This Quote from Karl on another thread sparked my interest and wanted to see others' thoughts on it: "Scenario: Less tournaments, but when you're in one, you'll be "under the microscope"! I can't think of another sport where there are SO many "sanctioned" tournaments (for a fledgling sport) compared to casual play. We appear to be trying to "grow up" so fast (money, money, money!) that we're outgrowing our brains. You've heard of "growing pains", we're in it."

Karl,
Good post there about so many sanctioned tournaments. I'm with you. I know it looks good to some people to say we have X number of tournaments, but is quantity over quality really what we want? Almost anyone can play in most any tournament except the NT's and the A Tier where you do have to be a PDGA member and to be a PDGA member you just have to pay $. It seems there are a ton of XC and C tiers nowadays. It seems that almost every new course now wants to have a PDGA tournament at their course. I think this has watered down both the competition and the status of A and B Tier tourneys.

I do have mixed feelings about this. On one hand I think it may be good to get more people into the PDGA and to playing in sanctioned tournaments, but then on the other, could we just have 3 tiers - NT, A, & B? Let local clubs and areas have their own "C" tier tournaments and charge nominal fees of $1-3 to enhance their clubs an/or courses? Ok, just my penny's worth. What's yours? Poll question possibly?

My take is that sanctioned events will continue to increase simply because players love stats. The boom in Fantasy sports and the desire to measure your performance in "valid" competitions of any kind are stats driven. Ratings are one of the main reasons given for PDGA membership and perhaps the primary reason for the boom in International membership affiliations.

Money is not really a factor driving nor impeding the growth. TDs seem willing to give their services away mostly free. Course workers do much of their work free. Sponsors rarely get their money's worth. Enough players seem to have little problem with the entry fees charged even if they are usually donators. TDs could lower entry fees but that doesn't necessarily boost field sizes and may actually reduce them.

The manufacturers and the PDGA derive some income. But no one is putting a gun to the heads of players or TDs to host or play sanctioned events versus not sanctioning or play recreationally. The "valid" competition with results displayed on the website and recorded in points and ratings histories seem to be the primary motivation for sanctioning. Manufacturers provide equipment at prices and value that's acceptable to players and the PDGA provides the stats, history and validity that so far seems to satisfy players' needs for the fees charged.

Ball golf doesn't need the same amount of sanctioned competition because their handicap system accepts scores from all rounds played, not just those in competition. Of course, the quality of those handicaps has been drawn into question due to the ability of players to manipulate what scores are reported. Nonetheless, the individual player still knows what they shot regardless whether the handicap for public display is artificially high or low depending on the player's goals.

Yes, I think you're right on with the stats being one of the big reasons many people are playing in the tournaments. We are a numbers driven society and wanting to know how one compares with others is always an incentive. I just wanted to see if there were any other thoughts out there about the number of tournaments vs quality of tournaments and competition. I actually waffle back and forth as to whether the quantity has reduced some of the overall quality of competition in tournaments. It also goes back to the P in PDGA = Professional. Most tournaments are Amateur driven rather than professional driven, especially the lower tier tournaments.

I agree, People like the stats. Hence the questioned I asked yesterday about World rankings for kids. Getting my son to events takes a huge cut out of my income yet a kid that works so hard can't show his friends and family anything but how many pionts he earned. We work very hard for the pdga and should be able to show people the high ranking he earned. He is turning 11 this year and won't be ranked as high and because it will be harder than ever a worlds ranking from 08 would mean that much more to him.

Could you list the problems that this is causing, cuz I can't think of any. Holding a sanctioned tourney is a big undertaking and if a club or TD is willing to put in the time and effort then the more the better. It's great be able to compete almost yearround here in NC and gives guys like Schweb the ability to make a modest living touring.

What negatives are occuring because of too many tourneys?

