someone asked for some numbers about the Message Board. here are some basics as of December 19, 2006

total users: 7849
users in the last 24 hours: 455
users in the last 7 days: 719
users in the last month: 971
users who have never logged in: 1185

loosely interpreted, approx 10% of the PDGA membership used the message board in the last month.

Do you have to log in to get counted? Or do the stats include views of the site? I know when I'm traveling, I don't always log in.

message board members. so if you didnt log in you are just an anonymous nobody unfit for counting :D

(however, webstats would show your visit, just not attribute it to you)

which user has the most posts???? :D:eek:

grunion :eek:

(just kidding,... dont know)

Who is it that every now and then posts the user post count totals / ranks.

I'm thining gnduke???

definately not gary Duke I have him by over a 1000 posts

ah I see you are saying gary posts that info.. oops

loosely interpreted, approx 10% of the PDGA membership used the message board in the last month.



This is one reason why the message board is not an ideal communication tool for the BOD. The message could only reach approximately 10% of the membership. This is probably much less since members would have to wade through so many posts to get to the message.

Conversely, when the BOD wants the know the opinions of the membership, this message board can only provide the viewpoints of 10% of the members. Again, that percentage is probably much less as not all members who log on will make a post.


The PDGA message board: a very vocal minority presuming to speak for the majority.

Hey wait, I resemble that remark. :p

Discette - you might be right, but you might just as well be wrong. I am not sure what percentage of the membership is even "actively concerned". I would guess that only around 10-20% read the regular emails that the BoD sends out. What percent vote? I do not believe that in your assertion above that you have correlated the involvement here with those "actively interested" in leadership activity.

I would not be surprised that the 10% of the membership that is online is a huge percentage of the members that would even pay attention to what the BoD would communicate no matter what medium they chose.

Now, if there was an area, say an "Ask the BoD" area, that was easy to find and was somehow kept free from extraneous clutter, then maybe this space could be a very valuable means to increase the amount and the quality of communication from (and too) our leadership. And, more people would use this space constructively.

Suprising counts.

Atwood is about to be bumped from the top 10.
<table border="1"><tr><td>Poster</td><td>Threads</td><td>Count
</td></tr><tr><td>Rhett_in_SoCal</td><td>2274</td><td>10610
</td></tr><tr><td>seewhere</td><td>1099</td><td>9189
</td></tr><tr><td>NickK</td><td>948</td><td>8880
</td></tr><tr><td>Chuck Kennedy</td><td>1548</td><td>7721
</td></tr><tr><td>GnDuke</td><td>1598</td><td>7471
</td></tr><tr><td>sandalman</td><td>1031</td><td>7443
</td></tr><tr><td>Schweb</td><td>986</td><td>7412
</td></tr><tr><td>17684</td><td>691</td><td>7091
</td></tr><tr><td>Twoputt</td><td>855</td><td>7080
</td></tr><tr><td>Mark_Atwood</td><td>957</td><td>6968
</td></tr><tr><td>MTL</td><td>1289</td><td>6853
</td></tr><tr><td>EZ_disc</td><td>977</td><td>6154</tr></td></table>

How about ranking just posts made in 2006? I think several below me will soon overtake me.

wow, I have got some werk to do.

j/k

maybe

three mullets within 30 posts of each other, interesting very interesting

which user has the most posts???? :D:eek:

It could only be 1 Socal mullet who needs a HaircuTT

That's a database query, this is from the userlist page.

Discette, there is no one perfect communications medium. for example, i almost never read the DGWN because it is so repetitious and the good stuff has such tiny print i need magnifying glasses. i never read the email from the former Comm Director because they didnt offer anything much new or of any real value, anmd didnt come out regularly.

its different strokes for different folks... we need all the channels open.

even voting only gets about 120% of the Members. that doesnt make voting inappropriate for use by the organization

i never read the email from the former Comm Director because they didnt offer anything much new or of any real value, anmd didnt come out regularly.



Still campaigning? Have you forgotten that I didn't run? :cool: And, how would you know that "they didnt (sic) offer anything much new or of any real value" if you didn't read them?

Can you make ten posts in a row that do not criticize me, some other PDGA volunteer, or the PDGA itself? You are on the board, aren't you?

I mean, it'd be nice to stay on thread in some of these discussions, which I can do if the potshots aren't there. Geez.

And, is this a look ahead at the next elections, which you can help run? Wow: "even voting only gets about 120% of the Members."

Pat, I read it the same way as Terry.

Remember, before Terry, there was no PDGA emails.

I do like what Steve has done with it.

It's like what Gary Duke has done with the State Coordenators job in Texas. I was doing a good job, but he improved what I had been working on.

