and they're the ones making the commitment and doing the work. Crazy, huh?

As a tournament player, I expect a few things at a PDGA tournament,

#1 that ALL the PDGA rules are followed
#2 that there will be no "smoking" durring the tournament
#3 that there will be no drinking durring the round which usually results in playing with someone who has had to much. If I wanted to be around drunks, I would own a bar. (yes, I almost purchased one several years ago, but someone with a drinking problem, at the time, does not need to own a bar)

Not being a smart arse Rob, Felix just needs to pay up if he wants membership benefits. Doesn't seem so punitive to me...




Nick, are you missing the point that Felix contributed to and enhanced the PDGA through his presence here on the message board by the very nature of his posting behavior? So did Blake T. (and others).




How so Rob? Can it really be said that anything of value, real value, is contributed here? This is entertainment with a dash of information from time to time. Can it really be said that anyone here has earned their $55 membership dues by posting smack here? I don�t think so.

To suggest Felix and Blake should pay for the privilege of posting on this message board is disconcerting when you look at what they gave here vs. what they took.


Is it really? I thought that was the entire point of making this message board a �members only area�. If that privilege is of that much value to them then they are free to pay the $40 to $55 necessary for that privilege. There is nothing disconcerting about it. It is as planned. Do you think they�d allow me to keep posting if my membership ran out? And out of everyone perhaps I am the only one to deserve compensation for my sharp insight and informative style here. LOL!


the idea that message board access will entice people to join (rather than alienate people) is a bit absurd.


Then the decision is clear. Don�t join if that is your sole interest in joining the discussion of our sports worldwide organized body.


The decision to join the PDGA is usually more about the DGWN subscription, and the $5 discount per event, and the free disc.


Not for me it isn�t Rob, and I find it insulting to even think that is the primary reason for joining. This is a volunteer organization. That fee is a tiny contribution to the overall, and far greater (time and financial) commitment made by the thousands of volunteers around the world committed to moving our sport forward. They are not committed to saving $5 when they show up at a PDGA, or getting a magazine. That is what is an absurd idea in my opinion.


Iow, it is usually a practical decision and the fact that it helps competitive disc golf is a bonus. there are those philanthropists who donate money to the PDGA and that's great. Felix mentioned that he tries to give to the PDGA by volunteer work and not by sending cash. I'm not a Christian, but given the nature of his profession, i can understand and appreciate that Felix does have other charities closer to home, which are probably his priority.


We all have our priorities Rob. We make decisions and live with the consequences. It is the way things work. You really need to think of this in a slightly different way. You say that there are philanthropists who donate money to the PDGA, and that is more true than you think; but rather than just thinking of Ace and Birdie Club members as the only philanthropists, try thinking of all PDGA Members as philanthropists. Because that is surely what they are. Some might join for the petty reasons you provided above and view this as a business transaction, in fact I am quite certain that some do (in light of the discourteous and unappreciative attitudes and harsh words often directed at our selfless and hard working volunteers and staff).

But whatever the reason for joining, the result is the same, our membership fees are essentially donations going directly to supporting the mission and goals of our sports worldwide organizing body, the PDGA.


Given your logic, why not limit message board access to Ace and Birdie club members and to PDGA officers? LOL


Because that is not �by my logic�. Message Board use is a privilege of PDGA Membership. That is more of a policy than a logic, and I didn�t happen to be the one that made the policy decision (though I certainly support it).


if you want "access" to be a privilege that encourages membership, have a section or sections of this board "members-only" -- not the whole thing. making the whole place members-only turns non-members away.


This has nothing to do with the overall discussion of why Felix and others who have not paid their PDGA dues or joined should not expect handouts. Membership Privileges naturally come with Membership. That is perfect logic.

I have always supported the inclusion of a single public thread that can be carefully monitored. But I wouldn�t be doing the work so I can only make the suggestion. Even Zeus has limits to his powers.


for what it's worth, that's my biased take on this matter


I understand your thought process Rob, and it would be nice to make exceptions for certain message board users, but that takes time and effort to set up, monitor as well as the responsibility that such decisions require of the folks we have elected and hired to do a whole range of more pressing work for us. They are the ones that are accountable, so I really can�t find any reason they would make exceptions to rules that seem logical and fair as well as functional.

My bias is that folks not be so timid about their thoughts, but trust the rest of us enough to speak their minds. I don�t always agree with everyone here, but I hope they understand that my willingness to express my thoughts freely with them is a sign of respect and appreciation. But making folks understand that their thoughts and words are of worth to the rest of us is nearly as impossible as making folks understand that their membership fee is not a payment for services rendered, but a small (the smallest) donation to the overall work of the PDGA.

As you well know I could go on, but I really have to get some work done. Enjoy!

Message Board use is a privilege of PDGA Membership. That is more of a policy than a logic, and I didn�t happen to be the one that made the policy decision (though I certainly support it).



Thanks Nick, that is what i was hoping to hear. As soon as word gets out that you support it, opposition to the policy will grow :p

You clearly have been studying Pat and Rhett's "non-response/misdirection" technique, not to mention the "when all arguments are defeated, make it personal" technique.

Effective, but pointless as far as meaningful discussion goes...

good gawd Nick. i made a joke about how there is a tendency for people to knee-jerk oppose your position simply because it is yours rather than thinking through the issue itself independent of what Nick Kight is pushing for -- and instead of thanking me, you attack me. go figure ...

making our message board "members-only" is counterproductive to growing our sport. you can't defeat that argument -- it stands firmly on its own merit. (your imagining otherwise notwithstanding) :p

Has disc golf's growth stopped or slowed since DISCussion went to members only?
There's a research paper I'd like to see. :D

:eek: :D it would take a long, long time to track the effect and a large dose of clairvoyance. i do know several people myself who no longer frequent this site though because of the policy change and it also left a bad taste in their mouths regarding the attitude that the PDGA takes toward itself and non-members. (two of them were about to join for 2006, but decided not to)

it may not make or break us as an organization, but it certainly has an effect.

I believe history shows that a company making clothes boosted sales significantly when they labeled them "Members Only"...

LOL. but you didn't have to be a member to buy/wear one :D

the effect here is to dissuade newbies from returning to our site because participation is what grows interest.
does anyone really think people are going to flock to join the PDGA so they can have PDGA message board access? :eek:

rob, i think your point has general agreement. the issue with the board in the past was accountability. no one will argue that lack of accountability led to far more nonsense than was acceptable.

the fastest and most cost-effective way to solve that immediate problem was to make the board members only - for posting only

i can assure you the issue of limited posting rights and alternate membership types are topics that are alive. unfortunately, they require a bit more time to reach concensus/conclusion, and also will be more complicated to implement on the technology side.

ps. its good to see you lose your "nick's lackey" status! :D now you can experience how the other side has lived for so long

LOL. but you didn't have to be a member to buy/wear one :D

the effect here is to dissuade newbies from returning to our site because participation is what grows interest.
does anyone really think people are going to flock to join the PDGA so they can have PDGA message board access? :eek:




I didn't attack you Rob, I state a couple facts. I took the time and energy to give you serious thoughtful answers and you dismis them simply because you hold an opinion upon which you are unwilling to consider any other alternatives.

You can not prove that making the message board read access only to non-members has soured anyone to the PDGA. That is like saying that because you must have a ticket to go into the Rolling Stones concert people will start disliking the Stones. It is logically flawed thinking.

I suppose those who became used to the "freebee" use of the message board feel the pang of something they grew to take for granted. But that is not a logical reason to continue to provide free tickets to the Stones Shows.

Are there good reasons to allow non-members free access to our website and message board? Certainly. But when weighed in contrast to the reasons not to all free access, the people who actually do the work decided to go the other way. To argue that there is a constitutional right for non-members to access any privileged member services is clearly unfounded.

Again, I am for a free and open discussion forum for anyone to use, but who is going to run it? Mike Crump's forum is a total failure because he is far more of a tyrant than Terry or I ever were. He actually goes in and changes peoples posts!

Anyhow, your contention seems to be based on the premise that membership dues is a business transaction for actions rendered rather than a (tiny) contribution to the overall efforts of our worldwide organizing body, and that I do not accept. Certainly not as the foundation of a volunteer org.

rob, i think your point has general agreement. the issue with the board in the past was accountability. no one will argue that lack of accountability led to far more nonsense than was acceptable.

the fastest and most cost-effective way to solve that immediate problem was to make the board members only - for posting only

i can assure you the issue of limited posting rights and alternate membership types are topics that are alive. unfortunately, they require a bit more time to reach concensus/conclusion, and also will be more complicated to implement on the technology side.

ps. its good to see you lose your "nick's lackey" status! :D now you can experience how the other side has lived for so long


I'm not going to be cruel to Pat or you Rob. I can see that you feel strongly about this. I'd hoped that we could discuss it without personal attacks, but by sticking to the issues. That was unrealistic on my part perhaps.

[quote}
You can not prove that making the message board read access only to non-members has soured anyone to the PDGA.



[/QUOTE]


Yes you can. Felix hasn't posted here since the ban was inflicted. You'll also be happy to know that I won't be renewing my PDGA membership because of the ban. So get your last cheap shots in.

Then, before you are not allowed to post anymore, what is your solution for people like "GrunioiN who could not abide by the rules????

You can not prove that making the message board read access only to non-members has soured anyone to the PDGA. That is like saying that because you must have a ticket to go into the Rolling Stones concert people will start disliking the Stones. It is logically flawed thinking.



Nick, you are misreading the logic. let me use your example: it is like saying free tickets to Rolling Stones concerts would lead to people who aren't yet Stones fans attending and buying records int he future.

it is the age of the internet and when we put www.pdga.com (http://www.pdga.com) on the logo -- the first access people will have to the PDGA is often going to be right here. if we get them participating in DISCussions, we may lure them into joining :D

rob, i think your point has general agreement. the issue with the board in the past was accountability. no one will argue that lack of accountability led to far more nonsense than was acceptable.

the fastest and most cost-effective way to solve that immediate problem was to make the board members only - for posting only

i can assure you the issue of limited posting rights and alternate membership types are topics that are alive. unfortunately, they require a bit more time to reach concensus/conclusion, and also will be more complicated to implement on the technology side.