In all seriousness, what other sports have world rankings or even ratings for juniors let alone players under 12? I suggested you check out the tour stats link. In five minutes, you can pull together the table for Boys 10 and under:

<table> <tr> <td>Rank</td><td>Name</td><td>PDGA#</td><td>Events</td><td>State/Prov</td><td>Country</td><td>Rating </td></tr> <tr> <td>1</td><td>Nicholas Duran </td><td> 28359</td><td> 11 </td><td> AZ </td><td> USA </td><td>859 </td></tr> <tr> <td>2</td><td>Brock Dowell </td><td> 29386</td><td> 7 </td><td> IA </td><td> USA </td><td>855 </td></tr> <tr> <td>3</td><td>Andrew Kaluk </td><td> 35027</td><td> 6 </td><td> MI </td><td> USA </td><td>814 </td></tr> <tr> <td>4</td><td>Spencer Stuart </td><td> 31333</td><td> 10 </td><td> WA </td><td> USA </td><td>787 </td></tr> <tr> <td>5</td><td>Douglas Maxfield </td><td> 35984</td><td> 2 </td><td> OK </td><td> USA </td><td>766 </td></tr> <tr> <td>6</td><td>Zach Collinge </td><td> 36894</td><td> 1 </td><td> CO </td><td> USA </td><td>737 </td></tr> <tr> <td>7</td><td>Jordan Craig </td><td> 29388</td><td> 6 </td><td> WA </td><td> USA </td><td>734 </td></tr> <tr> <td>8</td><td>William Carlos </td><td> 33133</td><td> 13 </td><td> WA </td><td> USA </td><td>721 </td></tr> <tr> <td>9</td><td>Chase Ramsey </td><td> 34109</td><td> 2 </td><td> SC </td><td> USA </td><td>712 </td></tr> <tr> <td>10</td><td>Tyler Hamilton </td><td> 32492</td><td> 2 </td><td> PA </td><td> USA </td><td>697 </td></tr> <tr> <td>11</td><td>John FUZZ Yearty III </td><td> 34464</td><td> 2 </td><td> GA </td><td> USA </td><td>691 </td></tr> <tr> <td>12</td><td>Drew Mosley </td><td> 36335</td><td> 3 </td><td> TX </td><td> USA </td><td>674 </td></tr> <tr> <td>13</td><td>Toby Gentil </td><td> 35773</td><td> 2 </td><td> </td><td> New Zealand </td><td>668 </td></tr> <tr> <td>14</td><td>Joel Maury-Holmes </td><td> 34194</td><td> 2 </td><td> CA </td><td> USA </td><td>647 </td></tr> <tr> <td>15</td><td>Walker Johnson </td><td> 28979</td><td> 1 </td><td> KS </td><td> USA </td><td>643 </td></tr> <tr> <td>16</td><td>Andrew Ellis </td><td> 34108</td><td> 2 </td><td> SC </td><td> USA </td><td>528 </td></tr> <tr> <td>17</td><td>William Hancock </td><td> 33450</td><td> 1 </td><td> GA </td><td> USA </td><td>451 </td></tr> <tr> <td>18</td><td>Frederick Freddy Beyersdorf </td><td> 37495</td><td> 1 </td><td> IL </td><td> USA </td><td>364 </td></tr> <tr> <td>19</td><td>Mikey Stonestreet </td><td> 26333</td><td> 1 </td><td> OH </td><td> USA </td><td>318 </td></tr> <tr> <td>20</td><td>Quinn Edgerton </td><td> 29356</td><td> 1 </td><td> WA </td><td> USA </td><td>151 </td></tr> </table>

I agree that there are to many sanctioned events. I personaly would like to see more states work together as a whole and run 1 or 2 big sanctioned events a year. The TDs from around the state could pool resources and run a top notch event. The payouts would be bigger and the events would be better.
I also think that would give A tiers, NT events more credibility. I also think that there should be more strict requirements for running and playing in a NT or A tier. I think if a tournament is sanctioned at this level there should be a PDGA official on every hole to help make sure all players are playing by the same rules. I also think it should be a requirement to pass a rules test to be allowed to play in an A tier or higer. To many people interpreting and playing by different rules. Get rid of the sanctioned c tiers or less.