I read it as Pat stating his personal preferences, not as him attacking the publications. For those people that are rabid message boarders, virtually any other medium is old news.

I think he realizes that there are those that enjoy both the magazine and the member emails as well as the PDGA Radio shows. If he doesn't he hasn't thought it through, and whether I agree with his points of view or not, he has always impressed me as one that considers many sides before forming his opinions.

i get my most of my pdga news from the website and d-board. i usually thumb thru the mag and check some event results. i skim the emails. like gary suggests, i am completely aware that a lot of people prefer the mag and/or the emails over the website. that means that ALL channels should be as good as possible, and they should work synergistically to provide the best possibvle communications package. i believe Steve is making great strides towards that objective.

loosely interpreted, approx 10% of the PDGA membership used the message board in the last month.



This is one reason why the message board is not an ideal communication tool for the BOD. The message could only reach approximately 10% of the membership.



let's be far-sighted about this. persons born in the 21st century are the future. the new generation is an internet generation. this website will be the PDGA hub. may as well start practicing how to communicate to the future Ken Climo's of the world ;)

obviously we are setting the bar low :D

Pat, can you do comparisons of pre-members-only era to the members-only posting era? i think Blake T. told me that his website ( www.discgolfreview.com (http://www.discgolfreview.com) ) began getting a lot more traffic when the PDGA decided it didn't want persons interested in the PDGA -- but not yet members -- interacting on this DISCussion Board.

This is a start but not nearly informative enough. We need some useful information, that is, take the top 500 posters and tell us how many hits each has for a one month period. Also, when you say there have been 455 users in the last 24 hours are those all unique? or does that represent logins?

BTW, not to belabor the point but over a one month period approximately 10% of our members use this site. I'm betting the frequency of hits will show the number of "frequent" posters is closer to 3%. Good thing we're driving the direction of the PDGA based on opinions and communications made here....

Good thing we're driving the direction of the PDGA based on opinions and communications made here....

is that sarcasm or am i misinterpreting your words?

455 is unique users.

i get my most of my pdga news from the website and d-board. i usually thumb thru the mag and check some event results. i skim the emails. like gary suggests, i am completely aware that a lot of people prefer the mag and/or the emails over the website. that means that ALL channels should be as good as possible, and they should work synergistically to provide the best possibvle communications package. i believe Steve is making great strides towards that objective.



While this sentiment is admirable, it misses a key point. The MB has been effectively used to drive policy, neither the e-mails nor the mag can be used in that manner.

Like T.V. and radio before it, fast efficient communication has been shown to be highly effective in pushing public opinion. The problem is that there are no checks and balances on what goes in this medium (the same has become true of T.V. and radio). People post hersay and opinion like it is fact and often mold issues out of nothing.

I might suggest a couple of things. The first is that no Board Member or PDGA employee should be allowed to use the MB, period.

The second is that each Board member and each employee should be given a standardized method of reporting their acitivities to the membership with a guiding timeline. That info should be posted in all three formats, web site or in a protected MB area, e-mail, and mag. No other communications should be allowed outside those formats.

The Board Members and employees should be held accountible for a high level of communication with great detail and frequency required.

Using that method, we can be assured that the membership gets acurate information that is not biased by the heat of the MB moment... /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

BTW -

Here is one clear example of why Board Members should be forbidden from posting here.


<font color="red">We (Marshall Street and Triple Disc) put in a bid. And we will probably put in a bid for the 07 DVD.

I will admit it is a bit upsetting when we put in a bid which I believe would have gotten the PDGA a better product (replicated DVDs instead of the duplicated DVD-Rs we got) for less money and we did not win the bid. I can understand wanting to form a relationship with a video partner, but pullleaaase get them replicated in the future.

Sorry for the thread drift.
</font>

Essentially, you have a Board Member putting in a plug for his own company. It's called a conflict of interest. So, can we expect that the Board will be neutral on this issue in the future?

Good example of a potential problem.

The way that it was subsequently handled is also a good example of how a potential problem can be effectively addressed.

If local clubs had to be run the way the Board will now have to be run to avoid conflicts of interest, many clubs would go under and their services will likely cost more not less.

Good example of a potential problem.

The way that it was subsequently handled is also a good example of how a potential problem can be effectively addressed.



Excellent point,

Here's the problem. Steve and Pat essentially ran on a reformist platform. They were unopposed so there is no real evidence that a majority of the membership felt that reform was desired. In point of fact, their reformist position was shot down by the membership; there was a third reformist voice, that of Bruce B. The only "reformist" who was opposed, Bruce lost. Furthermore, a key element of their message was that the new Constitution was flawed, unacceptable. Apparently, the membership disagreed with that position and with the notion that the Board was somehow suspect.

