that was never part of this discussion, so i suspect that is a camp of one. the reasons actually given did not include the one you describe. i happen to understand some of the reasons that were actually given.

the tone of your post sounds a bit antagonistic towards me. if you want to make this personal, or debate it, then take me off ignore and we can do it via PM rather than ruin a decent thread with personal shots.

making it optional is a lot more work than simply displaying it, since its not part of the standard message board code. so its a lot harder to justify spending the time, especially while other important projects are waiting in the wings.

plus theres always the issue of whether or not the ratings committee would allow it to be posted, optional or not... there seems to be a camp that says knowing where your rating ranks is meaningless, or misleading, or both, or worse.



There's also a camp that doesn't like unelected volunteers making ad hoc decisions about their personal information. There is a place and a time for the use of PDGA Ratings, a bored mess is not one of them.



interesting that you choose that particular way of looking at this Nick. Pat took personal information already available in one place on the website and simply made it a few less clicks away for the convenience of members. and there was overwhelming support for it till one official got bent out of shape over it. Is it really your position that Pat published personal information that he shouldn't have?

Happy Birthday Chuck, thanks for all you do for disc golf, and hope all goes well with your heart and health.

making it optional is a lot more work than simply displaying it, since its not part of the standard message board code. so its a lot harder to justify spending the time, especially while other important projects are waiting in the wings.

plus theres always the issue of whether or not the ratings committee would allow it to be posted, optional or not... there seems to be a camp that says knowing where your rating ranks is meaningless, or misleading, or both, or worse.



There's also a camp that doesn't like unelected volunteers making ad hoc decisions about their personal information. There is a place and a time for the use of PDGA Ratings, a bored mess is not one of them.



interesting that you choose that particular way of looking at this Nick. Pat took personal information already available in one place on the website and simply made it a few less clicks away for the convenience of members. and there was overwhelming support for it till one official got bent out of shape over it. Is it really your position that Pat published personal information that he shouldn't have?



AviarX couldn't be more right on the money. I agree 100%.

Nick, we all enjoyed some peace and quiet during the month of January and some of February while you seemed to disappear for a bit. As the king of ad hoc decisions, your hypocrisy and personal attacks on Pat are not appreciated. If this is again the kind of contribution that can be expected from you on the PDGA board, please go back to your cave.

You have a private message....


Yep. Glad you jogged my memory. I'll look at them in the morning. That a good time to talk?

making it optional is a lot more work than simply displaying it, since its not part of the standard message board code. so its a lot harder to justify spending the time, especially while other important projects are waiting in the wings.

plus theres always the issue of whether or not the ratings committee would allow it to be posted, optional or not... there seems to be a camp that says knowing where your rating ranks is meaningless, or misleading, or both, or worse.



There's also a camp that doesn't like unelected volunteers making ad hoc decisions about their personal information. There is a place and a time for the use of PDGA Ratings, a bored mess is not one of them.



interesting that you choose that particular way of looking at this Nick. Pat took personal information already available in one place on the website and simply made it a few less clicks away for the convenience of members. and there was overwhelming support for it till one official got bent out of shape over it. Is it really your position that Pat published personal information that he shouldn't have?



Apologies, I thought that I was being clear. I appreciate Pat helping with the website functionalities, and have said so before; what I think he should be cautious about is making ad hoc decisions about the manner in which personal data is presented here. It is not an egregious crime or anything, it just quite obviously needed to get approval. As far as I know that means shooting Theo an email saying, "I'd like to do this..., is it ok?"

This is not approval to tie your shoe lace, it is dealing with personal membership information and it's use and presentation.

As I said I am all for members being able to opt into displaying such information. They actually already have that ability in their signatures. The decision to display such data in such a forum should be in the members own hands, just as all other options are in their hands.

I understand Pat when he says that option is a difficult one to code and there are other projects needing more immediate attention; like membership restricted areas of the website, and adding Course Evaluation links to the Course Directory to name 2; but that doesn't mean that we should just go ahead and display this for everyone. If the BOD decides it's ok, I'm fine with it, I just don't want Pat making that decision for every member without their input.

Hope that clears it up.

I appreciate Pat helping with the website functionalities, and have said so before; what I think he should be cautious about is making ad hoc decisions about the manner in which personal data is presented here. It is not an egregious crime or anything, it just quite obviously needed to get approval.



Really? obviously? why would he need to get approval for making more readily available information that is already available here through this website? Isn't it the case that Theo gave Pat approval to implement some ways to spruce things up? The rankings Pat made available were not personal information they were ratings-based and our ratings as members of the Professional Disc Golf Association Membership are public information. The Competition Director over-reacted and apparently the PDGA leadership felt some obligation to back him up -- even though Pat had done us a service and there is no more "accurate" or division specific rankings ready to immediately replace the work of Pat's which was taken away from us.

I still don't get why Theo didn't tell Chap and others to give it a week to cool down and then see if they still felt it wasn't appropriate to have ratings-based rankings posted here until something more "official" was ready to replace it. It seems to me this was handled very poorly and blaming Pat is to target him inappropriately.

the first words on the thread were a question and a bug report. the first 40 words of the first response addressed both the question and the report, and requested input from all members. go back and check it out.

<font color="purple"> "good idea or not? i just put it up tonight. good catch on the bug. unless you were looking at climo :Di'll fix it monday sometime.

i thought it might be interesting to have since all posters are now members.'" </font>

if there was a crime it was to conduct User Acceptance Testing (UAT) on a production server. i saw the alternatives to be: a) using the production server to allow input from members; b) using the development server for input-gathering and thereby restricting members from seeing the new feature; c) allow input from all members by providing the web address of the dev server to all members. "a)" seemed like the best idea. not only could everyone participate, but any fixes or changes could be made quickly. (notice that the question came at 9:48 and the post of its fix appeared in less than an hour and half.) input was being requested, provided, and acted upon.

ya know, i really wish you would not hide your approval of my methods so subtly, for i am almost missing them!

I appreciate Pat helping with the website functionalities, and have said so before; what I think he should be cautious about is making ad hoc decisions about the manner in which personal data is presented here. It is not an egregious crime or anything, it just quite obviously needed to get approval.