I like the sanctioned c tiers. I just joined the PDGA, mainly to be ranked. As a working parent the c tiers fit my schedule. I can drive relatively far away, play a one day c tier and drive home and repeat every other week. Two day events are almost impossible for me with my schedule unless they are in my back yard. For a rec or intermediate player these tournaments are perfect and they feed the a tier final. Where do you think these TDs resources come from?

Good stuff everybody. As I said in my starting post, I do have mixed feelings about it and really just wanted to get other thoughts on it. I wonder if so many C Tiers keeps some of the Pros from playing more of the A/B tiers as there are so many and usually less $. Good Pros as MonTTel says can make some good $ off regional C Tiers. What about having C Tiers just for Amateurs? Have the Pros only play in NT/A/B's. I don't know of any tourneys around here that support their A Tiers with C Tiers. Maybe in other places they do.

There NOT too many in my opinion.

I like to play 8 - 10 tourneys a year. I live in Colorado where there are plenty of events. With a wife and child, life gets in the way many weekends. I miss events I would love to play in. Having plenty of events (almost all at really good venues) means I can still get my tourneys in. Fewer events means I would play less and I would consider that bad.

This Quote from Karl on another thread sparked my interest and wanted to see others' thoughts on it: "Scenario: Less tournaments, but when you're in one, you'll be "under the microscope"! I can't think of another sport where there are SO many "sanctioned" tournaments (for a fledgling sport) compared to casual play. We appear to be trying to "grow up" so fast (money, money, money!) that we're outgrowing our brains. You've heard of "growing pains", we're in it."

Karl,
Good post there about so many sanctioned tournaments. I'm with you. I know it looks good to some people to say we have X number of tournaments, but is quantity over quality really what we want? Almost anyone can play in most any tournament except the NT's and the A Tier where you do have to be a PDGA member and to be a PDGA member you just have to pay $. It seems there are a ton of XC and C tiers nowadays. It seems that almost every new course now wants to have a PDGA tournament at their course. I think this has watered down both the competition and the status of A and B Tier tourneys.

I do have mixed feelings about this. On one hand I think it may be good to get more people into the PDGA and to playing in sanctioned tournaments, but then on the other, could we just have 3 tiers - NT, A, &amp; B? Let local clubs and areas have their own "C" tier tournaments and charge nominal fees of $1-3 to enhance their clubs an/or courses? Ok, just my penny's worth. What's yours? Poll question possibly?


You guys are SPOILED!!!.
You guys are looking at a GIFT HORSE IN THE MOUTH!!!.
You guys dont know HOW GOOD YOU GOT IT!!!!!
I would kill to have more sanctioned events where i live. As it is I am lucky to have a sanctioned event within 300 miles once a month.... and nothing going on in the winter months.
zipcode: 84032
You cant have enough sanctioned events. Period. One day, or Two day events, A,B,C,D, XC, or otherwise.
!
!
!

This Quote from Karl on another thread sparked my interest and wanted to see others' thoughts on it: "Scenario: Less tournaments, but when you're in one, you'll be "under the microscope"! I can't think of another sport where there are SO many "sanctioned" tournaments (for a fledgling sport) compared to casual play. We appear to be trying to "grow up" so fast (money, money, money!) that we're outgrowing our brains. You've heard of "growing pains", we're in it."

Karl,
Good post there about so many sanctioned tournaments. I'm with you. I know it looks good to some people to say we have X number of tournaments, but is quantity over quality really what we want? Almost anyone can play in most any tournament except the NT's and the A Tier where you do have to be a PDGA member and to be a PDGA member you just have to pay $. It seems there are a ton of XC and C tiers nowadays. It seems that almost every new course now wants to have a PDGA tournament at their course. I think this has watered down both the competition and the status of A and B Tier tourneys.