After months of innuendo about the Board's motivation we find that at the first opportunity, one of our "reform" candidates steps over the line. In my recollection, I don't ever recall one of our past suspect Board Members doing this.

What really bothers me is that at a fairly overt level, that reformist position is still being pursued, sometimes in a fairly nasty fashion (although in a slick kind worded way). Furthermore, it's being pursued here, in front of a small part of our membership, a very vocal, unelected minority...

Yes, I admit COI statements are good. I sign one every year. I also watch other people who have signed them advocate their positions to voting Board Members at the company I work for. Either your intent is good and you're honest or you're full of it. No statement like a COI will make a difference.

If local clubs had to be run the way the Board will now have to be run to avoid conflicts of interest, many clubs would go under and their services will likely cost more not less.



I absolutely agree. I will also point out that this was mentioned to the new Board Members in various ways. They have laid some fairly untenable ground rules, but as was written on the bumper sticker, don't blame me, I didn't vote for them.

BTW, not to belabor the point but over a one month period approximately 10% of our members use this site. I'm betting the frequency of hits will show the number of "frequent" posters is closer to 3%.



I think it was MP3 that gave an alternative view of these stats that some of y'all should really consider.

First, you low-ball the rate, then you ignore the ripple effects (word of mouth). Most telling, to me at least, is that you never counter the idea with a better alternative. You simply mock it and dismiss it.

The original claim was that "The message board could be a good vehicle for communication between the BoD and the members." I never hear any counter proposals such as "No, method X is really much more effective for such and such reasons." I only hear "Naw, not enough people use it, some people aren't tactful, etc, etc, etc." No positive alternatives, merely claims that the message board is an imperfect vehicle.

When I hear this nonsense, I imagine some political campaign spurning photo ops on tv because only 5% of the populace will see it.


Good thing we're driving the direction of the PDGA based on opinions and communications made here....



How many times do I have to hear this strawman? This is a discussion about the PDGA leaders communicating to the members. Mostly, it's about communicating down, not up.

I personally don't know if this is the best way or not; however, I do know that this is one way, and one way is better than no way. The present method, or lack of method (or is it interest) in communicating to the membership about the goals, options, challenges, and decisions confronting the PDGA is helping no one. Y'all can continue to mock this alternative and proceed with business as usual, but you always do it at the expense of the leadership, and the organization as a whole.

You're a political informed guy Lyle. I'll assume on the liberal side. Just imagine that every liberal initiative was confronted by conservative spin on the talk shows and print media. If there was no counter persuasion by the left, everyone would naturally feel that the left made decisions without thinking them through; is too weak to defend themselves; or is too arrogant or secluded to entertain dissent. Given that scenario, which side would be winning the battle of public opinion.

BTW, not to belabor the point but over a one month period approximately 10% of our members use this site. I'm betting the frequency of hits will show the number of "frequent" posters is closer to 3%.



I think it was MP3 that gave an alternative view of these stats that some of y'all should really consider.

First, you low-ball the rate, then you ignore the ripple effects (word of mouth). Most telling, to me at least, is that you never counter the idea with a better alternative. You simply mock it and dismiss it.

<font color="red">I see your point and I disagree. First, I can count the number of times that I've discussed the goings on of this MB with other PDGA members on one hand. I tend to have a bigger mouth than others so I'd guess I'm not low-balling it when I say the ripple effect is small. Second, driving policy via spontaneous communications on this Board scares me. It always has and it always will. For all the reasons listed here and in past postings. </font>

The original claim was that "The message board could be a good vehicle for communication between the BoD and the members." I never hear any counter proposals such as "No, method X is really much more effective for such and such reasons." I only hear "Naw, not enough people use it, some people aren't tactful, etc, etc, etc." No positive alternatives, merely claims that the message board is an imperfect vehicle.

<font color="red">I want to point out that my basic feeling is that this site is an excellent positioning point for both communication and information. I have advocated that position in the past and still do. However, I believe that the MB part of this site is used and abused by a lot of people (including myself). That is why I'm taking the postion I have. Lots of information and outword communication, but not a place for open discussions about PDGA policy. We should be able to come here and ask for what we want. The Board and employees should post that information in a non-MB format. </font>

When I hear this nonsense, I imagine some political campaign spurning photo ops on tv because only 5% of the populace will see it.

<font color="red">Go back and read my posts more carefully. Again, I'm not spurning communication here, I'm simply saying we should understand that communication here doesn't necessarily reflect the membership view. Great ideas happen here, but at this point they seem to be taken as the only ideas. </font>


Good thing we're driving the direction of the PDGA based on opinions and communications made here....