Really? obviously? why would he need to get approval for making more readily available information that is already available here through this website? <font color="blue"> It is to me, and in hind sight it certainly is. </font> Isn't it the case that Theo gave Pat approval to implement some ways to spruce things up? <font color="blue"> I don�t know. Do you? If he did I doubt it had with adding personal information to folks message board names without them deciding to have that information shared. You didn�t answer my question about why folks that want their personal information shared don�t use their signatures to share whatever they want. That certainly would involve less coding for Pat to do. </font> The rankings Pat made available were not personal information they were ratings-based and our ratings as members of the Professional Disc Golf Association Membership are public information. <font color="blue"> Public Information perhaps, but not without restrictions on use and presentation. </font> The Competition Director over-reacted <font color="blue">Rob, that is purely your opinion. Folks have different standards of use of personal data, as well as uses for our PDGA generated data and services. Regardless of him being a BOD member, if anyone had complained the same thing would have happened. </font> and apparently the PDGA leadership felt some obligation to back him up <font color="blue">Again, Rob, that is purely your opinion, or slant on what happened. </font> -- even though Pat had done us a service<font color="blue"> Pure opinion. </font> and there is no more "accurate" or division specific rankings ready to immediately replace the work of Pat's which was taken away from us. <font color="blue"> Even if that were true, and I don�t know that it is, who is Pat to make such a decision organization wide without even consulting the PDGA Ratings Committee or PDGA Board of Directors? As I said, if he got their blessing then I might be in favor of it also; though I�d still likely request that it be opt in only. </font>

I still don't get why Theo didn't tell Chap and others to give it a week to cool down and then see if they still felt it wasn't appropriate to have rankings-based ratings posted here until something more "official" was ready to replace it. <font color="blue">I don�t get it either, but I also don�t get why Pat didn�t run it past Theo and Chuck first to get proper approval. I�m glad the BOD decided to go on the side of caution rather than rash action. </font> It seems to me this was handled very poorly and blaming Pat is to target him inappropriately. <font color="blue">Blame is the wrong word, but I�m not who sure who else in this sequence of events is less causative than he. Still, anger, flaming, blaming, etc. is not necessary in dealing with this, and I'm confident that any mistakes made on either side of this will not be repeated.

Rob, it�ll get worked out. No need for �blame� or �finger pointing�. They�ll get it right. If it doesn't, exactly what kind of negative personal affect are you expecting for yourself from the lack of your player rating or some derivative under your alias name on a message board? Just curious?

It would be a �nicety� for a few players, for a few others, clearly, it would not be welcome; that is not a matter of opinion. </font>

Sorry, I don't get what you are trying to say. Again, I am all for value added services provided by the PDGA for its members; let's just make sure the folks elected to make the big decisions are included in all such decisions. Simple really.

i just read it again and it is clear, so i dont really understand why you dont get it, but i will try to be more expicit:

it can NEVER be an issue to ask the members opinion of anything.

it was a mistake to use the production server for that purpose.
solution: create a version of the entire website that can be used for gathering members' feedback.

really simple.

The rankings Pat made available were not personal information they were ratings-based and our ratings as members of the Professional Disc Golf Association Membership are public information.

Public Information perhaps, but not without restrictions on use and presentation.



Before i post that PDGA member Nick Kight is rated 965 by the PDGA and is eligible to play in the age-protected Masters division in PDGA sanctioned events -- do i need some kind of special clearance?

You're not suggesting that we set PDGA policy according to a bored mess poll are you?

Your mistake was doing this stuff without PDGA approval, not the server you used. Those guys are responsible for such things, you are not.

That is the lesson in this.

The rankings Pat made available were not personal information they were ratings-based and our ratings as members of the Professional Disc Golf Association Membership are public information.

Public Information perhaps, but not without restrictions on use and presentation.



Before i post that PDGA member Nick Kight is rated 965 by the PDGA and is eligible to play in the age-protected Masters division in PDGA sanctioned events -- do i need some kind of special clearance?



No, but you are not the PDGA Webmaster, nor are you making it impossible for me to post without every one of my posts display that information. Nor are you working up some "PDGA Rankings" system ad hoc without advisement or approval of the PDGA Board of Directors or PDGA Ratings Committee.

Now, if I requested that you not post that data and you did anyway that would still not be illegal or against any rules, it would make you a big unable to post here though, wouldn't it:?

I believe using PDGA Ratings without PDGA approval would in fact be illegal.

The rankings Pat made available were not personal information they were ratings-based and our ratings as members of the Professional Disc Golf Association Membership are public information.

Public Information perhaps, but not without restrictions on use and presentation.



Before i post that PDGA member Nick Kight is rated 965 by the PDGA and is eligible to play in the age-protected Masters division in PDGA sanctioned events -- do i need some kind of special clearance?



No, but you are not the PDGA Webmaster, nor are you making it impossible for me to post without every one of my posts display that information. Nor are you working up some "PDGA Rankings" system ad hoc without advisement or approval of the PDGA Board of Directors or PDGA Ratings Committee.

Now, if I requested that you not post that data and you did anyway that would still not be illegal or against any rules, it would make you a big unable to post here though, wouldn't it:?

I believe using PDGA Ratings without PDGA approval would in fact be illegal.



You are purposely being absurd right? Surely you are not going to paint yourself into the ridiculous corner of saying that the ratings information on current PDGA members should only be published if that member approves of it being made public???

This website violates that principle. Why is your, my and Chapman's rating available via a last name search to anyone who wants to look it up online via this site?

You better PM Theo and Chuck quick and ask them to take away membership access to the ratings immediately if that is REALLY your position! at least until members can turn on or off the sharing of that PERSONAL info :eek: :eek: :eek: /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

what this whole thread would be if the board was only me, rob and nick. (http://www.earthoffice.net/discgolf/board.html)

Seriously, Nick - you have exactly zero foundation for your argument. There's absolutely no difference between displaying rating information on the PDGA board versus the exact same info that is available two clicks away on a user's PDGA Player Statistics page.

Now stop arguing.

Rob, I apologize for not being clearer. The PDGA has every right to use their PDGA Ratings, Message Board, or any other service they provide in any fashion they decide benefits their membership. No one else has that right without expressed approval of the PDGA.

Hope that clears it up for you.

In case any confusion remains:
People may use them for purposes approved by the PDGA, i.e. PDGA events, course design and evaluation processes, etc. Any uses beyond this should seek PDGA approval.

why are u deliberately agreeing with me again, nick?


it can NEVER be an issue to ask the members opinion of anything.

it was a mistake to use the production server for that purpose.


wow, i said that already. i do appreciate that since you are in complete agreement with my posts you are not wasting server cycles by responding to my points!

So you're saying that you're not going to seek approval before launching such unilateral programs using PDGA data and services, is that right?

no. that is not correct. in the name of all that is holy, if your head was the truth you'd still need a 2 by 4 to recognize it.