I do have mixed feelings about this. On one hand I think it may be good to get more people into the PDGA and to playing in sanctioned tournaments, but then on the other, could we just have 3 tiers - NT, A, &amp; B? Let local clubs and areas have their own "C" tier tournaments and charge nominal fees of $1-3 to enhance their clubs an/or courses? Ok, just my penny's worth. What's yours? Poll question possibly?


You guys are SPOILED!!!.
You guys are looking at a GIFT HORSE IN THE MOUTH!!!.
You guys dont know HOW GOOD YOU GOT IT!!!!!
I would kill to have more sanctioned events where i live. As it is I am lucky to have a sanctioned event within 300 miles once a month.... and nothing going on in the winter months.
zipcode: 84032
You cant have enough sanctioned events. Period. One day, or Two day events, A,B,C,D, XC, or otherwise.
!
!
!



Come to TX where you may have 4 on a single weekend but they will still fill no problem! The issue is that having 4 on the same weekend may take away from certain divisions (MPO mostly).

Also I do feel that the PDGA should be given comments on events/TDs in the form of a questionaire which they could use when decided to sanction again or allow another event instead. I wouldn't mind C-tiers as Am only and I do think it would be nice for some amount of money from these smaller events to go into the larger regional events. This wouldn't have to be from payout and could be from CFRs or something like that.

$150-$200 from each C-tier to the Large events would add up with 20 or so feeding in. They could always just keep those PDGA taxes as a way of paying for it. :D

Martin,

Yes, you're right, I (we?) am "spoiled" or, as I prefer to call it, "lucky" that I'm in an area where there are lots of PDGA tournaments. But that's not my point. My statement (quoted in the 1st post of this thread) was to allude to the fact that as we play in "another tournament, ho hum...", we get lazy - lazy in our approach to rules. We allow "little" infractions to maybe go by, etc. What I was saying (just as a suggestion or, more precisely, as a "possibility") was that - in certain tournaments (maybe what now is called NTs or majors or ??) the rules would be followed 100% - no question about it!
How this could be done, I'm not sure (I certainly don't have all the answers), but I would LOVE to have - as was mentioned a bit earlier in this thread - a marshall with every group - who could call infractions (and they would unequivocally stand). If this was done, say in a major, and then - after the tournament - you asked the players which rules were called "stupidly" (as a body, they didn't agree such was right, etc.), you THEN might have a start as to which rules should be revised / stricken from the rule book. I don't mind that the "majority rules" (pun intended) when it comes to making the rules, what I mind is having rules - in a book which we're supposed to follow - and no one (or very few) really DOES follow them.

Karl

Martin,

Yes, you're right, I (we?) am "spoiled" or, as I prefer to call it, "lucky" that I'm in an area where there are lots of PDGA tournaments. But that's not my point. My statement (quoted in the 1st post of this thread) was to allude to the fact that as we play in "another tournament, ho hum...", we get lazy - lazy in our approach to rules. We allow "little" infractions to maybe go by, etc. What I was saying (just as a suggestion or, more precisely, as a "possibility") was that - in certain tournaments (maybe what now is called NTs or majors or ??) the rules would be followed 100% - no question about it!
How this could be done, I'm not sure (I certainly don't have all the answers), but I would LOVE to have - as was mentioned a bit earlier in this thread - a marshall with every group - who could call infractions (and they would unequivocally stand). If this was done, say in a major, and then - after the tournament - you asked the players which rules were called "stupidly" (as a body, they didn't agree such was right, etc.), you THEN might have a start as to which rules should be revised / stricken from the rule book. I don't mind that the "majority rules" (pun intended) when it comes to making the rules, what I mind is having rules - in a book which we're supposed to follow - and no one (or very few) really DOES follow them.

Karl



The marshall thing won't work as having 1-2 at NTs already it too expensive IMO. Also they shouldn't be calling the rules but maybe act as a 2nd so that a player would be more likely to make a call.