<font color="blue"> that's great news Pat. thanks for updating me as i was afraid the issue was dead. i will be patient </font>


ps. its good to see you lose your "nick's lackey" status! :D now you can experience how the other side has lived for so long



<font color="blue"> it is good to hear this may make you drop the misperception that i am Nick's sidekick :D i am less optimistic with regard to whether this will make you realize i am against the 2 meter rule for well-thought out reasons, but that's what it is (your failure to concur notwithstanding :p ) :D</font>

Any organization needs people ready and willing to step up, work with others and do what is needed. Motivated by what is best for the organization. Particularly volunteer ones. That folks driven by selfish needs find the exit door is simply natural selection at work. We are not only made stronger by adding stronger correctly motivated members but also by subtracting weaker misguided ones. Harsh perhaps, nevertheless true.

An open forum for non-members is nearly a given eventuality. The mechanism to create and maintain it simply needs to be worked out by those responsible.

You can not prove that making the message board read access only to non-members has soured anyone to the PDGA.






Yes you can. Felix hasn't posted here since the ban was inflicted. You'll also be happy to know that I won't be renewing my PDGA membership because of the ban. So get your last cheap shots in.



Mikey, with all of the stuff you bring up on the message board, I can't believe you are using the change in the message board rules as the one thing that has pushed you away.

I would've respected you more if you had said that you weren't renewing because you are now on Harold Duvall's hitlist. :D

You can not prove that making the message board read access only to non-members has soured anyone to the PDGA. That is like saying that because you must have a ticket to go into the Rolling Stones concert people will start disliking the Stones. It is logically flawed thinking.



Nick, you are misreading the logic. let me use your example: it is like saying free tickets to Rolling Stones concerts would lead to people who aren't yet Stones fans attending and buying records int he future.

it is the age of the internet and when we put www.pdga.com (http://www.pdga.com) on the logo -- the first access people will have to the PDGA is often going to be right here. if we get them participating in DISCussions, we may lure them into joining :D



I agree that having a forum for non-members to post in will be a good thing. How? When? And by Whom? Are the questions that need aswering.

Regardless, there are member privileges that should always remain such. Certainly you can agree that there are benefits to this board in having it members only, even, as in your opinion they are out-wieghed by benefits of having it open.

I like your idea of free tickets, so long as the context and practice of their use is clearly defined. i.e. that they understand that it is not a right, privilege, or anything short of a '100% GIFT'. That can be withdrawn at any time without reprecussions or malice on their parts.

Things like a PDGA Single Event Exemption, where a player could play in one PDGA event a year without any fee. Or post to the members area for one month without a membership fee (but with us getting full identification and contact information). Or a brand new event, first time, could run a PDGA without fee (similar to the D Tier).

The key to any of that would be having the policies, methods and personel to do all that. Plus don't forget the necks of those who actually have to take final responsibility for it. I'm not sure what all is involved, are you?

Good ideas are one thing, making them happen (under your own inertia) is another.

The only solution I can think of is either run for PDGA Office and make it happen or support those who feel similarly and get them into office. I know it isn't as simple a matter as 'just do it yourself', but that is a starting point always; afterall, why should others do what you are unwilling to do yourself, right?

it is the age of the internet and when we put www.pdga.com (http://www.pdga.com) on the logo -- the first access people will have to the PDGA is often going to be right here. if we get them participating in DISCussions, we may lure them into joining :D


The current state of the message board also chases people away.

True. But forums like the one Blake T had in the Throwing Techniques section which gave free expert advice to newbies on both technique and equipment keeps them around. Presences like Gary Duke, Felix Sung and Blake (as well as others) -- in addition to the threads where Dave Dunipace (Innova) Keith Murray (Discraft) and David McCormack (Gateway) field questions -- are/were sound reasons to keep coming back here.

Everytime I look at the "Who's Online" there are always more readers than posters/user's. Never the less a well monitored open forum would be a good idea. Who is going to make it more than just a good idea is the question though. As well as who is going to stick their official neck out to make it happen? And why should they?

Rhett?

[/QUOTE] making our message board "members-only" is counterproductive to growing our sport. you can't defeat that argument -- it stands firmly on its own merit. (your imagining otherwise notwithstanding) :p

[/QUOTE]

Good point. Dont you want the true newbies to take an interest in the sport and its members. They go to the sight and then they are blocked from asking questions about what to throw and where to go. A little sily really. The pdga seems to use this a shield against people who disagree with them openly and are not members. mmmm"how can we get rid of those trouble makers???"

beserker, you're right. let's just say that the ban of non-members was the final nail in the coffin. as for harold, it had to be said. since i won't be running tournaments anymore and I won't feel obligated to grovel for innova's sponsorship to get everything i could for my players, i'm free to point out the PDGA's complete lack of any ethical standards including harold's presence on its rules committee.

Of course, I only bother to type these things for when real leaders take over in the future and they look back to find out why the PDGA broke down under Theo's pathetic, uninspiring, and non-inclusive leadership. Note to future leaders: Please make sure you take showers on a regular basis, unlike the current Regional Coordinator whose stench undermines his credibility.

Post deleted for using the f-word.

hear hear...(your first post UPM)

it is so sad that you can't fathom how many people you disgust with your constant negative diatribes against people who try to help the sport....



Talk about the pot calling the kettle black......

that doesnt mean the kettle isnt.

Does anyone here think that Mikey is stepping over the line with personal attacks on the hygiene of BOD members?

Does anyone see any value to his latest postings? Or is Mikey simply going off as hard as he can until the middle of Feb when he won't be able to post anymore because he has chosen to desert the PDGA?

does anyone know what time it is?
does anyone really care?

though i can't imagine why
we've all got time enough to die...

look, if i was a sponsor and went out to meet one of the leaders of the PDGA and discovered he was hygenically challenged, i'd think twice about supporting this low-life organization.

go ahead and ban me rhett, it will just give the readers yet another example of how afraid the PDGA is of dissenting opinion.

you are such a coward rhett. enjoy your time as the PDGA lackey, you've earned it.

Mike Kernan's posting privileges have been removed by me. It was difficult to do, as I personally like Mikey, but he is a different person on line than in person. Too many vicious and personal attacks. Attacks and loud complaining do not necessarily equate with dissent, sometimes they are just attacks and unjustified complaints.

If you'd like to see more of Mikey doing the same, check out the Southern Nationals forum, where he's viciously berating and making accusations about its leadership. (To that leadership: I feel for y'all.) Unfortunately, his inability to post here may increase his posts there.

problem is, forgetting his style for a moment, Mickey has a point. not liking the point should not constitute a valid reason to ban him

Mikey has a point about the hygiene issue?

By the way, I agree that PDGA reps should be clean and without BO even the allegation is not true.

I completely disagree with banning Mikey. Sure he has radical views, but this is the PDGA, not the USSR. McCarthyism has begun.

The PDGA banned hundreds of non-members from posting because they can't handle criticism. Now they're banning members because they can't handle criticism. Good luck guys! I hope you find that witch you're looking for.

Does anyone here think that Mikey is stepping over the line with personal attacks on the hygiene of BOD members?


Seemed like a hygienal attack, not a personal attack. Personal attacks are what Jeff and Nick constantly type. Under this newly-formed PDGA MB criteria, shouldn't they be banned also?

Remember: you are in a public forum, talking to your fellow disc golfers. Behave accordingly. Disagreements are fine; personal attacks are not. This DISCussion board is first a foremost a PDGA resource for PDGA members.

The basic rule of thumb for posting here is this: Don't post anything that you might get warned or stroked about during competitive, santioned PDGA play. In other words, the courtesy rules apply here as well as during a PDGA event. Another basic rule of thumb is that on the Internet you need to be twice as nice on line to have any chance at all of people knowing, from your postings, that you are as nice as you are in person.

This PDGA-sponsored board does not guarantee freedom of speech. Messages containing profanity, inflammatory comments, or other offensive content may be removed at the discretion of the board monitors. Individuals who persist in this behavior may be barred from future posting.

Respect others' time and energy. If a posting would be better served by direct email to the author, contact them directly. Commercial posts are not allowed and will be removed. If you would like to carry on a conversation, please use the chat room.

The PDGA does not officially monitor the message board. For questions directed to the PDGA office, the PDGA Board of Directors, or a PDGA committee, use the the "Contact" link from the main menu on PDGA pages. While PDGA representatives may post on the board from time to time, they are posting as individuals, and their opinions as expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of the PDGA.

This forum is provided by the PDGA for the use and enjoyment of disc golfers. If you have complaints about any content on the board, please use the feedback form and let us know.



Emphases mine.

Does anyone here think that Mikey is stepping over the line with personal attacks on the hygiene of BOD members?


Seemed like a hygienal attack, not a personal attack. Personal attacks are what Jeff and Nick constantly type. Under this newly-formed PDGA MB criteria, shouldn't they be banned also?



Nick should be banned.

Mike Kernan's posting privileges have been removed by me.



It's about time.

Having questions about the PDGA and bashing personal members without evedence is just plane wrong. And what was up with this personal hygene thing? I for one will not miss Mike and his negitive attitude. There is a reason hardly anyone voted for him.

Mike Kernan's posting privileges have been removed by me.



It's about time.

Having questions about the PDGA and bashing personal members without evedence is just plane wrong. And what was up with this personal hygene thing? I for one will not miss Mike and his negitive attitude. There is a reason hardly anyone voted for him.



Pizza, I hope you didn't mean for that to read the way it does. Having questions about the PDGA is NOT wrong.

Nick should be banned.



While I dont agree with Nick, and he is a bit rude sometimes and very blunt, I would not put him in the same catagory as Mike K. He and Jeff L. still feud, but I find his opinion very educational, whether I agree or not.

Also, he does say posistive things. I can not ever remember one positive thing that Mike K. ever said on this board. Sadly, if he is a likeable guy as Terry says, no one here will ever see it....as Im sure few of us on the board have ever met him....nor may not ever want to.

First of all, why not open this page to non-members? Promote promote promote and control the anarchy. Develop a tough skin. But let non-members speak, as obnoxious as they are.