How many times do I have to hear this strawman? This is a discussion about the PDGA leaders communicating to the members. Mostly, it's about communicating down, not up.

<font color="red">Shall I go find specific instances where discussions started here and carried out here have driven PDGA policy? It happens, and maybe even for the good. But, go back and read the post I made about reform. We are now existing under reformist conditions, a postion rejected by the membership in the last election but being driven here. </font>

I personally don't know if this is the best way or not; however, I do know that this is one way, and one way is better than no way. The present method, or lack of method (or is it interest) in communicating to the membership about the goals, options, challenges, and decisions confronting the PDGA is helping no one. Y'all can continue to mock this alternative and proceed with business as usual, but you always do it at the expense of the leadership, and the organization as a whole.

You're a political informed guy Lyle. I'll assume on the liberal side. Just imagine that every liberal initiative was confronted by conservative spin on the talk shows and print media. If there was no counter persuasion by the left, everyone would naturally feel that the left made decisions without thinking them through; is too weak to defend themselves; or is too arrogant or secluded to entertain dissent. Given that scenario, which side would be winning the battle of public opinion.
<font color="red">This is a great point! Take a look at what has happened over the past 6 to 10 years. In point of fact, what you're saying couldn't happen has happened. The consequences have been pretty ugly for America, and the world, in many different arenas. </font>

<font color="red"> McCAIN FOR PRESIDENT!!!!!!! </font>


<font color="yellow">
LYLE FOR A UNIMPORTANT DESK JOB!!!!! </font>

James should run for the BoD for sure!

Minutes from December 6, 2006 (http://www.pdga.com/documents/boardminutes/2006-12-06BODMeetingMinutesApproved.pdf)

Minutes Directory (http://www.pdga.com/org/boardminutes.php)

The present method, or lack of method (or is it interest) in communicating to the membership about the goals, options, challenges, and decisions confronting the PDGA is helping no one.



First, I assure you that it is not "lack of interest" on the part of leadership, that's a red herring (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring) that can be disregarded.

You're making an inherent assumption that I believe is false and it could be driving your perspective: That "the membership" doesn't feel that it gets enough information about "goals, options, challenges, and decisions confronting the PDGA."

I think that's projection. Your having an itch doesn't mean that a whole lot of others do.

You might not think you know enough, some others on DISCussion might think that they do not know enough (Although often what is not known has been shared, it just wasn't noticed.), but most members - including movers and shakers - are quite satisfied with:

- continuing growth in all categories;
- a more professional staff; and
- a maturing leadership perspective.

I agree with Lyle that the membership rejected reform in this last election, as it has in several previous elections. The single "reform" candidate who was opposed lost and the constitutional changes passed.

This is not the result of an ill-informed electorate, it is the result of a satisfied membership. The existence on DISCussion of even 100 very dissatisfied people hasn't the weight to counteract that. In fact, it has even less weight than it did a year ago since we had more than 20 percent membership growth in just the past year!

It ain't "broke," folks, let's be sure that we don't cause it to be.

It ain't "broke," folks, let's be sure that we don't cause it to be.



Even if it ain't broke, it can often be improved without breaking it. The only problem is deciding which direction is the direction toward improvement.

It ain't "broke," folks, let's be sure that we don't cause it to be.



Even if it ain't broke, it can often be improved without breaking it. The only problem is deciding which direction is the direction toward improvement.



Absolutely. "Continuous improvement," a lynch pin of Total Quality Management (TQM) requires constant "criticism." But it's not the kind of "criticism" mostly heard here. :)

Another assumptive error made here by some, I think, is that leadership is uninterested in hearing criticism, suggestions, or in improving things - when in fact, most of what the leadership does is seek out criticism; and they spend their time trying to make things better. With good results.

As an example, when I traveled to other parts of the country and had the opportunity be at a disc golf event, I nearly always asked the TD for a moment of time at players meetings and announced that I was there and eager to talk with anyone about anything. I asked people to seek me out and share their opinions. I also wrote a brief "stump speech" with variables so I could use the moment to explain some of the good things the PDGA was doing.

This is not an example of "perfect Terry," but an example of how portraying me (or other leaders) as uninterested in criticism or change is purely factually wrong. It is just as wrong as the unconscious, underlying motivation for negative perceptions of PDGA leadership by posters as it is as an out-loud statement.