Matt,

But that's my exact point! Players DON'T call them. Can't 2nd what was never called in the 1st place.
I understand the $$ thing (about paying rules officials) but in other sports, if you want the best you'll probably have to pay for it.
I still think it would be wicked 'interesting' to have a rule zealot with each group "scrutinizing" every shot. I think there would be some "extra pressure" and a LOT of players would find out that they DO break the rules a LOT more than they think. Everybody thinks it's "the other guy...". Yeah, right.
And a lot of players would get a 3-yank wedgie because they now would actually HAVE to play the game 'by the rules'.
But again, my intent here is not to get players all bent out of shape (although that 1 tournament might do that - temporarily), it is to find which rules most people "don't like / think are silly" and then do something about those rules...either find a way to enforce them or do away with them. Either way is fine with me. Remember, you can't just ask people; the proof is in the puddin (actual situations will determine MUCH more precisely).

Karl

the rules discussion was brought up in another thread as well. There too, there was talk that 'nobody' follows the rules. I don't know where you folks are from, but I'm an Am from NYS, have played in B and C tiers, Ice Bowls, non-sanctioned, and many leagues, and I have NEVER come across ANY player that ignores the rules, or deliberate picks and chooses the ones they like. Of course there are new players who don't know the rules, but you tell them, and they learn.

Maybe a solution for your area is for more people to become certified officials. Related question though...an official can't call infractions in their own division right? So what if everyone in a group was in the same division, and they are all officials. what happens?

also, the number of sanctioned Pro and Am tourney's might have to depend on the region. I know in NY if you made all the C-tiers Ams only, the "Pros" would never get to play.

Matt,

But that's my exact point! Players DON'T call them. Can't 2nd what was never called in the 1st place.
I understand the $$ thing (about paying rules officials) but in other sports, if you want the best you'll probably have to pay for it.
I still think it would be wicked 'interesting' to have a rule zealot with each group "scrutinizing" every shot. I think there would be some "extra pressure" and a LOT of players would find out that they DO break the rules a LOT more than they think. Everybody thinks it's "the other guy...". Yeah, right.
And a lot of players would get a 3-yank wedgie because they now would actually HAVE to play the game 'by the rules'.
But again, my intent here is not to get players all bent out of shape (although that 1 tournament might do that - temporarily), it is to find which rules most people "don't like / think are silly" and then do something about those rules...either find a way to enforce them or do away with them. Either way is fine with me. Remember, you can't just ask people; the proof is in the puddin (actual situations will determine MUCH more precisely).

Karl



Believe me calls are made but usually someone will pull them to the side and give them a heads up 1st. If you wanted 18 marshals our A-tiers would have NO payout. Now if someones toe went 1 in over the line or something it may go uncalled but who is to say the disc wasn't already released?

Most Pro players try to play by the rules and the ones who don't everyone knows about and they are watched very closely.

also, the number of sanctioned Pro and Am tourney's might have to depend on the region. I know in NY if you made all the C-tiers Ams only, the "Pros" would never get to play.



That is true as I know a lot of guys around here play mostly local events but most of our C-tiers are 99% geared towards AMs anyway with the winner getting a little over $100 on avg. Maybe the fact there are only smaller events in NY has something to do with the lack of MPO players.

yeah, the NE in general is behind other areas of the country. NY in particular is lacking in Pro Players, Pro Tournaments, and Pro courses. It's a cycle though, you need 1)high caliber courses to create 2)high caliber competition, which creates 3) high caliber players. (or 1, 3, then 2 depending on how you look at it).

So the root of the problem we have is a lack great courses. There's Warwick, and now there's Emery Park near buffalo, and a maybe few others if pressed, which are improving all the time. So we're working on it!

There was only 80 PDGA sanctioned events in TX last year. We could use at least another 80 more. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif :D

I guess I'm the voice of dissent in that I believe we need more sanctioned events, but I'm also a firm believer that only PDGA members should play.

We need more tournaments to expose our sport, and some local clubs dont have the support nor the courses to run A-Tiers, and some regions are so small that a C-Tier is their best bet.

What undermines tournaments IMO is allowing someone who doesn't pay their membership fee to the PDGA, but allowing them to play anyway. All they have to do is add $10.00 and their in.