As for Michael Kernan, why ban him? You only make him more famous than he already is, and a martyr. Plus he's really really funny, though perhaps insulting to some people, and outrageous, but who should care? Not me. Let Michael spout. Treat him like the jabbering hunchback in that 14th Century move with Sean Connery with monk murder. He spoke in several languates at once and made perfect sense, AND he was crazy, just like Mikey. What's wrong here? Uh, me?

The PDGA Discussion Page Authorities (peedeepah) have banned Michael again, making them seem too sensitive. In the process they ban someone who makes fun of them and provokes them and accuses them of various improprieties. Who cares? Wish people would accuse me of more stuff. Bunch of goofball censors if you think about it, and Michael wins again. Hey Michael if you have anything you'd like to post just e-mail it to me and I'll post it, then I can get banned, too.

Jroc, I stick by my knowledge that Mike Kernan is a great guy in person. I also think he is sometimes funny, but I disagree with you, Jason, that his recent posts have been anything but ugly and nasty. Here are some quotes from just two of the more recent ones:

"the PDGA's complete lack of any ethical standards"

"the PDGA broke down under [the commissioners] pathetic, uninspiring, and non-inclusive leadership"

"take showers on a regular basis, unlike the current [PDGA leader] whose stench undermines his credibility"

"i'd think twice about supporting this low-life organization"

Where are the 'points' in there? Where is the humor. That's just hate-filled ranting. And wrong, to boot. But the kind of wrong that, when it's alleged in public and then disputed in public, gains credence just from being disputed.

Yes, Jason, if you forward similar material to the board from Mikey, you, too, will lose your posting privileges. That you got right.

those are all opinions, nothing more. anyone from the outside who read them would have little difficulty in reaching the same conclusion.

were i to say that [PDGA honcho]'s writings were ugly and nasty would i also be posting hate-filled ranting? if not, why not?

"take showers on a regular basis, unlike the current [PDGA leader] whose stench undermines his credibility"




So, if I say Rhett's effluvium is undesirable, will I get banned? Or does it matter where your name is on the PDGA flow-chart? Anyway, here goes; Rhett's effluvium is undesirable.

Mike Kernan's posting privileges have been removed by me.



It's about time.

Having questions about the PDGA and bashing personal members without evedence is just plane wrong. And what was up with this personal hygene thing? I for one will not miss Mike and his negitive attitude. There is a reason hardly anyone voted for him.


Um, hope that wasn't a personal attack...

Well .........thankfully I don't have this hygiene problem. I sometimes wear so much Cologne that flying bugs and insects land on my arm and die right away. :eek: :D

Well, it's possible he caught the alleged odofender actually working hard on behalf of the PDGA and hadn't had time to shower. :o

problem is, forgetting his style for a moment, Mickey has a point. not liking the point should not constitute a valid reason to ban him



Pat, if you are being serious, please list all or the valid points Mike has made in this thread?

Was it:

good luck getting the current PDGA leadership to see the value of anyone's opinion other than their own. i doubt any of them have even read the Constitution. a couple of them can't even spell constitution.


or

You'll also be happy to know that I won't be renewing my PDGA membership because of the ban.


or maybe it was this point you were agreeing with�

let's just say that the ban of non-members was the final nail in the coffin. as for harold, it had to be said. since i won't be running tournaments anymore and I won't feel obligated to grovel for innova's sponsorship to get everything i could for my playersv


this one?

i'm free to point out the PDGA's complete lack of any ethical standards including harold's presence on its rules committee.


perhaps this?

I only bother to type these things for when real leaders take over in the future and they look back to find out why the PDGA broke down under Theo's pathetic, uninspiring, and non-inclusive leadership.


could be this one�

Note to future leaders: Please make sure you take showers on a regular basis, unlike the current Regional Coordinator whose stench undermines his credibility.


to which super genius Bard Soleng #19410 cheered him on with

hear hear...(your first post UPM)


are you saying it was this one?

look, if i was a sponsor and went out to meet one of the leaders of the PDGA and discovered he was hygenically challenged, i'd think twice about supporting this low-life organization.


Only a couple left�

go ahead and ban me rhett, it will just give the readers yet another example of how afraid the PDGA is of dissenting opinion.


It had to be this one right?

you are such a coward rhett. enjoy your time as the PDGA lackey, you've earned it.


Yeah, I suppose you�re right Pat, Mike had a point.



:p

couldn't find a discussion page on the PGA.COM site...

maybe it's not really necessary.... just let the BOD write articles on whats happening in the sport and let people just PM each other if they have issues
i don't need to see your dirty laundry (except southwicks, keep em coming brother!)

I completely disagree with banning Mikey. Sure he has radical views, but this is the PDGA, not the USSR. McCarthyism has begun.

The PDGA banned hundreds of non-members from posting because they can't handle criticism. Now they're banning members because they can't handle criticism. Good luck guys! I hope you find that witch you're looking for.



LOL!

Does anyone here think that Mikey is stepping over the line with personal attacks on the hygiene of BOD members?


Seemed like a hygienal attack, not a personal attack. Personal attacks are what Jeff and Nick constantly type. Under this newly-formed PDGA MB criteria, shouldn't they be banned also?



Nick should be banned.



My number one fan Dave Vincent. Who'd a guessed?

Still sore about getting band yourself? You know that wasn't my call, right?

Though if it were, you'd still be... Thank the knome that you're not.

I don't want to see this board go, but I have to admit there seems to be growing cause to do so.

Most of the stuff does seem to arise from the same 5 to 8 people.

I think the monitor should be given greater powers (yes, that would mean Rhett) to delete flaming posts and send warnings and then ban folks that abuse their privileges. I thought that we had that worked out at one point. Did we really think that making it members only would end it all?!?

I thought it was a good idea that people that monitor should not post on threads that they are monitoring.

What happened to all the plans to build a group of folks to monitor all of this stuff? Was it just talk?

the same five to 8 people who dare speak up...It is not difficult for me to say that i AGREE with them all(except the hygiene thing). The pdga bod is a little too sensitive. You need people to think about things differently than the way you do, and you need them to speak up about it. Your ideas and actions are too slow.
And by the way,...the reason noone voted for mickey is because of the system...85% of the people who voted dont know who they voted for....2 years ago i didnt care about that. This past election we voted for Southwick. Actually, we are surprised that was posted in the votes recieved section.
I

i'm a monitor nick, and to tell you the truth if i didnt think it would cause such a serious ruckus due to your relationships with the powers-that-be, i would ban you myself due to you repeated personal attacks.

most of the stuff you quoted from Mikey is his opinion. its no more inflammatory to lots of other posts by other people, including you and me.

i am tempted to reinstate mikey just to force the concept of banishment into a consensus/committee situation rather than the reaction of a single monitor

hear hear...isnt that what its supposed to be anyway....A org governed by the people....or by the 'good old boys'

I have no more relationship to the �powers-that-be� than you do Pat. And don�t fain innocence on �personal attacks� because that would be a pure lie on your part. You don�t have the authority to ban anyone. Only Terry and the board have that authority, same as when I was monitoring the board and as it should be.

Ok, so first it was that he �had a point�, now that no �point� can be found it�s �opinion�. Will it be misunderstandings next? Alright then what part of those vitriol were opinion and not pure 100% hate driven accusations and insults? Please quote the parts that could be considered normal opinion.

I wish that you would reinstate Mike. He doesn�t bother me anymore than you do. But we both know you don�t have that authority, don�t we?

hear hear...isnt that what its supposed to be anyway....A org governed by the people....or by the 'good old boys'



Interesting spin that you imply that whatever 'good old boys' are, it certainly isn't 'people' - but it isn't surprising that 'the people' choose to elect as leaders (and who then choose competent staff) mostly 'old boys' who have actually already had experience at doing this?

Every single issue that gets raised here is one that is valid in a PDGA election. You have to wonder why the 'martyred dissenters' can't take the 15 minutes it might take to nominate themselves for a board position.

Be ready for the nominations process late this spring and then elections in early summer. I do not intend to run for re-election as communication director on the board, but if the right 'ranter' from DISCussion were to run, I could be persuaded to change my mind - to provide a very clear choice for PDGA members.

nope, any admin can ban someone. Rhett ganned someone (not Mikey) today and he is not Terry or the BOD.

calling those posts "hate-filled" is as much opinion as anything the posts themselves.

and for the record, my opinion is that mikey had some points. he also had some opinions. his entire posts are opinion, perhaps stated flambouyantly, but opinion nonetheless. some were so over-the-top than any reasonable person would immediately recognize the hyperbole.

some of you guys are so uptight its ridciulous. must all dissent be submitted in proper format in some particular phrasing? isnt this a discussion board?

I have voted in every PDGA election since I have been a member. Not only did I vote against Mike, but purposefully so. Everything about him leads me to believe that he would be a totally disfunctional officer. The people that vote are the people that "give a dam", so that usually works out just fine.

Do you know any of the PDGA BOD members? Have you ever met them? Spoken to them? Upon what do you base your statement that they are "too sensitive"? That they require us to adhere to our message board rules!?! What do you base your support of such utter and total garbage accusations against them? Do you have evidence of wrongdoing? Have you done an in-depth investigation?

Or are you just a face in the witch-hunt mob Mike likes to rile up (because like him, it is easier to blame others for perceived challenges, than it is to get up off your arse and do something REAL about it, other than jaw flapping and chest pounding)? Make no mistake, you are the witch-hunter here.

They posted the votes for Southwick because they are not intimidated, no need to be surprised. Jason talks a good stream of consciousness anarchy, but it is just another form of conformity. Conformity to non-conformity is none the less conformity; often even more so.

[/QUOTE] some of you guys are so uptight its ridciulous. must all dissent be submitted in proper format in some particular phrasing? isnt this a discussion board?

[/QUOTE]

LOL...really...maybe add something like...Read this phrase in thurston Howell III accent please....

Speaking of hyperbole... Can you really believe what you are saying Pat? Really? Opinion? Point? You can't be serious.

Flamboyant...LOL! I think the phrase you were looking for was assinine flaming. And assinine is not ban worthy... otherwise 95% of us would be history by now...