I think the perception that those in power are resistent to change comes from the wecond part of my post. When you are on the outside looking in, or part of one faction, it is not hard to "know" what the right thing to do is. Once you are in a position of power and have a wider view of the playing field, the correct decision may not be so clear. All it takes is a couple of quick decisions that have severe unexpected consequences (and all decisions have some unexpected consequences) and the decision and implementation process slows down.

When you are on the outside looking in, or part of one faction, it is not hard to "know" what the right thing to do is. Once you are in a position of power and have a wider view of the playing field, the correct decision may not be so clear.



That's an interesting way to put it. I tried really hard not to come onto the board, when I did, with preconceptions about a lot of things.

Before being elected twice, I was first appointed, to replace Mark Ellis. I recall being told during the board meeting at which I was later appointed, that the trick question I had to answer was whether or not the 2-meter rule should stay.

My response was that I had thought about it and I felt that (a) it was a bit unfair to penalize someone who also probably had a bad lie anyway with a stroke, but (b) on the other hand, some of the most exciting moments I had experienced to date in disc golf included watching discs flying into trees and waiting in suspense to see if they would come back out.

They appointed me anyway.

I think it is true that the more you learn, the more you learn that you know less than you thought you did.

The present method, or lack of method (or is it interest) in communicating to the membership about the goals, options, challenges, and decisions confronting the PDGA is helping no one.



First, I assure you that it is not "lack of interest" on the part of leadership, that's a red herring (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring) that can be disregarded.

You're making an inherent assumption that I believe is false and it could be driving your perspective: That "the membership" doesn't feel that it gets enough information about "goals, options, challenges, and decisions confronting the PDGA."

I think that's projection. Your having an itch doesn't mean that a whole lot of others do.

You might not think you know enough, some others on DISCussion might think that they do not know enough (Although often what is not known has been shared, it just wasn't noticed.), but most members - including movers and shakers - are quite satisfied with:

- continuing growth in all categories;
- a more professional staff; and
- a maturing leadership perspective.

I agree with Lyle that the membership rejected reform in this last election, as it has in several previous elections. The single "reform" candidate who was opposed lost and the constitutional changes passed.

This is not the result of an ill-informed electorate, it is the result of a satisfied membership. The existence on DISCussion of even 100 very dissatisfied people hasn't the weight to counteract that. In fact, it has even less weight than it did a year ago since we had more than 20 percent membership growth in just the past year!

It ain't "broke," folks, let's be sure that we don't cause it to be.

[/QUOTE]

In the spirit of the gift-giving season how neatly you wrapped that package up. How pretty the bow. How persuasively you presented it.

How convenient to base your conclusions on a subjective interpretation of events that support your conclusions ... a nice round package, I tell you, sitting there all pretty under the tree ... maybe a disc? Or maybe just circular logic.

Terry, that post just boggled my mind ... where to start?

Let me fashion my own chain of events:

1) Communication is lousy (and I really was ROFL about "Although often what is not known has been shared, it just wasn't noticed." Isn't that always the case ... lack of communication is never the fault of the sender, always the receiver).
2) Therefore membership is in the dark (although "most members ... are quite satisified ..." there in the dark.)
3) Therefore membership votes for some vaguely familiar names they have seen in DGWN.
4) Therefore reform is defeated (at least in the one contested race).
5) Therefore everything the PDGA is/has been/will be doing is validated by a small percent of the potential electorate.

Just a small piece of advice;

You might want to pay attention to the "100 very dissatisfied people." Their ranks are now 101. I don't know what percentage of members cast ballots. I am willing to bet it was appalling low. Likewise, I would wager all my San Marino Rocs that the percentage of the "100 very dissatisfied people" who voted was considerably higher.

After all, if they are here, they are members. If they are dissatisfied, there is a reason, compelling or otherwise. I would also wager that many of them are COIs (Centers of Influence) in their respective disc golf communities.

Personally, one of the reasons I have been spending more time on this DISCussion board lately is, as a new member of the Southern National Board of Directors, I am trying to assess the PDGA and its direction with an eye to trying to bring Southern Nationals and the PDGA closer.

I will tell you my perception, which may allow you to conveniently lump me in with the "very dissatisfied."

It ain't all broke ... but there's a lot that could use to be fixed. A lot.

You're making an inherent assumption that I believe is false and it could be driving your perspective: That "the membership" doesn't feel that it gets enough information about "goals, options, challenges, and decisions confronting the PDGA."

I think that's projection. Your having an itch doesn't mean that a whole lot of others do.



I totally agree, although some of that is the chicken/egg paradox: if they have no idea what is going on, why would they care.

More importantly, people's lack of interest is not a good excuse for good stewardship. Having an informed membership leads to greater participation, more informed discussion/criticism, etc. In essence, more vitality.