I still don't get what you are saying. But if you are willing to follow the direction of the PDGA Board of Directors and Ratings Committee then it is of little matter.

(How many successful member polls have you run on the dev server? :confused: And how many PDGA policies have been set by bored mess polls? Those are rhetorical questions.)

no. that is not correct. in the name of all that is holy, if your head was the truth you'd still need a 2 by 4 to recognize it.



Now you are talking pure jiberish. Get a hold of yourself man!

"No, but you are not the PDGA Webmaster"... no, rob wasnt. at the time of my crime, I was PDGA Webmaster. wanna see the signed paperowrk?

Pat it is nice to see Bruce has created new message board speak for how to replace what your short-lived ranking field used to provide for us:

quoting Bruce B. from the equipment threads:

Do the click-click-back-back and tell me you don't say, "oh," to yourself



:eek: :D:D

click click back back. i wonder if it should be outlawed? :eek:

There's another one in the Surge thread if you find that amusing. Maybe soon I can go with the acronym CCOBB.

how about CCBB? or CC-oh!-BB instead? :D :D

yeah i like that one also. just dont go with CCO!BB, cuz those #$*&$! ! marks could be interpreted as something nasty :D

"No, but you are not the PDGA Webmaster"... no, rob wasnt. at the time of my crime, I was PDGA Webmaster. wanna see the signed paperowrk?



Uh, I know, that's why I said it...

And crime is a little extreme, more like royal fup. But we all forgive you Pat, just don't do it again, ok?

Serious question:

Who's we?

and...

Was there supposed to be a smiley after that?

deliberate misspelling of the baddest word that starts with f???? ban him rhett, please!

nick, sorry to break it to you, but i did nothing to you so your forgiveness is absurd. further, you are in no position, except perhaps in your personal alternate reality, to order me to do anything in any particular manner at all.

"No, but you are not the PDGA Webmaster"... no, rob wasnt. at the time of my crime, I was PDGA Webmaster. wanna see the signed paperowrk?



Uh, I know, that's why I said it...

And crime is a little extreme, more like royal fup. But we all forgive you Pat, just don't do it again, ok?



really? Nick, i think your characterization of what Pat did as a royal fup is a much more appropriate example of a "royal fup" -- to use your term -- than was what Pat did. All Pat did was provide we the members a service that enabled us to see information without doing what Bruce has aptly called a "Click-click-back-back." i guess you are not only saying that Pat should have been psychic and foretold of someone getting bent out of shape over that not being run by a Committee first (even though it is info already available via this very website) -- you are saying he shall be psychic next time or else he will be called out (by you) for committing a major fup. with the atmosphere you/that creates -- i bet people will [not] be lining up to help the PDGA. is that what you're after?

No, just that he should check first for such things Rob. As I've said now more than 3 times, it's no biggy, just take a little care in the future and don't bash the folks that express their concerns over the head with your opinions. Chappy didn't deserve such treatment and neither do all of the other PDGA Board of Directors you implied didn't do their jobs or did it wrong.

Now calm down and watch the Oscars.

neon is the reason they invented the word "whatever".

neon is the reason they invented the word "whatever".



Such hostility. It's gotta be bad for your health Pat.

No, just that he should check first for such things Rob. As I've said now more than 3 times, it's no biggy, just take a little care in the future and don't bash the folks that express their concerns over the head with your opinions. Chappy didn't deserve such treatment and neither do all of the other PDGA Board of Directors you implied didn't do their jobs or did it wrong.

Now calm down and watch the Oscars.



Nick don't try to characterize those of us who simply think Chappy over-reacted as being in the bash-Chappy-because he doesn't-have a-high-rating (or ranking) camp. I for one think the lower your rating is the more you should be recognized and appreciated as a person who loves disc golf (since you are probably in effect giving money to rather than taking money from your competitors). I also am on record as saying a high or low rating does not necessarily make you a good or bad coach or a good or bad BoD member. Upthread, you made the excellent point that NBA Commish Stern is probably unable to hold his own in a game of one-on-one but that in itself doesn't necessarily disqualify him from being an excellent executive in the NBA organization -- and i agreed with you.

That said -- you are suggesting if Pat isn't clairvoyant enough to anticipate an irrational negative reaction against making ALREADY AVAILABLE information more readily available as a user service here, then he is guilty of what you called a "royal fup."

i suggest you calm down, and realize even BoD members are capable of over-reactions -- human beings that they are. Then, come back here and apologize to Pat and say this was just one of those situations where the powers-that-be rallied behind one of their own when he over-reacted to the posting of numerical data that is already available on this site.

if he had suggested we should consider and discuss its appropriateness, and if he had thanked Pat, and if it had been explicitly acknowledged that Pat would not reasonably have expected to have to get permission to do what he did (since it wasn't personal information that was otherwise unavailable to the rest of us, but is instead only a Click-click-back-back away) maybe it wouldn't have been pounced upon by others

Let me get this straight, you are accusing Chappy of having over-reacting?

That is as rich as it gets here on the old bored mess.

Pat should learn from this not to just make policy without checking it out with one of the PDGA Board of Directors. I'm trying very hard to understand what you or he finds so outrageous about such a consideration.

give it up rob. one time i was wrong for doing it without BoD approval (possibly, but could go either way), another time i was wrong for doing it on the production server (was i was, but i've explained why i did it that way_, another time i was wrong because i asked for opinions from members... this whole part of the thread has become much ado about nothing. i will always be wrong in nick's eyes, and reasoning and explanations dont mean anything. no one can change that, so... so be it. it would be nice if this thread could get back to what it was before - a good discussion about a) the meaningfulness of the ratings ranking, and b) the inclusion of members in evaluating ideas.

Nick, why do you think Chap didnt want that information posted?

Nick, i agree that before personal info about members is published or shared it that it should be cleared by the PDGA leadership. That's not an issue here. This is about information already available at this site and that is only what Bruce has aptly called a
"click-click-back-back" away.

i didnt make policy, i posted a new feature and asked for input. the oscars are over, so drop the drama already. you are not in charge of discipline anyway. you have zero idea of what my contract with the PDGA allowed me to do or not to do. you have no first hand knowledge of what instructions or latitude where given to me verbally and/or in writing by anyone in any authority role. you have no understanding of other events that occured in the weeks leading up to this whole thing. as a result you are talking about stuff that you dont know about and that doesnt even matter.

you, and some leaders in the pdga, should learn from this not to just make policy without checking it out with the members, and with a full quorum of BoD members, as required by the PDGA constitution. I'm baffled as to what you find so outrageous about such a consideration.

deliberate misspelling of the baddest word that starts with f???? ban him rhett, please!

nick, sorry to break it to you, but i did nothing to you so your forgiveness is absurd. further, you are in no position, except perhaps in your personal alternate reality, to order me to do anything in any particular manner at all.