[/QUOTE] Conformity to non-conformity is none the less conformity; often even more so.

[/QUOTE]
LOL...please.....The only way things can be forced to get better, is when someone SHOUTS out loud what is wrong with it in the first place.....OOps im conforming....Conformity to nonconformity....Wasnt that the hippie hater slogan,,,

back on thread topic, does the PDGA Constitution give us a right to bare arms, or do we have to have sleeves covering them? :D

It appears to me that members are banned for insulting the leaders of the PDGA far more readily than they are banned for insulting any other members. Does anyone else see it that way? If so, is that the way it's supposed to be?

i think any objective observer would see that in about 2 seconds. "supposed to be" depends on whether you are one of the leaders or not, which, i suppose, is sort of OK, since it is their job to do what they think is right.

Shall we test your theory, then I'll let it go...

Pat, maybe you�ll find a valid point or just a plain old opinion in this (it should sound vaguely familiar):

"good luck getting pat brenner to see the value of anyone's opinion other than his own. I doubt he has even read anyone else�s posts but his own. he can't even spell valid point.

as for pat, it has to be said. i'm free to point out pat�s complete lack of any ethical standards including his lazy super slow website updates. I only bother to type these things for when a real monitor and webmaster takes over in the future and they look back to find out why the PDGA message board and course directory broke down under Pat's pathetic, uninspiring, and non-inclusive leadership.

note to future monitors and webmasters: please make sure you take footbaths on a regular basis, unlike the current message board monitor, whose foot stench undermines his credibility.

look, if a volunteer met pat and discovered he was hygienically challenged, they�d think twice about supporting this low-life. go ahead and ban me pat, it will just give the readers yet another example of how afraid the you are of dissenting opinion. you are such a coward pat. enjoy your time as the PDGA lackey, you've earned it."

Dang! Jason's right! It is kind of funny now that it is aimed at pat...

"NOT"

i am confident enough in myself and in my contributions that were such a post be made in earnest, i would do two things:

first i'd laugh.

then i would reflect honestly as to why someone could have such an opinion, what the root cause of the perception might be, and what kernal of truth, however small, might be causing such a statement.

but thats just me. other's reactions may vary.

Perhaps it is that you don't really have as much at stake. Is the matter really simply personal, or do they have more to consider?

Still, all in all, not a bad answer. There is hope for you after all...

i feel all warm and fuzzy and validated now. thanks! :cool:

As well you should. Everyone should mark this down in their calendars and sing out in great throngs of joyous song. And the clouds parted and the giant asss in the sky let forth with a mighty roar!

Oh the humanity of it all...

The mighty asss is an anology for past banned users... (oops, speaking for them could get me in trouble)

I'm not questioning if personal attacks are still attacks if directed at someone else besides a PDGA officer. They are obviously still attacks. The attacker may be wrong in his method even if he has a valid point (and I've seen the rest of us come out and say so, usually in very strong language -- are we right to respond in an abusive manner if the attacker was wrong in initiating the abuse?).

My question was: should we expect to see someone on this board engaging in a personal attack on a regular member banned as quickly as one who attacks a PDGA leader?

Attacks are attacks. But apparently who gets banned are not all the attackers. Just the ones holding certain opinions.

I will more readily believe people are being banned for only making personal attacks when those people hold more diverse opinions, both for and against the PDGA.

As it is, this "no personal attacks" policy is in danger of being a rule that is fished out only to silence those who find fault with PDGA leadership.

some of you guys are so uptight its ridciulous. must all dissent be submitted in proper format in some particular phrasing? isnt this a discussion board?

[/QUOTE]

LOL...really...maybe add something like...Read this phrase in thurston Howell III accent please....

[/QUOTE]

BWAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Watch out Frizzak, you super genius!

I think the ones that get banned quickly are the ones attacking the PDGA or the it's image.

Dissent when phrased in a non confrontational or demeaning manner is one thing. Offensive, confrontational or disparaging remarks are a different thing altogether. If you want your points heard, phrase them in a positive manner. Be ready to discuss and defend your points with facts and your concerns when challenged. If it is a credible complaint, you will gather others to your side. If the majority don't agree with your position, it may be time to drop the discussion.

Paul, you tend to tangle stuff up that doesn't need any more tangling.

Mike didn't find fault, he attacked, insulted, accused, and flamed. There is a significant difference.

I nominate Gary for Communication Director.

Is that good enough Terry or do I need to mail it in?

Being a State Coordinator is quite enough of a challenge for the time being thank you.

I say we create a 'Gary Duke Award' to go to the most level-headed and professional presence in Rules DISCussion threads. :D

Paul, you tend to tangle stuff up that doesn't need any more tangling.



Nick, your very existence on this message board is to tangle up the whole freaking thing. I don't even need to post anymore about <font color="red"> [personal attack removed, and not regarding the person's PDGA leadership role]</font>.

I'm at the point where I agree that the PDGA should get rid of this message board. Then at least thousands of disc golfers wouldn't have to be subjected to you anymore.

I think the ones that get banned quickly ...

Well, Mikey did not get banned quickly. He's been banned, reinstated and banned again. If he renews, he and Terry will kiss and make up, and he will be right back with the same dog and pony show.

nope, any admin can ban someone. Rhett ganned someone (not Mikey) today and he is not Terry or the BOD.


I banned someone after a couple of requests to not use lame misspellings of the f-word went unheeded. I will un-ban them tomorrow.

Mike didn't find fault, he attacked, insulted, accused, and flamed. There is a significant difference.


With PDGA leadership, he certainly did find fault, and he did everything else you said.

But I've seen others who do not find fault but do everything else you said and not even get warned.

I find that selective and informative.

I just feel we ought not to ban anyone for personal attacks if we aren't being even-handed about it. I think it sends a bad message. Or, if we're truly serious about banning people who make personal attacks, we ought to rigourously define what constitutes that behavior, and then ban everyone guilty of it.

The personal attacks get in the way of what someone may be trying to say. It's discourteous and unproductive. Mikey was correctly banned, but the work is not yet done. I think there are others that should be banned as well.

Disagree all you want, but do it as adults, not children.

I can agree with most of that. But when a call is made, as in this case by Rhett or Terry, imo we should extend them the benefit of the doubt and not fly into full witchhunt mode that I see so often. I can't see how in this specific instance that there is any doubt that Mike crossed the line and that indeed he was honestly trying to provoke a banning.

Did you sense anything contructive in his posts?

The challenge with your proposal is this:
1) Few qualified folks are willing to volunteer for such duty.
2) Those folks are not the ones that are directly responsible, so in the end it still will fall on the PDGA BOD members heads.
Do you have a solution to those two challenges?

Nick:

I see #2 as a very good question.
Perhaps a jointly accessed PDGA Monitor email account for those that volunteer would take some of the communication responsibilities from th BoD in matters of who/why gets banned.
Qualified (not sure how to define that) volunteers could then have a direct method of communication with the masses under the auspices of the PDGA with the BoD only getting involved when it becomes neccessary. (Kind of like the 6th grade teacher is the disciplinarian in the classroom, untill misbehavior gets so out of control that the dreaded principal is called into play.):D

It'd be a difficult challenge to solve, but one that is worthy of discussion.

[quote
Pizza, I hope you didn't mean for that to read the way it does. Having questions about the PDGA is NOT wrong.

[/QUOTE]

That did come out wrong, I ment it is one thing to have question about how or what the PDGA does things, I is another to constantly come on here and bash our leaders with no proof what so ever.

Mike never proved anything to me, as neither did GrunioN.

Yes. Until that time though we really need to cut the monitors some slack and let them use their best judgment in dealing with clear cases of crossing the line, which I think most would agree mike did. Committees and concensus are great things, but we can't wait around for them to form. Sometimes things just need to get done and I'm just glad there are a few folks brave enough to take on such thankless tasks. (That seems to sum up all disc golf volunteerism come to think of it...)

Okay here's a PDGA Constitution Question: Why doesn't the PDGA leadership follow its own constitution? I spoke with a BOD guy (he probably doesn't want me to name him) about this very issue, and he admitted the PDGA Constitution needs to be rewritten, and he implicitly acknowledged that it isn't being adhered to by claiming that the founding fathers hadn't clearly thought-out what it would be like to run an organization the PDGA's size.

The PDGA takes some liberties with its Executive Sessions, which exclude everyone but a small group, and secret salaries, and as policy not publicizing disciplinary actions. Yeah, I know about their disciplanary actions. They hold trials on the phone and don't invite the defendant.

Where do players bring their grievances against the PDGA? Who polices the PDGA? We do, the members and non-members. And very ineffectively. Everyone really should have a voice. Hey, we have to plow through mounds of Nickolodian on a daily basis just to keep up a decent conversation.

So I see nothing that Mikey said is worth banning him for, except if he's just speaking the truth. He does have an uncanny ability to hit the nail on the head and put people on the spot, so in that case by all means ban him to prevent people from hearing the truth.

Or prevent people from hearing the ramblings on lunatic. Whyyyyyy? Bring the rant I say. Bring it! Bring Michael Kernan back. No one can rant like Mikey.

But back to the Consitution. Simply advised, change the PDGA Constitution. Condense and magnify and put in some good spirit stuff. And don't use too many commas or long sentences, but slip a couple semi-colons in just for that erudite effect, or affect. And give yourself wide latutide, cause the way possibilities are you don't want to be hemmed in by your own rules. Remember the phrase: "Wide Latitude"

No words above 10th grade level. The word germain, which virtually nobody knows means relevant, must be avoided.

No cutting and pasting. It has to be written from scratch. I'd love to rewrite it. I'd do it for free. Okay forget it, you bunch of ultamegasuperdupergoofballs.

And when I rewrite it, see my signature below? That's staying in. That is so beautiful. The founding fathers knew exactly what they were doing.

(except it's "germane" :) carry on)

Okay here's a PDGA Constitution Question: Why doesn't the PDGA leadership follow its own constitution? I spoke with a BOD guy (he probably doesn't want me to name him) about this very issue, and he admitted the PDGA Constitution needs to be rewritten, and he implicitly acknowledged that it isn't being adhered to by claiming that the founding fathers hadn't clearly thought-out what it would be like to run an organization the PDGA's size.