I agree with Lyle that the membership rejected reform in this last election, as it has in several previous elections.

This is not the result of an ill-informed electorate, it is the result of a satisfied membership. The existence on DISCussion of even 100 very dissatisfied people hasn't the weight to counteract that. In fact, it has even less weight than it did a year ago since we had more than 20 percent membership growth in just the past year!

It ain't "broke," folks, let's be sure that we don't cause it to be.



I think a lot of this is pure foolishness. Don't confuse the allure of disc golf competition (new members), or the renewal of existing members as some vote of confidence. For example, put my own decision to renew into context: you have me over a barrel. Either I renew, or I can't play two events I plan to play, that is all it means. It is certainly not a referendum on the PDGA. I doubt I am alone in that thinking either.

It ain't all broke ... but there's a lot that could use to be fixed. A lot.



Aha, something we can agree on. Things always need improving. I just spent quite a bit of writing time pointing out that PDGA leaders agree with that.

To Pat and Terry: What have you 'learned' from all this...so far?
One can go on for (seemingly :D:o) days bolstering one's views/ego....but what has been gleaned from this DISCussion?

James should run for the BoD for sure!

Minutes from December 6, 2006 (http://www.pdga.com/documents/boardminutes/2006-12-06BODMeetingMinutesApproved.pdf)

Minutes Directory (http://www.pdga.com/org/boardminutes.php)



Why was Hawk's am membership denied with the amnesty?? I'm confused?

Why was Hawk's am membership denied with the amnesty?? I'm confused?



All you needed to do was call the office and ask: I just did. The number is at the top of every PDGA Web page: 706-261-NDGC (6342).

No one's renewal, moving to Am, has been denied; nor will it be.

There was a motion during the last meeting to award Hawk a complimentary 2007 membership, which was defeated in a board vote. I wasn't there, so I don't know why it was proposed, or why the proposal did not pass. (I would guess, from context only, that it would have set an awkward precedent to do so.)

I do know that if you were to read the minutes again, in light of this information, you will find that the four board members who voted against the motion each pledged $10 toward the cost of Hawk's 2007 PDGA Am membership: T. Pozzy, S. Dodge, C. Bellinger, J. Lyksett, B. Decker, P. May.

Really and truly, you get better info quicker by calling and asking instead of posting here and asking the world. I'm likely not gonna be sitting here with a few minutes on my hands for the next such question.

[Whew! Long, totally unfounded, potentially nasty postings about the unfairness of not allowing Hawk to renew as an Am are hereby avoided.]

Hawk can still get amnesty if he wishes. the motion was for a complimentary membership. that was rejected by vote. Hawk is still able to renew as a Pro or an Am if he wishes.

Steve, are you referring to this thread specifically, or the discussion board in general?

To Pat and Terry: What have you 'learned' from all this...so far?
One can go on for (seemingly :D:o) days bolstering one's views/ego....but what has been gleaned from this DISCussion?



In fairness, most of what I have learned would inflame some people's attitudes, so I'll keep it internal.

Steve, are you referring to this thread specifically, or the discussion board in general?


In general... I'm asking for a slight lowering of the guard...what has been gleaned? :cool:

Hawk can still get amnesty if he wishes. the motion was for a complimentary membership. that was rejected by vote. Hawk is still able to renew as a Pro or an Am if he wishes.



Thanks for clearing this up - I was just curious.

re the message board in general i have learned that

there are even more really smart, well-spoken and thoughtful Members here than i had ever imagined (there's been some really interesting and useful threads floating around lately) ...

that if participants stay on topic, dont troll or respond to trolling, and believe in honest discourse, that a lot of positive can happen...

that you cant please all of the people all of the time...

that ALMOST everyone can keep a sense of humor here, but there will always be a few...

that if you are gona post links, make sure all the female images on the site have on at least shirts and pants, and preferably turtlenecks or business suits :D

Suprising counts.

Atwood is about to be bumped from the top 10.
<table border="1"><tr><td>Poster</td><td>Threads</td><td>Count
</td></tr><tr><td>Rhett_in_SoCal</td><td>2274</td><td>10610
</td></tr><tr><td>seewhere</td><td>1099</td><td>9189
</td></tr><tr><td>NickK</td><td>948</td><td>8880
</td></tr><tr><td>Chuck Kennedy</td><td>1548</td><td>7721
</td></tr><tr><td>GnDuke</td><td>1598</td><td>7471
</td></tr><tr><td>sandalman</td><td>1031</td><td>7443
</td></tr><tr><td>Schweb</td><td>986</td><td>7412
</td></tr><tr><td>17684</td><td>691</td><td>7091
</td></tr><tr><td>Twoputt</td><td>855</td><td>7080
</td></tr><tr><td>Mark_Atwood</td><td>957</td><td>6968
</td></tr><tr><td>MTL</td><td>1289</td><td>6853
</td></tr><tr><td>EZ_disc</td><td>977</td><td>6154</tr></td></table>



I remember the good ole days when i was able to keep up and stay in the top 5-10.