Yup he should be banned if history is any indicator but I doubt it'll happen. Personal attacks and curse words are supposed to be taboo. I think it really is just "old boy networking". I really don't like many of you people. The game IS fun though.

Rob, clearly it is about that, otherwise there would have been no issue at all. I work on this website as well and do so under the direct control of the BOD. If they say I have to remove or change something I am working on all I ask is "how much". I don't accuse them of whining or that they are not doing their jobs properly. That would be wrong, wouldn't it.

Let's drop this and let Pat get on with more important work. Regardless of our differing opinions, I think the message has been communicated. Time to move on.

Maybe...

"I think it really is just "old boy networking"."

and Bingo was his name-o!

Rob, clearly it is about that, otherwise there would have been no issue at all. I work on this website as well and do so under the direct control of the BOD. If they say I have to remove or change something I am working on all I ask is "how much". I don't accuse them of whining or that they are not doing their jobs properly. That would be wrong, wouldn't it.



if they asked you to remove something on the basis it shouldn't be shared without permission -- wouldn't you point out to them the contradiction of it only being a click-click-back-back away?

it is you that has stirred this discussion back up. i am happy to drop it if you cease and desist.

give it up rob. one time i was wrong for doing it without BoD approval (possibly, but could go either way), another time i was wrong for doing it on the production server (was i was, but i've explained why i did it that way_, another time i was wrong because i asked for opinions from members... this whole part of the thread has become much ado about nothing. i will always be wrong in nick's eyes, and reasoning and explanations dont mean anything. no one can change that, so... so be it. it would be nice if this thread could get back to what it was before - a good discussion about a) the meaningfulness of the ratings ranking, and b) the inclusion of members in evaluating ideas.



You won't always be wrong Pat, certianly not according to all those excellently thought out excuses you provided... Still, in the end just shoot Theo an email with your intentions and asking if it is cool next time eh? He is who signs your paychecks afterall...

"I think it really is just "old boy networking"."

and Bingo was his name-o!



LOL! Webmaster Old Boy Pat Brenner makes a funny. LOL!

Hey, CWoj! If you were to add something to the TADGA website that showed members' PDGA ratings without asking anyone first, would the other TADGA guys have a little fit, or would they just be like, "Well, that's why he's the web guy. If he can figger out how to do that stuff, that's what he's supposed to be doing."

i didnt make policy, i posted a new feature and asked for input. the oscars are over, so drop the drama already. you are not in charge of discipline anyway. you have zero idea of what my contract with the PDGA allowed me to do or not to do. you have no first hand knowledge of what instructions or latitude where given to me verbally and/or in writing by anyone in any authority role. you have no understanding of other events that occured in the weeks leading up to this whole thing. as a result you are talking about stuff that you dont know about and that doesnt even matter.

you, and some leaders in the pdga, should learn from this not to just make policy without checking it out with the members, and with a full quorum of BoD members, as required by the PDGA constitution. I'm baffled as to what you find so outrageous about such a consideration.



And I'm baffled by your inability to grasp that you should check with the BOD before making ad hoc decisions about how to display personal information at PDGA.com.

Rob, that the information is desplayed elsewhere at the site does not mean that anyone can do anything they want with it, it just means that the PDGA Board of Directors and the PDGA Ratings Committee approves that specific use of the information. There is nothing odd about it.

If they approve Pat's idea to include it on everyones name for every post they make, fine! Go for it. Until that point it is not allowed. This is not rocket science. These are their decisions to make by constitution, not mine, not Pat's and not yours. They are Chappy's though.

Scott, whatever reasons Chappy had, the BOD obviously agree with him, and considering he is on the BOD it was partly his call to make. There is nothing out of the ordinary there either.

You witch hunters will need to move on to the next castle I'm afraid.

What? The BOD had nothing to do with it. They did not call an emergency meeting to deal with Pat's ratings rankings. Chappy threw his weight around and then Theo came on here after the fact trying to cover for Chappy by taking the responsibility.

You need to pay attention better nick.

Hey, CWoj! If you were to add something to the TADGA website that showed members' PDGA ratings without asking anyone first, would the other TADGA guys have a little fit, or would they just be like, "Well, that's why he's the web guy. If he can figger out how to do that stuff, that's what he's supposed to be doing."



Hey C'Woj, if a TADGA board of directors member asked you to remove that feature would you publically accuse him of over-reaction, insecurity and that it is a further sign of the TADGA Board of Directors failure? How much longer would you expect to remain webmaster after such behavior?

What? The BOD had nothing to do with it. They did not call an emergency meeting to deal with Pat's ratings rankings. Chappy threw his weight around and then Theo came on here after the fact trying to cover for Chappy by taking the responsibility.

You need to pay attention better nick.



Chappy: Board of Director Member
Theo: Commisioner

What exactly are you saying I missed? All it would take is a single BOD member to put the kabosh on something like that. Then Pat could ask that it be considered by the entire BOD.

All, I miss here is Pat saying, "Cool, I'll do it a different way next time and get approval." It's not like it is hard to get approval for worthwhile things. Just ask!

Scott, whatever reasons Chappy had, the BOD obviously agree with him...

Sorry, Nick, I should have quoted what I was respoding to. The BoD took no action on this. You cannot infer what the BoD might have thought from their failure to act on an issue that never came before them.

get from approval from whom? in my very first post i asked for input. i've already stated i agree it was wrong to put it on the pruduction server... how many times do you want me to write the words?

Article 5, Section 10 clearly states that all written communication between the BOD or Committee Chairpersons regarding the PDGA nad the conduct of its business be delivered to any Active member who requests them.

perhaps we should request all correspondance and see who said what. whay do you guys think? should i make the request formally through our current Oversight Director? or should it go directly to the Office?

Article 5, Section 10 clearly states that all written communication between the BOD or Committee Chairpersons regarding the PDGA nad the conduct of its business be delivered to any Active member who requests them.



Transparency is a very healthy, important thing for an organization and its leadership. Methinks we would do well to ensure it is explicitly included in any re-writings of our Constitution.

i'm betting that you'll never see them on the message board again, or at least until chapman is not a BoD dude. even though they have an incredible value in that location.



Really all you need is the go-ahead to do the programming to make the displaying of that info voluntary.

That's really the crux of the issue. If users can set in their display preferences whether they want their PDGA rating, rating rank, etc. displayed (just like we currently do Geographic Location) then this whole debate is moot.