The PDGA takes some liberties with its Executive Sessions, which exclude everyone but a small group, and secret salaries, and as policy not publicizing disciplinary actions. Yeah, I know about their disciplanary actions. They hold trials on the phone and don't invite the defendant.

Where do players bring their grievances against the PDGA? Who polices the PDGA? We do, the members and non-members. And very ineffectively. Everyone really should have a voice. Hey, we have to plow through mounds of Nickolodian on a daily basis just to keep up a decent conversation.



[satire mode fully engaged]
Jason, these are dangerous times and we are fighting a war on terror. lets' just say your post has triggered a wiretap and let's leave it here: lose the tagline about "Article 5, Section 10 of the PDGA Constitution" -- it's no longer germane :eek: /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

(except it's "germane" :) carry on)



That's ANOTHER reason never to use it. Don't use words you can't spell.

Yes, the Constitution needs to be overhauled. Not condoning anarchy but I think some of the places where the Board has been less forthcoming have benefited the association. In other words, if it hadn't been done, nothing would have happened at all in terms of disciplinary action, for example. In this litigious environment, I would probably not participate on a disciplinary panel without a certain amount of communication protection. Now that we have staff, employment law is also dicey and again, hires and fires have certain rights. Again, I wouldn't want some of the communications on the hiring or firing panel to be made public with my name attached.

So, our Constitution needs to be updated to reflect the realities of the legal climate.

We're spending way too much type on this discussion board on how to communicate rather than spending it on actual communications that have any content worth something to those who read it. The Board and staff have already stated this is not the place for communicating to them in any formal way. Whatever content or points Mikey might have made were not made in the proper forum such that he could get action. His points, whatever they might be, just stirred up other conspiracy theorists who also weren't in a position to do anything about them via the Discussion Board.

The stirring up part is certainly fine for free speech to the extent it's allowed on this forum. But the ranting mechanism of his delivery crossed the line and was especially wasted effort because it wasn't directed in a way that those in authority would respond by policy. Email the Board members. Email the office. Call the office. Write the office. Talk with them in person at events throughout the year. Write a commentary in a disc golf publication. Those are all channels for communication open to members. Just don't use the Discussion Board for official discourse.

BTW, they've tried to get a rewrite underway several times in the past 10 years or so. But the volunteer in charge, sometimes mysteriously, resigns before the job can get done or even started in some cases. Not sure if it's the work of those secret meetings but the conspiracy folks probably have a theory... /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

I've written two short ones so far, without civil war, so my offer remains.

I'm going to have a little trouble disguising in the mission statement that the PDGA exists to perpetuate itself...and therefore can continue to benefit the great sport of disc golf. The words are out there, it's just putting them in the right order and using periods and capital letters at the right time that's hard.

No two spaces after periods from now on EVER, cool?

The Board and staff have already stated this is not the place for communicating to them in any formal way.



That's an interesting policy Chuck. Was that put into place before this here discussion page went no non-member?

It's been a long standing policy on this board stated by various Board members and staffers. I think the primary reason is that topics can pass thru a page or two of posts between the time someone logs in on one day and then a day or two later. Key requests for info would get buried in the threads making it hard to have any kind of formal dialog.

The PDGA Announcements are the only formal part of this Board but those are just one way communications.

The Board and staff have already stated this is not the place for communicating to them in any formal way.


However, if what you're trying to communicate is negative, then they listen... and they ban you.

The Board and staff have already stated this is not the place for communicating to them in any formal way.


However, if what you're trying to communicate is negative, then they listen... and they ban you.



Not entirely accurate, Vince. It's when the negativity turns into personal attacks that people get banned. I have seen many instances here of people saying they don't agree with a policy or think that a Board member is not doing an adequate job. But when it starts getting into calling so and so an [I'm a potty-mouth!] or saying that someone smells bad, that's when they get banned. It's simply not courteous or productive to debate an issue using personal attacks.

Maybe there should be a thread devoted to personal attacks for those members that get off on that kind of stuff.

(except it's "germane" :) carry on)



He was so totally my favorite Jackson. Was he the one with the Moon Boots?g

I think the ones that get banned quickly are the ones attacking the PDGA or the it's image.

Dissent when phrased in a non confrontational or demeaning manner is one thing. Offensive, confrontational or disparaging remarks are a different thing altogether. If you want your points heard, phrase them in a positive manner. Be ready to discuss and defend your points with facts and your concerns when challenged. If it is a credible complaint, you will gather others to your side. If the majority don't agree with your position, it may be time to drop the discussion.



It's true that it might seem like most who are suspended are being critical of the PDGA. Very understandable.

However, those who have their privileges suspended are nearly always those who someone has drawn our attention to. There are only a handful of threads I personally read, and sometimes I skip a week or two. I can't possibly read and deal with every inappropriate posting. Often it is a PDGA leader at some level who is near to tears about the negativity and personal attacks of a poster.

Some of the folks reading this know personally of suspensions of posting privileges I've done based on their alerting me to something bad; the majority of suspensions and warnings I have implemented have NOT been of people criticizing the PDGA.

BTW, I completely disagree that if someone's arguments stay in the minority, they should think of stopping. They just keep them reasonable, nonflammable, and nonpersonal; and try to be clear that their intent is overall positive.

And, as Chuck has clearly pointed out, just talk to PDGA leaders. Whenever I am at a tournament and the TD will let me, I announce at the players meeting that folks should grab me and talk my ear off if they want to. I think every board member feels the same way.

I nominate Gary for Communication Director.

Is that good enough Terry or do I need to mail it in?



I don't know if the call for nominations is open yet, but you definitely need to mail it in to the office. Try info(-at-)pdga.com. (Ignore the extra characters and the missing "@", that's to reduce the chance of harvester adding the address to spam lists.)

BTW, I am not planning to run for re-election to the communication director position.

I�d like to discuss a few of the points Jason Southwick brought up and ask him a few questions in return.

He asked why doesn�t the PDGA leadership follow its own constitution? Now, I don�t have any proof that they don�t, but if I did, the real question remains has it caused any real harm to the goals or our organization. And to Mr. Southwick; I thought you were �Mr. Anarchy�; why the sudden double standard? I thought you just stated that rules and standards are unnecessary? Why the sudden change of heart? Are we to understand that you �ALWAYS� follow the rules and laws of the land? (Let he without sin cast the first stone�)

Similar to Mike, Jason makes accusations yet supplies no proof, no evidence, only innuendo and hearsay, then expects the rest of us to believe that it is �truth�. He says the Mike Keernan speaks the truth. That would seem to imply that the degree of truth something has is measured by how disrespectful, rude and hostile one can be. His feud with Brian a while back seems to clearly confirm this definition of truth.

Here is an opinion: I think Jason and Mike�s anger and attacks are an attempt to regain some sense of control they feel they have lost. For what else is anger but a futile attempt to regain control? Need proof, watch a 2 year old.

Personally, I don�t hate Jason or Mike. I think they speak without thinking and that they are often misguided and a little insecure, but then again that is an affliction we all face from time to time. It�s pretty clear that they lack a certain ability for empathy, for understanding the situations of others; that they demand more of others than they do of themselves. This is no crime, it is however grounds for removal of message board privileges when brought to the extremes they have demonstrated.

They do make a convincing case for the total removal of this message board, but that would be letting them basically get what they want anyway, so I agree with those that want to set monitoring standards to protect against such witch-hunting expeditions.

That's a lot of weird talk Nick, linking me directly with Mikey's recent tirades and personal attacks. Michael and I say different things, though it's easier to characaturize both of us together as anarchists. My posts, if you've noticed, have been absent of personal vindictiveness and focus on improvements, and changing the way some things are done. If you weren't such a HUGE GOOFBALL Nick you'd realize that. We need to offer "Have You Hugged a Goofball Today" t-shirts (hey, polos, why not?) with your picture Nick, getting a big hug.

Speaking of hugs, it's gotten out of hand. We're pretty much manly handshake kinda guys up here in New England, and Bob Graham and Jason Johnson show up and soon we're a bunch of non-heterosexuals engaging in a hugfest. I don't know what to think about it. Of course the gesture is appreciated, but we're putting up table barriers during awards. Iiiiiiii'm just kidding. I like it. It's great getting outside yourself once in a while. Now we give big manly hugs. It's okay.

But back to Nick, I won't give you a point for point response your last post was so loaded with double-talk. Don't see you're denying any of MY accusations, but I will propose the truth of my statement that the PDGA Leadership does not adhere to its own PDGA Constitution is valid, as the Board does not publicize its disciplinary actions. Personally, I'd like to know what it takes to get banished. We only get rumors. Dum.

So I'm suggesting rewriting the PDGA Constitution to better reflect reality and give said Leadership more leeway in its efforts to further promote the sport.

That's cool Jason, then to be fair I'll propose the truth of my statement that you do not follow the PDGA Event Standards nor the laws of the United States of America.

Now prove that you do...

You can't respond to my points because you're too busy concentrating on talking out of both sides of your mouth.

I do like how you avoided personal attacks though, classic as always...

A debate between NicK and Jason would be like a debate between George W. Bush and Bill Clinton.

jason says that the pdga doesnt follow its own constitution, and provides examples and proposes a rewrite as a solution.

nick responsds by belittling jason, accuses him of breaking the law, offers no examples, implies that jason is a hypocrite, and closes with a snide personal attack.

hmmmmm...

jason, if i were you i would file a formal complaint with the monitors and BOD and request nick's banishment. calling you a criminal is outside of acceptable discussion boundaries by any standard.

1) I bet Jason can stand up for himself.

2) Maybe the board moderators can take it upon themselves to rise above the petty squabbling and personal sniping that take place in this very public face of the PDGA. I'd bet that many people learn about PDGA at this web site and in these forums. What do visiting non-members, potential sponsors, parks departments, school boards who are considering adding DG to their curriculum or whoever else, think when they read here ?