It is such a slap in the face of us who are due paying members. It's just as bad as bribery saying "Well we have rules, but for a little extra cash you can break them."

And I know Chuck Kennedy is gonna come here and say "we dont have the numbers to only allow PDGA members" but why should anyone pay for membership to our organization when any Joe Schmoe can walk right up to a TD and hand him some cash??

I guess if you can post what I'm going to say, I don't need to post anymore. ;) But you missed the boat on this one. The $10 non-member fee for low tiers and required membership for high tiers is used because it's turned out to be the best compromise to balance conflicting interests.

Having no non-member fee for any tier would be unfair to members and undermine the value of membership. Requiring membership for lower tiers would mean TDs wouldn't sanction events in new or low membership areas because turnouts would be lower. Allowing the $10 non-member fee for higher tiers probably could be done. But those events involve more money and prizes and there's perception that it's appropriate to only allow "official" players who are members and have ratings to play, especially the majors where PDGA resources such as staff time and money are involved.

Bottom line is that the non-member fee for lower tiers and required membership for higher tiers appears to work. The same non-member policy/fee system also works for the Ultimate Players Association which has twice the membership of the PDGA.

I guess I'm the voice of dissent in that I believe we need more sanctioned events, but I'm also a firm believer that only PDGA members should play.

We need more tournaments to expose our sport, and some local clubs dont have the support nor the courses to run A-Tiers, and some regions are so small that a C-Tier is their best bet.

What undermines tournaments IMO is allowing someone who doesn't pay their membership fee to the PDGA, but allowing them to play anyway. All they have to do is add $10.00 and their in.

It is such a slap in the face of us who are due paying members. It's just as bad as bribery saying "Well we have rules, but for a little extra cash you can break them."

And I know Chuck Kennedy is gonna come here and say "we dont have the numbers to only allow PDGA members" but why should anyone pay for membership to our organization when any Joe Schmoe can walk right up to a TD and hand him some cash??



There may be a point where there are too many sanctioned events, and when that happens the players will choose which events to attend. In the Great Lakes Region there are a number of fine TDs who have been putting on events for years. Each TD operates their events in the way that they like events that they play.

There are also a number of up and coming TDs who are trying to make a name for themselves and their events. Some very succcessful, others not so much. As a player I always try and pre-register, talk up an event, and get there early to thank the TD for running the event. And then pitch-in if the TD needs some help.

If I had a bad tourney experience then I don't go back. It is pretty simple. TDs who run good tourneys will continue to get a good turnout.

Hopefully players who are playing a sanctioned event for the first time will play an event with a good TD and come away with a positive experience and return for more.

Allowing non-PDGA members to play, gives players a chance to enjoy the tourney experience, but they don't get the benefit of having an official rating. The rating along with the internet, are probably the two biggest factors that can be attributed to the growth of disc golf.

Also, a thanks to all the TDs who ran events in 2008. Your hard work is appreciated by many disc golfers.

I guess if you can post what I'm going to say, I don't need to post anymore. ;) But you missed the boat on this one. The $10 non-member fee for low tiers and required membership for high tiers is used because it's turned out to be the best compromise to balance conflicting interests.

Having no non-member fee for any tier would be unfair to members and undermine the value of membership. Requiring membership for lower tiers would mean TDs wouldn't sanction events in new or low membership areas because turnouts would be lower. Allowing the $10 non-member fee for higher tiers probably could be done. But those events involve more money and prizes and there's perception that it's appropriate to only allow "official" players who are members and have ratings to play, especially the majors where PDGA resources such as staff time and money are involved.

Bottom line is that the non-member fee for lower tiers and required membership for higher tiers appears to work. The same non-member policy/fee system also works for the Ultimate Players Association which has twice the membership of the PDGA.



How about making a policy where non members can play if an event doesn't fill by a certain time? Basically hold PDGA spots until 5 days before an event?

It sucks to have so many events fill with so many non-members.