Seems like a no-brainer solution that would have avoided all this ill will.



Some people missed my earlier post, or chose to disregard it. There are a number of technical issues with this change. It's not a "no-brainer" at all. We have a long list of IT projects (the development of the list is part of the IT growth and transition process we're going through as an organization - part of my "plan") that we need to get to, including moving to a new server (which was just put online a few days ago) that will help significantly with some of the performance issues we've run into over the last year or so.

I'm trying to resist the urge to defend this decision publicly, as I think that will do more harm than good. If you have serious concerns about whether I made a reasonable decision, please feel free to contact me by PM or email.

-Theo

i really dont think anyone is asking you to defend anything Theo. i already said it was a mistake to put it on the production server. the problem most people have is that they seriously liked the feature, and they would like to see it back, even if it is an opt-in/out thing. regardless of my mistake, Mr Chapman made a mistake also. BoD members are supposed to be the adults here, not people who say "play by my rules or i'll take the ball and go home". i'll admit "technical issues" have provided convenient cover, but that is not the issue.

wow...just wow

maybe i should delete this thread...maybe we can pretend this didn't happen.

its amazing to me the red tape a bs involved with something as simple as an addition to the info below a users name. if the ratings/ranking gets back on the message board, id like to see # of tournies played for the current year added as well as a club affiliation line.

Scott, whatever reasons Chappy had, the BOD obviously agree with him...

Sorry, Nick, I should have quoted what I was respoding to. The BoD took no action on this. You cannot infer what the BoD might have thought from their failure to act on an issue that never came before them.


Legalese bs Bruce. A request from a BOD member is sufficient for an IT volunteer to follow. That Theo reinforced the request is beyond sufficient. That is not even the issue here, but a misdirection of the all too ordinary sort here; where the PDGA witch-hunters never miss a chance to attack the PDGA, even if there is nothing to attack.

That Pat infers that there is some valid reason to attack is irresponsible. Just learn from your mis-step and move on Pat. No need to make WWIII out of it.

It's been a while but....Shut the #$*&$! up Nick!

A request from a BOD member is sufficient for an IT volunteer to follow. That Theo reinforced the request is beyond sufficient. That is not even the issue here, but a misdirection of the all too ordinary sort here; where the PDGA witch-hunters never miss a chance to attack the PDGA, even if there is nothing to attack.



Nick, last i checked the people upset by this are not witch hunters out to attack the PDGA. We are PDGA members, so it is not like there's a group of anti-PDGA'ers on one side of the fence and a group of pro-PDGA'ers on the other side. Nice try.

i'm still trying to figure out why Mr. Chapman isn't demanding that the ratings info this website makes available to everyone isn't disabled until there is an opt-in/opt-out choice in it? Oh wait, there already is -- if you don't want a PDGA rating published by the PDGA you can opt not to join the PDGA (or you could join but not compete in PDGA tournaments).

Legalese bs Bruce. A request from a BOD member is sufficient for an IT volunteer to follow.

that is exactly incorrect. a single BoD member cannot force a volunteer to do anything, unless that BoD member is specifically charged with managing the Committee on which the vounteer works.

there's no witchhunt, there's no misdirection. i've said i was wrong to run it up the production flagpole (a bunch of times). i've explained in detail why i chose to make that mistake. i responded quickly to the request to remove it.

you wanna attack something? attack my judgement in placing the feature on the production site. thats the real and only issue here.

i reject the assertion that members should not be consulted about features such as this. i reject the assertion that a BoD's opinion should weigh more heavily than a member's.

ps. lets keep this a simple discussion, nick. lets avoid the summation lecture that seems to come at the end of many of your posts. summations are cool. lectures are not.

Rob,

You are instigating. Cut it out.

Nick

Nick, no i am not. it is a valid question that deserves an answer. are you saying you don't have one? /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

ps: that was precious coming from you

You're right Pat, a BOD member can't "force" anyone to do anything. They can request it, and that should be enough.

There are two issues here:
1) Whether a user ranking based on PDGA player ratings should be posted with the user's name on this discussion board.
2) Pat's repeated implication that Chappy acted inappropriately in requesting that that ranking be removed.

Solutions are simple and require only one action for resolution. Pat to say, "Got it. Will check with Theo before making changes of this sort, and will not attack BOD members who make requests of me. I will communicate my concerns through appropriate channels and avoid public shouting matches."

I think that sums it up pretty clearly.

You're right Pat, a BOD member can't "force" anyone to do anything. They can request it, and that should be enough.



if a single BoD member were a king then their request should be enough. But they aren't kings. If they request that ratings info be pulled down because there is no opt-in / opt-out aspect to them -- then the logical questions they need to answer before their request is granted are:


is this their considered opinion or is it a knee-jerk reaction?

are they also demanding that the ratings page be disabled until there is an opt-in / opt-out choice for individual members?

if they answer no to the above question -- why not?

if the info gets pulled, isn't an apology -- to the IT person who did this work and to the members who enjoyed it -- in order?

Pat: "Got it. proper procedures are in place for making changes, and do not always involve Theo. in fact, one of the specific objectives of my position as Webmaster was to allow Theo to exit that approval loop. "

Nick: "thanks for the Got it. i didnt know about the other part, so my apologies to you."

Pat: "apology accepted"

Nick: "now what about the BoD part?"

Pat: "BoD membership has nothing to do with this. a member who happens to be on the BoD is no more or less important than a member who is not."

Nick: "OK, i tend to agree with that. and the approporiate channals?"

Pat: "a message board does seem to be a very appropriate place to discuss changes to the message board. however, the real issue is that the PDGA needs a place to vet feature changes with the membership. the production server is not that place. the development is not that place. we need a third server to handle that aspect."

Nick: "you are remarkably well-reasoning and balanced in your thinking. now, what about the public shouting matches?"

Pat: "please reread the thread from the beginning. i believe you will find that not only did i not shout, but i was rather responsive. some whining occured, but we can excuse Mr Chapman for that - it may just be his way of communicating. i cannot say for sure since i do not know him well. regardless, he got his wish. i further point out that deep into the thread i made specific note of the fact that no shouting and undue accusations were occuring, and credited Rhett with a lot of that."

/////// jeopardy theme plays for 30 minutes ///////

Nick: "i now see what you mean. in fact i just realized that it wasnt until I got involved that the shouting and needless accusations started. again, i apologize."

Pat: "again, apology accepted. we all have our strengths and weaknesses."

Nick: "Pat, you have a very positive and non-elitist view of things. i just might vote for you for Oversight Director after all!"