3) Time for everyone to grow up, please



jason says that the pdga doesnt follow its own constitution, and provides examples and proposes a rewrite as a solution.

nick responsds by belittling jason, accuses him of breaking the law, offers no examples, implies that jason is a hypocrite, and closes with a snide personal attack.

hmmmmm...

jason, if i were you i would file a formal complaint with the monitors and BOD and request nick's banishment. calling you a criminal is outside of acceptable discussion boundaries by any standard.

I do like how you avoided personal attacks though, classic as always...



It would be nice for you to do the same. No smiley.

That's a lot of weird talk Nick, linking me directly with Mikey's recent tirades and personal attacks. Michael and I say different things, though it's easier to characaturize both of us together as anarchists. My posts, if you've noticed, have been absent of personal vindictiveness and focus on improvements, and changing the way some things are done. If you weren't such a HUGE GOOFBALL Nick you'd realize that. We need to offer "Have You Hugged a Goofball Today" t-shirts (hey, polos, why not?) with your picture Nick, getting a big hug.

Speaking of hugs, it's gotten out of hand. We're pretty much manly handshake kinda guys up here in New England, and Bob Graham and Jason Johnson show up and soon we're a bunch of non-heterosexuals engaging in a hugfest. I don't know what to think about it. Of course the gesture is appreciated, but we're putting up table barriers during awards. Iiiiiiii'm just kidding. I like it. It's great getting outside yourself once in a while. Now we give big manly hugs. It's okay.

But back to Nick, I won't give you a point for point response your last post was so loaded with double-talk. Don't see you're denying any of MY accusations, but I will propose the truth of my statement that the PDGA Leadership does not adhere to its own PDGA Constitution is valid, as the Board does not publicize its disciplinary actions. Personally, I'd like to know what it takes to get banished. We only get rumors. Dum.

So I'm suggesting rewriting the PDGA Constitution to better reflect reality and give said Leadership more leeway in its efforts to further promote the sport.



Nick, you just got double pimp-slapped by Jason...

Wait, isn't that asking me to prove a negative? (Is that what it's called?) Can't prove a negative, which in this case is proving I never break the law. It's some logical thing. Think about it. Prove you've never had a beer during a round. It's different from proving you've HAD a beer during a round.

PDGA Event Standards? Geez, yeah we follow those. I've been out on patrol at all the PDGA events I've run -- a handful. And we followed all the other rules I think. No beer during rounds at the A-Tier we ran. Before the infamous no beer rule we ran a couple PDGA events with beer during rounds. It was great.

But basically your response to my allegations is to suggest my arguments are invalid because I must also break the rules, be they PDGA rules or laws of the land, is lame. Can you seriously state that to point out improprieties you have to be perfect yourself, with a perfect record? Those are pretty high standards.

Nick your position here doesn't hold beer. It doesn't even hold water. But I sense the poor readers tire of such debate.

How about this idea? Now that we're an all-member discussion page, maybe the BOD should reconsider it's long-held position of not responding "officially" to discussion page posts. Ideas are ideas; BOD members are invited to join in, too.

Openly addressing discussion page posts would definitely be conducting affairs in the open. Not to harp too much on that little constitutional matter. Vince succinctly pointed out that you can get banned from discussion page posting, and PaulM also had some things to say about the selective banning of posters railing against PDGA Leaders, versus the hundreds of other people who's characters are impugned (by Nick) on a daily basis. To give Nick his due he's not the PDGA Volunteer of the Year (2005) for nothing. He gets out there and stirs the pot, and his posts are more misguided than malicious. Jeff L, by contrast, comes on a bit too strong in his anti-Nick crusade, and I for one of many wish he would just stop already. It's horrible, self-killing. Remember where this is coming from.

nick responsds by belittling jason, accuses him of breaking the law, offers no examples, implies that jason is a hypocrite, and closes with a snide personal attack.



I was just making a point.
Or expressing an opinion.
Or if you like, finding fault.

Remember? Just like Mike, without the personal insults or flaming.

Find fault all you want Nick I'll always give you enough rope to hang me with, just make sure your feet don't get all tangled up when I go down. Now there's a t-shirt picture. Steve, we have to do more irreverant t-shirt pictures OR TOWEL PICTURES, with incredibly brilliant jokes that only three people get. Those three people, though, will laugh their heads off. All sizes all colors, of course.

My accusations were as nebulous as yours and Mikes were towards the PDGA (and devoid of the insulting adjectives). And I don�t expect a public defense for the precise same reasons I don�t expect one from whomever you are impugning on the PDGA BOD. More than that this would be as inappropriate a place for such a process for you as it would for them. Jason, my point is that it is a total waist of time for you to prove a negative, just as it would be for the PDGA BOD Members you ask the same of.

The only comment I make on your accusations is that they are completely inappropriate for this forum, and actually wouldn�t be much good in any other forum either.

Still, if you really have a formal complaint then you should follow that same �Constitution� you keep harping on and go through proper channels. Have you? Have you even tried beyond nasty emails and public diatribes in various online forums? Have you read the �Constitution�? Do you know the process?

I don�t even want to know your accusations until you have actually exhausted the formal and correct channels, and even then I�m not interested in these mob witch-hunts. What exactly in your experience leads you to believe that a public shouting match on this mess bored would resolve or accomplish anything anyway!?! Seriously? Have you ever seen anything truly positive and productive accomplished here?

As a volunteer yourself, you should be well acquainted with where the real work gets done.

Jason, if you really care about this, and it is not just a case of you liking to see our PDGA volunteers squirm under your public insinuations, then please write up your precise complaints and name exact names of who you are accusing, and send it into PDGA BOD. If you don�t get satisfaction, then send them to leaders around the PDGA who could possibly help you get satisfaction. But please spare disc golf these damaging public innuendos and barbaric witch-hunts that ARE (as you know) impossible to resolve here anyway.

You wouldn�t want it done to you, so don�t do it to our sport. Golden Rule type of thing�

Find fault all you want Nick I'll always give you enough rope to hang me with, just make sure your feet don't get all tangled up when I go down. Now there's a t-shirt picture. Steve, we have to do more irreverant t-shirt pictures OR TOWEL PICTURES, with incredibly brilliant jokes that only three people get. Those three people, though, will laugh their heads off. All sizes all colors, of course.



I thought that's what my post was...


nick responsds by belittling jason, accuses him of breaking the law, offers no examples, implies that jason is a hypocrite, and closes with a snide personal attack.



I was just making a point.
Or expressing an opinion.
Or if you like, finding fault.

Remember? Just like Mike, without the personal insults or flaming.

nick why do conversations in which you take part so frequently turn into such a beating? you really do think you are god's gift to disc golf, dont you.

Now that's a good one : " god's gift to disc golf". :D

Jason, thanks for that good post. That was pointing out a possible negitive without bashing anyone. Just saying there might be a problem.

I have no idea why Nick had to come on and then bash you for it.

I for one liked your post and would like to see some more discusion about it.

I have no idea why Nick had to come on and then bash you for it.

cuz thats how he makes up for his SHORTcomings. now stop bringing me into this thread title! :eek:

How is what I did "bashing" but what Jason does and condones Mike for "pointing out a possible negitive without bashing anyone"?

I have no idea why Nick had to come on and then bash you for it.

cuz thats how he makes up for his SHORTcomings. now stop bringing me into this thread title! :eek:



Pat, it's bad form for PDGA DISCussion Board Monitors to flame at users. If you have a complaint then let Terry know about it, if not then put a sock in it. You toddling along behind me everywhere posting garbage has got to be embarrasing to you. It would be to most folks.

So you purposely bait Pat by putting his name in the title in different ways then tell him he looks bad for following you around????

Appears to me you do what ever it takes to get certain people to respond to you in all these threads. Is it embarrassing to you that the only way anyone will talk to you is if you bait them into petty arguments? :D

You are a hard fellow to figure out. :confused: :D

hey Nick, sandalman is NOT a monitor. its downright HILARIOUS for YOU to be lecturing anyone about proper form on the discussion board.

honestly, Nick, and in all seriousness, i am about 30 seconds away from ceasing all of my PDGA volunteer activities because of you.

cannot you see how sanctimoniously and degradingly you treat others??? :confused: :mad::confused:

I figure that the subject line should indicate the topic. A public service announcement if you will.

I don't go out of my way to insult anyone, certainly, I don't follow them around from thread to thread repying to their every post and threatening to ban them because of some personal grudge. That's crazy...

hey Nick, sandalman is NOT a monitor. its downright HILARIOUS for YOU to be lecturing anyone about proper form on the discussion board.

honestly, Nick, and in all seriousness, i am about 30 seconds away from ceasing all of my PDGA volunteer activities because of you.

cannot you see how sanctimoniously and degradingly you treat others??? :confused: :mad::confused:



Oh please. Don't be so melodramatic. Why does everything have to be a superlative with you?

you really think i am following you on every thread? how did you get so full of yourself? you need to burp or something. after that, make a list of "your" threads so that i may know to what territory i should restrict myself.

You guys are funny. I don't have the time to read or keep up on these threads, but it seems its always the same, LAME. Go play golf or something.

It works for me. You should try it, Pat.

yes. every time i take him off ignore i regret it.

Why are there so many people who just follow Nick around on every thread?

it does make one wonder, doesnt it

Can a moderator hack into Nick's settings and turn ignore on for every member? Although, he'd still find a way to debate "You are ignoring this user" :)

We're spending way too much type on this discussion board on how to communicate rather than spending it on actual communications that have any content worth something to those who read it. The Board and staff have already stated this is not the place for communicating to them in any formal way. Whatever content or points Mikey might have made were not made in the proper forum such that he could get action. His points, whatever they might be, just stirred up other conspiracy theorists who also weren't in a position to do anything about them via the Discussion Board.

The stirring up part is certainly fine for free speech to the extent it's allowed on this forum. But the ranting mechanism of his delivery crossed the line and was especially wasted effort because it wasn't directed in a way that those in authority would respond by policy. Email the Board members. Email the office. Call the office. Write the office. Talk with them in person at events throughout the year. Write a commentary in a disc golf publication. Those are all channels for communication open to members. Just don't use the Discussion Board for official discourse.


I see. So the easiest, most open way to talk to the PDGA is off limits.