Now: Search results for My_Hero: 1243 threads, 5626 posts

You know Terry,

I spent the day thinking about this post, and I reviewed the minutes and something seems strange to me. Why in the world was the Board voting about a free membership for Hawk? This seems a strange activity for the Board. Precedent aside, why would this even come up for a vote?

Pat, perhaps you or Steve can enlighten us. Why a free Am membership for Hawk? Has he made some significant contribution to the PDGA? What's the logic here? Of course that completely misses the point that Steve helped to carry the motion and then voted against it. Oh well...



Why was Hawk's am membership denied with the amnesty?? I'm confused?



All you needed to do was call the office and ask: I just did. The number is at the top of every PDGA Web page: 706-261-NDGC (6342).

No one's renewal, moving to Am, has been denied; nor will it be.

There was a motion during the last meeting to award Hawk a complimentary 2007 membership, which was defeated in a board vote. I wasn't there, so I don't know why it was proposed, or why the proposal did not pass. (I would guess, from context only, that it would have set an awkward precedent to do so.)

I do know that if you were to read the minutes again, in light of this information, you will find that the four board members who voted against the motion each pledged $10 toward the cost of Hawk's 2007 PDGA Am membership: T. Pozzy, S. Dodge, C. Bellinger, J. Lyksett, B. Decker, P. May.

Really and truly, you get better info quicker by calling and asking instead of posting here and asking the world. I'm likely not gonna be sitting here with a few minutes on my hands for the next such question.

[Whew! Long, totally unfounded, potentially nasty postings about the unfairness of not allowing Hawk to renew as an Am are hereby avoided.]

I was wondering the same. :confused:

Was there an effort made to advocate a free membership so a source of entertainment or 'celebrity' can continue posting to the discussion board?

I spent the day thinking about this post, and I reviewed the minutes and something seems strange to me. Why in the world was the Board voting about a free membership for Hawk? This seems a strange activity for the Board. Precedent aside, why would this even come up for a vote?

Pat, perhaps you or Steve can enlighten us. Why a free Am membership for Hawk? Has he made some significant contribution to the PDGA? What's the logic here? Of course that completely misses the point that Steve helped to carry the motion and then voted against it. Oh well...



Lyle, while i don't buy into this logic -> Pat is broadminded enough that i can sort of see why he might want to keep a mini message board celeb like Hawk around for the potential draw of new members... the real question -- it seems to me -- is after casting a vote against the measure, why did:

<font color="blue"> T. Pozzy, S. Dodge, J. Lyksett, B. Decker and P. May volunteered to contribute $10 towards Mr Corrick�s membership. The renewal will be processed at HQ upon receipt of all funds. </font> ? :confused:

did they find it wrong to spend member money but had no problem supporting Hawk as individuals? (sounds like an honorable approach)

maybe i am wrong about Pat wishing Hawk to stay around as a way of retaining present members and drawing new ones. i am only speculating on Pat's rationale... maybe there are other circumstances we aren't priivy to...

i find it a little ironic though that you are publicly questioning this given previous statements you have made about our beloved leadership. afterall, this would have been a rather miniscule expenditure and maybe we should just give the leadership the benefit of the doubt ;)

I wish Pat would explain the rationale behind asking the PDGA BOD to give Hawk a free 2007 Am membership.

It seems offering any member a free membership would set a bad precedent. Offering a membership to Hawk is beyond me. I could maybe see offering a membership to a stellar athlete like Kenny or Barry. Even to a lifelong volunteer or contributor, like pretty much any Hall of Fame member, but to Hawk? Surely you jest. I wouldn't want any of my sponsors to read most of his threads on here. What kind of contributions has Hawk made to the PDGA? Is he more deserving than a current BOD member or Hall of Famer?

I wonder how Jack Moore, aka Forgiven One, would feel about this. Hawk mercilessly flamed and belittled Jack for his religious views earlier this year to the point Jack will not be posting on the message board ever again. He has offended quite a few members with his "PDGA rolls with Satan" signature, questionable avatars, and links to heaven knows what.

Again, Pat, why did you think the PDGA needed to consider a free membership for Hawk? And while your at it, will you ask the BOD to vote a free Pro membership for me next year? I've always had a cool signature line.