Pat: "Thanks for your support, every vote is important."

i'm betting that you'll never see them on the message board again, or at least until chapman is not a BoD dude. even though they have an incredible value in that location.



Really all you need is the go-ahead to do the programming to make the displaying of that info voluntary.

That's really the crux of the issue. If users can set in their display preferences whether they want their PDGA rating, rating rank, etc. displayed (just like we currently do Geographic Location) then this whole debate is moot.

Seems like a no-brainer solution that would have avoided all this ill will.



Some people missed my earlier post, or chose to disregard it. There are a number of technical issues with this change. It's not a "no-brainer" at all. We have a long list of IT projects (the development of the list is part of the IT growth and transition process we're going through as an organization - part of my "plan") that we need to get to, including moving to a new server (which was just put online a few days ago) that will help significantly with some of the performance issues we've run into over the last year or so.

I'm trying to resist the urge to defend this decision publicly, as I think that will do more harm than good. If you have serious concerns about whether I made a reasonable decision, please feel free to contact me by PM or email.

-Theo



Thanks for the explanation, Theo. I appreciate it. I guess I did not fully understand that there were such technical issues, and the importance of the other IT projects.

Nick, no i am not. it is a valid question that deserves an answer. are you saying you don't have one? /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

ps: that was precious coming from you



What is valid question in following Rob?


Nick, last i checked the people upset by this are not witch hunters out to attack the PDGA. We are PDGA members, so it is not like there's a group of anti-PDGA'ers on one side of the fence and a group of pro-PDGA'ers on the other side. Nice try.

i'm still trying to figure out why Mr. Chapman isn't demanding that the ratings info this website makes available to everyone isn't disabled until there is an opt-in/opt-out choice in it? Oh wait, there already is -- if you don't want a PDGA rating published by the PDGA you can opt not to join the PDGA (or you could join but not compete in PDGA tournaments).



The question you seem to be asking here is whether Chappy has the proper mandate as a PDGA Board of Director member to request removal of a new (and in Pat�s own words �proposed�) feature on the PDGA DISCussion board?

As a membership elected official doesn�t he have the mandate to make such requests? Isn�t that precisely why they are in the positions they are in? To make all such decisions concerning the use of PDGA resources; who uses them and in what way they are to be presented.

Clearly feelings have been hurt here on both sides, and that is regrettable, but let�s all act like adults here and forgive each other for words spoken in the heat of discussion and agree to do a better job of communicating our concerns in less accusatory tones in the future.

As I�ve said before, I appreciate what Pat does for the PDGA and the benefits it directly brings me personally as well as the membership as a whole. It is worthwhile work and very necessary not only to the future of the PDGA, but of disc golf in general. I sincerely apologize for any facetious or real slights I may have directed your or Pat�s direction. As others here have noted time and again, the friendly kidding around on the course is difficult to replicate here, so unless you personally know the person (which I do not know you or Pat) such banter should be avoided in favor of careful and precise communication.

[QUOTE]
Rob,

You are instigating. Cut it out.

Nick




[QUOTE]
Nick, no i am not. it is a valid question that deserves an answer. are you saying you don't have one? /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

ps: that was precious coming from you



What is valid question in following Rob?


Nick, last i checked the people upset by this are not witch hunters out to attack the PDGA. We are PDGA members, so it is not like there's a group of anti-PDGA'ers on one side of the fence and a group of pro-PDGA'ers on the other side. Nice try.

i'm still trying to figure out why Mr. Chapman isn't demanding that the ratings info this website makes available to everyone isn't disabled until there is an opt-in/opt-out choice in it?



The question you seem to be asking here is whether Chappy has the proper mandate as a PDGA Board of Director member to request removal of a new (and in Pat�s own words �proposed�) feature on the PDGA DISCussion board?

As a membership elected official doesn�t he have the mandate to make such requests? Isn�t that precisely why they are in the positions they are in? To make all such decisions concerning the use of PDGA resources; who uses them and in what way they are to be presented.

Clearly feelings have been hurt here on both sides, and that is regrettable, but let�s all act like adults here and forgive each other for words spoken in the heat of discussion and agree to do a better job of communicating our concerns in less accusatory tones in the future.

As I�ve said before, I appreciate what Pat does for the PDGA and the benefits it directly brings me personally as well as the membership as a whole. It is worthwhile work and very necessary not only to the future of the PDGA, but of disc golf in general. I sincerely apologize for any facetious or real slights I may have directed your or Pat�s direction. As others here have noted time and again, the friendly kidding around on the course is difficult to replicate here, so unless you personally know the person (which I do not know you or Pat) such banter should be avoided in favor of careful and precise communication.



thanks for the apology Nick. I think you missed the question i wanted answered so i highlighted it. But i am not looking for you to answer that. I was curious what Mr. Chapman's answer would be. I don't think he should be the victim of a witchhunt -- just that he made the wrong call on this issue.

it does seem like you have a pattern on this DISCussio board of defending the PDGA out of good intentions, but that the consequence and effect of your involvement is often counter-productive because it sometimes comes across as holier-than-thou. you seem to me to be a pretty fair-intentioned person and i bet i would enjoy playing a round of disc golf with you. it would be nice to play with someone who has thoroughly read the rules :D (no slight intended to anyone i play with -- or used to play with as the case may now be) :o :D

Interesting and informative. Still not sure it was necessary to take another shot at Chappy.

I don't know if I'll vote for you or not. I don't really know you other than the way you present yourself here on the message board and the work you've done on it and the course directory. Certainly I appreciate the later, the former worries me somewhat.

i'm still trying to figure out why Mr. Chapman isn't demanding that the ratings info this website makes available to everyone isn't disabled until there is an opt-in/opt-out choice in it?



This was my answer, though I can't answer for Chappy.


As a membership elected official doesn�t he have the mandate to make such requests? Isn�t that precisely why they are in the positions they are in? To make all such decisions concerning the use of PDGA resources; who uses them and in what way they are to be presented.



To clarify, the use of PDGA Player Ratings in the Player Ratings or Membership section of the website has been approved and in use for some time already.

And, yes, it would be nice if everyone could keep in mind that folks personalities on this board are different (hopefully) than they are out on the course, or when they are "actually" out doing something for the sport in the "real" world. I can think of a few that match, but that's because they're my friends.

i'm still trying to figure out why Mr. Chapman isn't demanding that the ratings info this website makes available to everyone isn't disabled until there is an opt-in/opt-out choice in it?



As a membership elected official doesn�t he have the mandate to make such requests? Isn�t that precisely why they are in the positions they are in? To make all such decisions concerning the use of PDGA resources; who uses them and in what way they are to be presented.