The PDGA should be open to every line of communication, especially the most available one, on their very own website, which for heaven's sake is MONITORED by PDGA leaders!!!!! Enough so that bad talk about PDGA leaders brings them nearly to tears and forces other PDGA leaders to ban them, according to another post from Terry.

And the worst offender of personal attacks, meanwhile, goes on about attacking everyone here, and appears to feel immune to banning. I guess no one has the ear of a PDGA leader like another PDGA leader, who wants to ban someone. The rest are lumped in to some conspiracy basket.

(Calling us conspiracy theorists, is that the way the PDGA sees the rest of us who complain? And isn't THAT also a form of personal attack? Or is it just condescension, which is also not a good thing in a discussion forum?)

Why are there so many people who just follow Nick around on every thread?



1) Because no "following" is required. Nick is already on nearly every thread.

2) Because he baits everyone with trolling posts.

3) Because Nick thinks that his idea of the PDGA and disc golf is the right way and the only way. It is essential to the future of the PDGA and disc golf that he be kept in check.

I see. So the easiest, most open way to talk to the PDGA is off limits.

What's "easiest," Paul? Is it all that much harder to send an email message or to make a telephone call? The answer, of course, is "No." And emails and phone calls are certainly no tougher to do than sending a PM in here, which is functionality I really dislike for its cumbersomeness.

What does make it "tougher" to send an email or make a phone call is the knowledge that (a) you will actually get through to someone, which means that (b) you will actually have to engage in a real conversation with someone without the anonymity of DISCussion and with the requirement that the conversation be back and forth instead of one way, expecting reality checks that can be handled as they occur.

What is "hard-to-impossible" is to make DISCussion a major, official channel for communications with the PDGA. If you just sat down for a moment and thought about how much time it would take to find and read every post in here, filter it for PDGA responses, and then make those responses - you'd realize that you are asking for a fulltime staff person. So, am I right that you want to propose that to the board and we should implement a $5-per-membership dues increase to hire someone just to monitor and respond in DISCussion?

I am a moderator in here, and a board member. Sometimes I am here every day but other times I easily go a week or more at a time and don't think to come here unless someone - you got it(!) sends me an email or an IM to let me know about something.

Quite frankly, if someone has a message for me - like a personal one that they really care about - I would consider them an id**t if they posted here and expected me to "catch" it. Even if you PM me, it may be a week before I check PMs. I check email 50x a day and my phone is on 24x7.

I would consider them an id**t ...

watch out terry, just last week a user got himself banned for "creative" ways around the bad words filter. :D

I would consider them an id**t ...

watch out terry, just last week a user got himself banned for "creative" ways around the bad words filter. :D



Absolutely, but the word I used is only inappropriate if it is used to describe a real individual - I used it to describe a hypothetical individual. I would *never* call you, or anyone else on here, an Id**t. I just don't "call names," by default, doing so is always less precise and less functional than using the right words.

What is "hard-to-impossible" is to make DISCussion a major, official channel for communications with the PDGA. If you just sat down for a moment and thought about how much time it would take to find and read every post in here, filter it for PDGA responses, and then make those responses - you'd realize that you are asking for a fulltime staff person. So, am I right that you want to propose that to the board and we should implement a $5-per-membership dues increase to hire someone just to monitor and respond in DISCussion?


Well, that's an unexpected interpretation. I'm asking why it should be that no communications are permitted between members and leaders on this forum, and you're wondering why I'm asking for all communications to be listened to, each and every post to be read and responded to.

If a PDGA leader happens across a post here, I think it's okay for him or her to respond to it, as you did here. You don't have to read each and every post. That would be absolutely ridiculous, and it's just a straw man to knock down that misses my point.

If a PDGA leader sees a post from a PDGA member that makes a legitimate point -- if he sees it -- then why shouldn't he respond to that post here? Why, as Chuck seemed to infer, is this a place where that post can be legitimately ignored by PDGA leaders because it didn't come through "official channels"? If a leader sees it here, he can respond to it here. That's all I'm saying.

Of course, there are other avenues of communications -- emails and phone calls. I have no problems with them and I am not saying this forum replaces a good conversation between two people.

But saying that this forum is a place where no good information can pass from member to leader, none at all, should have been contradicted by PDGA leaders, not actually stated by one leader (Chuck) and apparently backed up by another (yourself).

We all have a chance to contribute here. That's one of the benefits of this discussion board. There are of course no guarantees that any PDGA leader will see what we say -- and I'm not asking you to make any -- but I am asking for you and other leaders to not intentionally ignore what we say just because we post it here.

(And in that spirit, thanks for your time and thanks for reading this!)

The Board and staff have already stated this is not the place for communicating to them in any formal way...

Whatever content or points Mikey might have made were not made in the proper forum such that he could get action...

His points, whatever they might be, just stirred up other conspiracy theorists who also weren't in a position to do anything about them via the Discussion Board...

Email the Board members. Email the office. Call the office. Write the office. Talk with them in person...

Those are all channels for communication open to members. Just don't use the Discussion Board for official discourse.


Just a reminder that this is what I was originally responding to.

I think a discussion board, a tool among many used by leaders to talk with rest of us, is another tool among many that we can use to speak with leaders -- and with others who may also one day be this sports' leaders.

I think you cover the why's in your post, Paul. If a BOD member answers some posts and doesn't answer other posts, it is immediately assumed that the BOD member is ignoring the posts that weren't answered.

Theo, Terry, Bruce when he was on the BOD, guru when escapes his restraints, and other PDGA volunteers answer posts that they come across here when they see them and when it strikes their fancy. Just like any other message board user.

The problem, IMO, lies in asking specific organizational questions of the leaders via this forum and expecting an official response. If the question is not seen then it breeds ill-will as people like to assume the worst and assume it is being ignored.

If official channels are used to submit those kinds of questions, you can be assured they are being ignored. :)

I hope you see what I mean. The current state of the message board really does not lend itself to official business. You really have to get lucky to sustain any kind of meaningful dialog about anything on here.

is it just me, or does Rhett sound a lot like Nick in the above post? :eek:

2 real items.

1. I spend a great deal of time on this board, and I can't keep up with every thread. Just keeping an eye on the Texas specific stuff in the general threads is tough. I don't even try to keep up with the Texas stuff in the Club threads. To expect anyone to see and respond to all messages that might be aimed at them is asking more or them than most people could do.

2. Official communication often requires determining an official position. With a board, that takes more time than this format expects. Personal opinions from holders of official postions are too often interpreted as official comments for anyone to speak off the cuff.

is it just me, or does Rhett sound a lot like Nick in the above post? :eek:

interesting question. let's take it line by line and see if we can gain any insight.

<font color="blue">"I think you cover the why's in your post, Paul. If a BOD member answers some posts and doesn't answer other posts, it is immediately assumed that the BOD member is ignoring the posts that weren't answered."</font> the reasonable nature of this response indicates that if it was nick, then it surely was written on a day when he took his meds. otherwise there would have been a denigrating comment to paul, perhaps a complaint that Paul posted after him on the thread, and almost certainly followup statements about conspiracy theorists.



<font color="blue"> "Theo, Terry, Bruce when he was on the BOD, guru when escapes his restraints, and other PDGA volunteers answer posts that they come across here when they see them and when it strikes their fancy. Just like any other message board user."</font> Nick never would have mentioned guru escaping his restraints. first, it's truly funny, and we all know that chances of that. second, he wouldnt come that close to poking fun at any of the old-school good-ol-boy network, which is god-like in his eyes. likewise, he would never put them in the same class as "any other message board user" because such a categorization would remove them from Olympus and render them equal to the unwashed masses.

<font color="blue"> The problem, IMO, lies in asking specific organizational questions of the leaders via this forum and expecting an official response. If the question is not seen then it breeds ill-will as people like to assume the worst and assume it is being ignored.</font> The only thing that gives this one away as non-Nick is the use of "IMO". Nick does not use such phrases, because His O is the only one that counts, and besides its not O(pinion), its F(act).

<font color="blue">If official channels are used to submit those kinds of questions, you can be assured they are being ignored.</font>beside the successful delivering of humor, which we covered earlier, the sentence could only become Nick-like were it to include a lament about the unthankfulness of the proletariet regarding the hours and hours of work put in by volunteers, and a challenge to Paul to shut up until he does something, anything, to further the sport.


<font color="blue"> I hope you see what I mean. The current state of the message board really does not lend itself to official business. You really have to get lucky to sustain any kind of meaningful dialog about anything on here.</font> To be from Nick, the first sentence would need to read something like "only an iidot would not agree with me" instead of expressing an honest and sincere desire for concensus. Also, this one is blatantly non-Nick-like because it recognizes the true nature of the board. as we all know, Nick actually believes his postings ARE both meaningful and dialog.

:D

:D

Pat, now look for the similarities. i thought the differences were implicit, and forgot your tendency to pounce and attack Nick (that almost reminds me of Nick too) :eek:

you may have just hit the ball out of the park, but it was like teeball and the fences weren't far :D

yes, it was a tad easy.

to your point though the primary similarity i see is someone making a post that reads as if it represents official pdga dogma when in fact the poster is not the offical pdga.

(no offense rhett, it might "read that way, but i believe most of us boarders know you didnt mean it that way)

...and a challenge to Paul to shut up until he does something, anything, to further the sport.


Pat, you forgot to add "and go read the rulebook" to the above statement. :D

Although it's a good idea for everyone, when Nick says it, it somehow comes across as condescending... go figure.

to your point though the primary similarity i see is someone making a post that reads as if it represents official pdga dogma when in fact the poster is not the offical pdga.




"To punish me for my contempt for authority, fate made me an authority myself" -- Albert Einstein
;)

I liked Rhett's response, too.

I think you cover the why's in your post, Paul. If a BOD member answers some posts and doesn't answer other posts, it is immediately assumed that the BOD member is ignoring the posts that weren't answered.

Theo, Terry, Bruce when he was on the BOD, guru when escapes his restraints, and other PDGA volunteers answer posts that they come across here when they see them and when it strikes their fancy. Just like any other message board user.