I'm not sure but I think TDs could actually do that now. TDs are required to accept current PDGA members unless it's a private property course. But we'd have to look and see if the Tour Standards actually state that TDs must allow non-members to play or might be able to place them on a waiting list until 5 days in advance.

Non-members NEVER play PDGA sanctioned tournaments, except for those few tournaments that are run under the PDGA grant program. Players are required to buy a one-tournament membership for $10 if they have not paid for a full membership.

Walker ---Just take off your "officials hat" and put on your "part of the foursome hat".

In other words your group wouldn't be able to act as officials, just as rule abiding players in the event.

that makes sense, players can make calls too. I've played with officials in my foursome, and I've heard them say things like, "that was a foot fault, or you're not supposed to smoke weed, but I can't call it because I'm an official and you're in my division." So where/when is the line drawn between hats? I'm curious because I'd like to take the officials test soon.

sry this is off thread topic. If there is another thread discussing this please direct me there. I'll look through my rulebook tonight too.

Kind of interesting - but VERY typical of people responding to initial comments / topics on MB threads...no one can stick to the topic and everyone has to beat their own drum about 1 specific associated sub-topic of that 1 initial topic.

Discndat originally posted a partial quote of mine about (and I paraphrase myself here) that maybe rules don't get followed as much as they should because, by having so many 'official' tournaments, people are "lax" to them (and all that they represent). Chuck immediately chimed in and adroitly steered the conversation away toward statistics (to fulfill his "wishes") yet this has very little, if anything to do with the original post. Matt at least posted HIS opinion on (somewhat) the topic - although being very focused on the $$ part of it (don't be a 1-trick pony Matt).

And you wonder why nothing gets done (as quickly around here (within the PDGA)) as you think it should. Has anyone ever heard of focus?
Try addressing 1 issue at a time - fully.

Karl

And then Karl comes in analyzing who's on topic and who's off topic, which is itself entirely off topic, and was typical on message boards in the old days but now has become a little passe. In the old days Karl could then call me a Nazi [Not-see, if Nazi is still censored] and the thread would die! :D

It's OK Bruce, you're not a Nazi, and the thread was "dead" already. They (threads) are always "dead" a couple of pages into themselves anyway - everything past that is usually just rehashing the same old ideas (in different words by different people).

It's just very frustrating to have someone else pick up on one's idea and others almost immediately "derail" it by tangential off-shoots that are self-serving (to the derailer).
And I'm not really expecting much to come from MB threads BECAUSE of this inherent trait of threads (that they get pirated, etc.).

That's why the majority of opinions aren't "considered" - because they are only "opinion-ized" on the MB - which is an inefficient method of getting ideas out. I seem to have forgotten the first rule of proposing ideas in work. You DON'T do it in a meeting! Why? Because as soon as you do, anyone (and everyone) WILL try to put holes in it...and unless you've anticipated EVERY attack, any attack that "sticks" will be preceived as a "total shooter-downer".

I think from now on, I'll just save my thoughts for myself and perhaps espouse them in a more acceptable forum (for I just don't have the time - like CK does - to "defend" (and I use that term loosely in his case) it ad infinatum to MB persons...who really aren't in positions to bring any ideas to fruition anyway).

Karl

Contacting PDGA Committee heads, Staff or Board members listed in the PDGA Contact page is the most effective way to initiate change. Just having the idea isn't as effective as providing a proposal for how it would be funded and staffed if that would be necessary.

Contacting PDGA Committee heads, Staff or Board members listed in the PDGA Contact page is the most effective way to initiate change. Just having the idea isn't as effective as providing a proposal for how it would be funded and staffed if that would be necessary.



What happened to your 08' resolution?

What '08 resolution?

What '08 resolution?



No personal posting

If the Board, Staff and Committee people would have made resolutions to post more, I could have kept mine. ;)

If the Board, Staff and Committee people would have made resolutions to post more, I could have kept mine. ;)



Maybe they should! You know show feedback or at least show they exist.