To clarify, the use of PDGA Player Ratings in the Player Ratings or Membership section of the website has been approved and in use for some time already.



right that is my point: saying that what Pat did was wrong on the basis that one could not opt in or out of it fails to address the fact that the information is already on-site without opt in or out choice (other than you must join the PDGA and remain current to opt-in). For example, if i click on Mr. Chapman's (or any member's) post ID and then click on his (or her) PDGA # -- the ratings info is there for all to see (hence Bruce's term "Click-click-back-back" to refer to what we do in the absence of Pat's feature).

The ratings being available on the wesite is more for the TDs and players, than the general public. There is not currently a method in place to restrict the display to only TDs or each individual player at this time. I'm not sure it would be a good thing even if it was technically possible.

I don't really understand why it is a problem having it show up in the message board when it is available to anyone who cares to make a couple of mouse clicks.

Putting everything on peoples profiles isn't a great idea. From the asthetic standpoint, it would be too busy. Do I really care about your rating, no. Do I really care about your ranking, no. Do I really care what events you played, no. OK, maybe I care a bit, but not enough to clutter up everyones profile.

I think that we would be better served by keeping the profile section simple with name and location and your avatar.

The purpose of the discussion board is to discuss. Keep all of the ratings, rankings, lists of events, etc. where it belongs, on the Tour page. Those are tour related issues and should be there. An easily searchable rating/rankings listing would be of a benefit, but on the tour section. They can be updated along with the ratings and posted or linked somewhere on the tour section.

Apparently we are not getting what each other are saying.

The PDGA has the right to decide where and how it's resources (i.e. player ratings) are displayed. They can say, yes we'll show them on the membership page but not on the message board. They can do that, the rest of us can't make such decisions for them.

I'm pretty sure part of the enhancements planned for the site is that such data and pages will be member only. What will be public will only be the skill level range (Gold, Blue, White, Red, Green). Similarly only the top level of the course evaluations will be public, the rest will be for members. These are some of the things that are on the IT list.Pat would know more about all of that.

there has been talk about making certain parts of the site members only. details have not been discussed, only the concept.

i have never heard of ratings being hidden, or of an IT initiarive to correlate ratings ranges to colors. it could be something the ratings committee is doing though.

what could be gained from hiding player ratings from non-member view?

I haven't been part of any discussions along these lines. I have commented a few times over the years that all we (PDGA) really needed to post and provide TDs for tournament purposes was the minimum division players qualified for and not specific ratings. Of course, we wouldn't want to deal with the 5000 emails complaining that we took ratings away. :)

if 5000 is the over/under on number of emails received if ratings were somehow hidden, i'll take the over!

there is an initiative David and I are (were?) working on to provide TD limited access to players lists segmented by state and other parameters. it doesnt seem that it would be too difficult at all to figure out from their current rating what division(s) they qualify for, and present that info as part of the page.

it doesnt seem that it would be too difficult at all to figure out from their current rating what division(s) they qualify for, and present that info as part of the page.




I thought that the player's minimum division and age brackets were already provided on the list for TDs? I haven't seen the current TD player printout for a while.

My understanding was that you were more or less brought on to develope the members only area of the site. It was clearly explained to me that most of the course evaluation pages would be member only areas (likely only the link ratings would be public).

What would be gained? Added value service for members. A higher degree of privacy for certain personal data. Better protection of PDGA property and resources.

Not all areas or even most areas will be member only, just a few key ones.

Why would a non-member need to know individual player ratings or the tournament histories of PDGA Members?

Pat:
what could be gained from hiding player ratings from non-member view?


Nick:
Why would a non-member need to know individual player ratings or the tournament histories of PDGA Members?

At least one organization was talking about mining our data to create their own rating system.

if 5000 is the over/under on number of emails received if ratings were somehow hidden, i'll take the over!



Really? Why would PDGA Members care one way or another if non-members could see their personal player ratings and event histories? Why would you care Pat?

Yes, there is that Bruce.

I could see showing an example display or two so that potential members and those who haven't renewed for a few years could see the latest version of the PDGA player stats area(s) they would get when they join/renew.

with an acknowledgement to bruce's response which came after yours, its the same reason the general public can follow rankings and histories (including earnings) of PGA players.

i do understand that some other org might try to data mine visible data. that would not be desirable. i doubt it would realy give them all that much though.

i very strongly believe that the breadth and depth of services the PDGA provides represents a huge barrier to entry for any grassroots organization to ovecome. i believe someone with between $500,000 and $1,000,000 could for all practical purposes take over the sport within two or three years. i actually view this scenario as a more plausible "threat'.

chuck, those printoutsare still available. we're talking about adding an online implementation to reduce distribution costs, and make it possible for TDs to validate entries from players who show up from far away. only a subset of state lists are sent currently.

It would be cool if that access was available when they log into the tournament area for posting results. I assume that's the thinking?

with an acknowledgement to bruce's response which came after yours, its the same reason the general public can follow rankings and histories (including earnings) of PGA players.

i do understand that some other org might try to data mine visible data. that would not be desirable. i doubt it would realy give them all that much though.

i very strongly believe that the breadth and depth of services the PDGA provides represents a huge barrier to entry for any grassroots organization to ovecome. i believe someone with between $500,000 and $1,000,000 could for all practical purposes take over the sport within two or three years. i actually view this scenario as a more plausible "threat'.


I wonder if anybody could convince Mark Cuban to start playing disc golf...

Imagine the possibilities...

:D

chuck, that is the general thinking, yes. it would be protected by "role". we've discussed enhancing things so TDs could "authorize" asst-TDs to access their event-specific area also. currently it is in a one event, one TD architecture. David, as Tour Manager, is calling the shots on the feature list, so please bear in mind that what i say here is not formal policy or direction.

I agree that things that are worth reporting as news should be included in publicly available areas. Not sure if PDGA Player Ratings fit that bill.

Do folks really want to know your or my ratings or event histories? They might want the top 100 or 200 players stats but when you hit 1000s off the top players I'd imagine interest other than for the individual members and their immediate competitors would wane pretty quickly.

Ratings are primarily a service for PDGA Members who play in PDGA Events. Their news worthiness is pretty weak at best.

Full results would continue to be offered, they have a clear news worthiness.

put it out there for anyone interested in seeing it. PDGA members get their competitive sanctioned disc golf histories published, non-members do not. why keep it secret? if you don't want your results tracked -- why play competitive disc golf?