The problem, IMO, lies in asking specific organizational questions of the leaders via this forum and expecting an official response. If the question is not seen then it breeds ill-will as people like to assume the worst and assume it is being ignored.

If official channels are used to submit those kinds of questions, you can be assured they are being ignored. :)

I hope you see what I mean. The current state of the message board really does not lend itself to official business. You really have to get lucky to sustain any kind of meaningful dialog about anything on here.


I guess the logjam here is using the board for "official" communication with PDGA leaders, as if we're trying to get the final word from them.

I guess my point was not to get the final word from PDGA leaders, but to use this forum to provide some measure of feedback to them. Even without getting "official" responses, this is a forum where leaders can obtain a portion of feedback on one of their decisions.

My contention is that people aren't completely wasting their time posting concerns they have with the PDGA here. They may not get direct responses from a leader, but it seems disingenuous to me to say that this is not the place to communicate a problem. A concern raised on this discussion board, if it is valid, has a chance of getting through.

This board is a kind of litmus test to see if the concern is a wild hair, anyway. If everyone else pounces and says you're wrong, you're less likely to take the next step and push your concern through "official channels", aren't you? I would think leaders would want crazy ideas tested here first before the leaders themselves are subjected to those ideas "officially".

So I do think this forum has value, and posting concerns here that people have about the PDGA is not an improper thing. And I think that if leaders choose not to respond here, for the perfectly valid reasons that Rhett listed, fine. Some leaders will see the concerns here and will possibly remember them later, when an "official" communication takes place. Or maybe future leaders will see and remember those concerns -- they may even respond here as they read them -- and later, if they think some ideas have merit, then later they might do something about them.

What I'm doing is promoting this board, not knocking it down.

I guess I should expect you to remain filled with contempt and hate towards me indefinitely. To continue to provoke even when opportunity to find common ground is right there. Better to belittle and denigrate, the very things you accuse me of.

Just don�t expect me to reciprocate, I�ll leave such behavior (clearly) to our two PDGA DISCussion Board Monitors.



is it just me, or does Rhett sound a lot like Nick in the above post? :eek:

interesting question. let's take it line by line and see if we can gain any insight.

<font color="blue">"I think you cover the why's in your post, Paul. If a BOD member answers some posts and doesn't answer other posts, it is immediately assumed that the BOD member is ignoring the posts that weren't answered."</font> the reasonable nature of this response indicates that if it was nick, then it surely was written on a day when he took his meds. otherwise there would have been a denigrating comment to paul, perhaps a complaint that Paul posted after him on the thread, and almost certainly followup statements about conspiracy theorists.



<font color="blue"> "Theo, Terry, Bruce when he was on the BOD, guru when escapes his restraints, and other PDGA volunteers answer posts that they come across here when they see them and when it strikes their fancy. Just like any other message board user."</font> Nick never would have mentioned guru escaping his restraints. first, it's truly funny, and we all know that chances of that. second, he wouldnt come that close to poking fun at any of the old-school good-ol-boy network, which is god-like in his eyes. likewise, he would never put them in the same class as "any other message board user" because such a categorization would remove them from Olympus and render them equal to the unwashed masses.

<font color="blue"> The problem, IMO, lies in asking specific organizational questions of the leaders via this forum and expecting an official response. If the question is not seen then it breeds ill-will as people like to assume the worst and assume it is being ignored.</font> The only thing that gives this one away as non-Nick is the use of "IMO". Nick does not use such phrases, because His O is the only one that counts, and besides its not O(pinion), its F(act).

<font color="blue">If official channels are used to submit those kinds of questions, you can be assured they are being ignored.</font>beside the successful delivering of humor, which we covered earlier, the sentence could only become Nick-like were it to include a lament about the unthankfulness of the proletariet regarding the hours and hours of work put in by volunteers, and a challenge to Paul to shut up until he does something, anything, to further the sport.


<font color="blue"> I hope you see what I mean. The current state of the message board really does not lend itself to official business. You really have to get lucky to sustain any kind of meaningful dialog about anything on here.</font> To be from Nick, the first sentence would need to read something like "only an iidot would not agree with me" instead of expressing an honest and sincere desire for concensus. Also, this one is blatantly non-Nick-like because it recognizes the true nature of the board. as we all know, Nick actually believes his postings ARE both meaningful and dialog.

:D

I do too.
I liked your post as well.
As well as Terry's.


I liked Rhett's response, too.

I think you cover the why's in your post, Paul. If a BOD member answers some posts and doesn't answer other posts, it is immediately assumed that the BOD member is ignoring the posts that weren't answered.

Theo, Terry, Bruce when he was on the BOD, guru when escapes his restraints, and other PDGA volunteers answer posts that they come across here when they see them and when it strikes their fancy. Just like any other message board user.

The problem, IMO, lies in asking specific organizational questions of the leaders via this forum and expecting an official response. If the question is not seen then it breeds ill-will as people like to assume the worst and assume it is being ignored.

If official channels are used to submit those kinds of questions, you can be assured they are being ignored. :)

I hope you see what I mean. The current state of the message board really does not lend itself to official business. You really have to get lucky to sustain any kind of meaningful dialog about anything on here.


I guess the logjam here is using the board for "official" communication with PDGA leaders, as if we're trying to get the final word from them.

I guess my point was not to get the final word from PDGA leaders, but to use this forum to provide some measure of feedback to them. Even without getting "official" responses, this is a forum where leaders can obtain a portion of feedback on one of their decisions.

My contention is that people aren't completely wasting their time posting concerns they have with the PDGA here. They may not get direct responses from a leader, but it seems disingenuous to me to say that this is not the place to communicate a problem. A concern raised on this discussion board, if it is valid, has a chance of getting through.

This board is a kind of litmus test to see if the concern is a wild hair, anyway. If everyone else pounces and says you're wrong, you're less likely to take the next step and push your concern through "official channels", aren't you? I would think leaders would want crazy ideas tested here first before the leaders themselves are subjected to those ideas "officially".

So I do think this forum has value, and posting concerns here that people have about the PDGA is not an improper thing. And I think that if leaders choose not to respond here, for the perfectly valid reasons that Rhett listed, fine. Some leaders will see the concerns here and will possibly remember them later, when an "official" communication takes place. Or maybe future leaders will see and remember those concerns -- they may even respond here as they read them -- and later, if they think some ideas have merit, then later they might do something about them.

What I'm doing is promoting this board, not knocking it down.

sandalman is not a board monitor nor a moderator.

He has been doing an awesome job of coding stuff for the message board.

Don't get confused about what he does.

I know what Pat has done, and praised him for his work, unlike his public declaration of my "amateurish work".

He has claimed to be a monitor here on the discussion board.

He has also threatened to ban me himself.

Thanks for the info.

Pat doesn't moderate the board and has made it clear that he has no desire whatsoever to do so.

Which doesn't mean that he couldn't ban you.

Just that he isn't supposed to.

:D:cool::D

I guess I should expect you to remain filled with contempt and hate towards me indefinitely. To continue to provoke even when opportunity to find common ground is right there. Better to belittle and denigrate, the very things you accuse me of.

Just don�t expect me to reciprocate, I�ll leave such behavior (clearly) to our two PDGA DISCussion Board Monitors.



is it just me, or does Rhett sound a lot like Nick in the above post? :eek:

interesting question. let's take it line by line and see if we can gain any insight.

<font color="blue">"I think you cover the why's in your post, Paul. If a BOD member answers some posts and doesn't answer other posts, it is immediately assumed that the BOD member is ignoring the posts that weren't answered."</font> the reasonable nature of this response indicates that if it was nick, then it surely was written on a day when he took his meds. otherwise there would have been a denigrating comment to paul, perhaps a complaint that Paul posted after him on the thread, and almost certainly followup statements about conspiracy theorists.



<font color="blue"> "Theo, Terry, Bruce when he was on the BOD, guru when escapes his restraints, and other PDGA volunteers answer posts that they come across here when they see them and when it strikes their fancy. Just like any other message board user."</font> Nick never would have mentioned guru escaping his restraints. first, it's truly funny, and we all know that chances of that. second, he wouldnt come that close to poking fun at any of the old-school good-ol-boy network, which is god-like in his eyes. likewise, he would never put them in the same class as "any other message board user" because such a categorization would remove them from Olympus and render them equal to the unwashed masses.

<font color="blue"> The problem, IMO, lies in asking specific organizational questions of the leaders via this forum and expecting an official response. If the question is not seen then it breeds ill-will as people like to assume the worst and assume it is being ignored.</font> The only thing that gives this one away as non-Nick is the use of "IMO". Nick does not use such phrases, because His O is the only one that counts, and besides its not O(pinion), its F(act).

<font color="blue">If official channels are used to submit those kinds of questions, you can be assured they are being ignored.</font>beside the successful delivering of humor, which we covered earlier, the sentence could only become Nick-like were it to include a lament about the unthankfulness of the proletariet regarding the hours and hours of work put in by volunteers, and a challenge to Paul to shut up until he does something, anything, to further the sport.


<font color="blue"> I hope you see what I mean. The current state of the message board really does not lend itself to official business. You really have to get lucky to sustain any kind of meaningful dialog about anything on here.</font> To be from Nick, the first sentence would need to read something like "only an iidot would not agree with me" instead of expressing an honest and sincere desire for concensus. Also, this one is blatantly non-Nick-like because it recognizes the true nature of the board. as we all know, Nick actually believes his postings ARE both meaningful and dialog.

:D





obviously you missed the :Dat the end.

i think the monitor already "reciprocated, as the response to my analysis from the non-monitor account of the original poster was this:

:D


p.s. :D

just to be clear:

a) sandalman is NOT a moderator, monitor, or admin account
b) my real person does have another account that DOES have admin rights to the board.
c) admin priviledges were given to enable me to perform technical work, not monitor work.
d) i get frequent requests from folks who know i have admin rights to resolve certain technical issues, and i attempt to resolve those as promptly as possible
e) i have not, and will not, use my admin priviledges to moderate anyone or anything, as we have at least two folks who are capable of handling those tasks
f) expressing a desire to ban someone is not a threat to ban someone. i do have the capacity to feel one way but behave in another.