Rob, it is a benefit provided by the PDGA Membership for the PDGA Membership. The benefits to the general public will be many and purposeful. Appropriate pars for courses, perhaps even Pat's/PDGA Ratings Committee Player Rankings will someday be of interest to the public (hopefully). Some things should target, and do target, the specific needs of members.

I'm not proposing taking away anything the public really yearns for, PDGA Ratings unfortunately will not be missed. Results, photos, basic course evaluations and directory are stuff the public should be fed a steady and improved diet of.

I think I'll vote for Pat. I dig his passionate involvement.

I think I'll vote for Pat. I dig his passionate involvement.


Nick is quite passionate and involved.

who are these guys telling me what I want to see. player ratings rankings are not even on the players profile page for gods sake. I want to see it and yes I think it is a good thing to know when speaking about tournament play for instance. If someone post about tournament play, decisions by tds etc... Id like to know if that person even plays in tournaments. The all volunteer bod needs to pull the stick outa their #$*&$! and give members what they want from their organization. Ya know, I hate being in the majority and being #$*&$! on by elitest leadership.Its kida like when politicians loose touch with the common folk. The bod needs to shed its ideologies and come together with members and volunteers to make this a better org to be a member of. I have been a member for only a short time. I didn't need to be a member before but when I started playing tournaments and became the pres of our local club I felt I needed to be a member and I wanted a rating and the ability to follow my stats etc....I don't have to be a member but I like the fact that I am supporting the sport by being a member. You know, there are only a handful of people who post, why not run a poll on one of these threads and see what the people who actually post want under their names. As a matter of fact, I'll run a poll on our local site. anyone who wants to participate log on to www.gtdiscgolf.com (http://www.gtdiscgolf.com), register and vote. I'll post the results next monday and we will see what the members want. :p

Rob, it is a benefit provided by the PDGA Membership for the PDGA Membership.

where is this explicity stated? the Constitution requires the BoD to act in the interestes of the sport , not to provide benefits to members.

obviously, benefits for members helps the sport. but it may prove to be difficult to make a serious case that showing member ratings to the general is bad for the sport.

The point i would like you to think about Nick is that by making ratings available for anyone to see, non-members see one of the benefits of joining the PDGA: a published rating/ranking which displays your competitive statistics online.

The argument that many PDGA members are not online is short-sighted. 10 or 20 years hence that certainly won't be true. The goal of this site should be to attract non-members to see what the PDGA is. We seem to be going in the exact opposite direction :confused:

I'm not saying it is bad for the sport Pat, just that it is of little use or interest to the public at large, while at the same time it is of interest and use to the PDGA membership (some of us at least).

Your proposed Rankings would likely be of more interest and then primarily for the top players (if Vegas ever gets involved in disc golf).

Rob, I have thought about it and I don't think showing other peoples PDGA player ratings is going to encourage non-members to join.

That being said I think that there are some "newsworthy" extrapolations of results and ratings that might be of interest to the general public.

After all, couldn't the same thing be said of DGWN?

Membership needs some privileges. The more the better. I know some folks here think that we are a cheap org and only charge about $50 in membership fees; but as Pat pointed out elsewhere if the real dollar value for all the volunteer work that goes on for this org were ever actually charged folks would be shelling our around $500 in membership fees.

Now, I don't want that to happen. But what I do want is for the value of membership to be understood and where possible accentuated.

Until ratings are based on how a person plays a course, I don't put much weight into them.

For example.

Person A plays a course and shoots a -7 which is a great score on that course.

Person B which is rated 870 gets hot on the course and shoots a -13.

Well since person B had a round that was out of his mind, the SSA/WCP for the round is lowered and the rest of the field is penalized.

Another thing abour ratings....

A 950 rated golfer in one state might not be a 950 golfer in another state.

You're wrong on both counts. The ratings rely on statistics. As long as there are enough players generating the ratings, a particularly poor or great performance of one individual will not budge the ratings. In addition, players who shoot rounds more than 60 points below their rating are not included in the SSA calculation for the course, so they have zero impact.

Time and again, the ratings from other areas have been shown to be consistent with other areas. Worlds, USDGC and NTs have shown this year after year.

You're wrong on both counts. The ratings rely on statistics. As long as there are enough players generating the ratings, a particularly poor or great performance of one individual will not budge the ratings. In addition, players who shoot rounds more than 60 points below their rating are not included in the SSA calculation for the course, so they have zero impact.

Time and again, the ratings from other areas have been shown to be consistent with other areas. Worlds, USDGC and NTs have shown this year after year.



And if a players shoots 60 points higher than their current rating????

My rating is in the 870s. Some of my highest rated rounds come from wide open courses. You can't tell me that my rating would be the same if i played in a state that had a lot of courses that have wide open holes.

If ratings were all that...then you wouldn't have pros(highly rated pros)...telling others that ratings are crap.

Doesn't matter if the rating is on the high side because you can't manipulate scores for a good round (unless you cheat) but you can tank a bad round at will.

I can tell you your rating would be about the same. Yes, some players will play better on one type of course than another just like horses might run well on a mud track. The point is your rating is related to the courses you play and will be more accurate the more you travel.

Pro ratings are some of the most accurate because they travel and play more on average. Some pros like to feel superior by knocking something down they don't understand, especially if their rating embarasses them. If they can actually explain mathematically why the ratings are crap, then maybe they might be credible, but few can. I'm still waiting for a 925 player to win an NT or Worlds or for Barry to shoot a round under 900.

It's better for pros to think ratings are crap. Otherwise, it's hard to justify throwing your money away to enter A-tiers as a 957 player if you only believe you're a 957 player. You have to believe you're just about to break thru as a champion or at least cash. I think it's mentally healthy for pros to think this way and not pay attention to ratings. It doesn't bother me and I understand. They're not relevant for what division they enter like Ams.

The potential flaws of the ratings process are well known but minor effects. However, you can't argue with the fact that players actually shot the rounds they did. All we do is transform their personal scores into other numbers, like exchanging Canadian to US dollars, and average them.

Actually, I've figured out how to manipulate ratings to the high side quite effectively. Develop bad knees and a bad throwing elbow. Cut back on practicing to let the elbow get a little better. Then just show up and chuck it! :D Before the elbow gets too tired and sore, chuck some lefty too.

My last eight rounds are averaging 950. I don't think I've ever done that before. It's gotta be the lack of practice and injuries.

if you play tournaments, especially more than 3 a year, your rating should be right on. I play better where I can grip and rip on a wide open course but who dosen't? the rating comes from the play of all players so, your ratings coming from rounds on a wide open course or a wooded course should be pretty accurate.