And while your at it, will you ask the BOD to vote a free Pro membership for me next year? I've always had a cool signature line.



i'll pay for you discette...it would be my xmas gift to you
and i would hate to see you not posting anymore :D

Again, Pat, why did you think the PDGA needed to consider a free membership for Hawk? And while your at it, will you ask the BOD to vote a free Pro membership for me next year? I've always had a cool signature line.




Wait a sec. Don't just single out Pat. It has to be seconded to be voted on.

Thanks Keith, but I have already sent in my renewal for next year. I will request a refund if the BOD decides to offer me the free PDGA membership at the next BOD meeting on January 3.

If they will just cover the AM portion of mine, I'll pay the extra for the upgrade to PRO (and I'll renew my ACE club membership also). :)

Pat brought up the motion and was the only one to vote for it.
I don't need to know why Steve seconded the motion, but I can guess.

......but....... http://www.myteespot.com/images/thumbs/t_6513_01.jpg :D

A second only means that the topic warrants discussion. After the discussion, an informed vote is made and may even be a unanimous "No".

Pat brought up the motion and was the only one to vote for it.
I don't need to know why Steve seconded the motion, but I can guess.



Board members often second motions they do not intend to vote for. Sometimes you need to get to the vote to move on to another topic. Sometimes you want a vote to have it on the record. Krupicka is correct. Sometimes unanimous votes even have trouble getting a second because no one supports the motion, but then the discussion ends up changing minds once the motion is seconded, and it passes unanimously.

suzette, my reason was primarily because Hawk had stated his decision to not renew based on his analysis of the value of membership. i believe the organization is improving the value of its products, and wanted Hawk to experience that improvement firsthand. he is an active part of disc golf in his region and could become a great spokesperson for the pdga.

i understand and even agree with some of your points about some of hawk's posts. i dont relish the idea of an argument about hawk's relative worthiness, but i think i can say this much with provoking: there will always be someone who crosses those lines. one year hawk, next year Mikey, the year after that who knows who, but it'll be someone. its better, if possible, to retain that enthusiasm and passion within the organization. i believe in hawk's case we could have worked through any issues.

"It seems offering any member a free membership would set a bad precedent." .... i tend to agree with you, but dont think it is not completely black and white. for example, providing memberships to volunteers may have a lot of merit, in my opinion. free memberships have been bestowed in the past, and the current ByLaws permit the practice.

if a Member contacts me and asks me to consider something or ask the Board to consider something, i will do so. if you really want me to ask the BoD to appoint you to membership status, i will. however, i could use some good input on how to best word it since i obviously was not nearly persuasive enough in my previous attempt.

I will agree with Terry. I have been in WAY too many Board meetings of other organziations where the discussion on a topic dragged on too long. It is best to have a vote on it so you can move on to other business that the board has to get to.

So, your motion worked, right, Pat, even though it was voted down? Hawk is renewed for 2007?

I think that makes it pretty clear that the folks who voted against the motion thought that was the wrong way to do it, but value dissenting opinions (as do I) enough to put their personal dollars to work to keep 'em coming?

It's gonna be very hard in the future for anyone to point to those board members, who are primarily from the "old guard," and with whom I am proud to have served, and argue that they stifle dissent, since there is official documentation of their support for it.

Carry on, guys!

Pat, I do not want you to petition the BOD to give me a free membership in 2007. I think it would be a monumental waste of BOD time to even consider it. Although, I am an active volunteer in my area, renewing my membership is one small way I can support the PDGA.

Well Rob,

Pat is many things, and he may even be broad minded, but that is besides the point. I think Discette nicely pointed out some of the issues that exist here. And if she doesn't mind I'd like to add to it.

Last year when the Board went members only one person who got left behind was Felix Sung. Felix was a prolific and informed poster not to mention a major contributer to the NC disc golf scene. The discussion that ensued was whether or not we should grant Felix a free membership. The PDGA's resoponse was straight up. Our job is not to give out free memberships. That didn't come from the Board, it came from Lorrie Gibson the Membership Manager, the person who should be responsible for such issues.

On the other hand, if we are going to have the Board vote on such things, I have a few I'd like them to vote on


Larry Kruse, local promotor who has voluntered significantly for the PDGA

Dave Nezbitt, even more work for the PDGA

Cong, up until a year ago one of the most prolific posters on this sight (funnier than Hawk too)

Jim Davidson, well I just like Jim

Don Wilcheck, with some help got the best disc golf complex in the city established

Andi Lehmann - too much to even begin to define it

Gee, this is going to take a while, maybe I should just submit a spreadsheet.

Finally, Where is Jason when you need him. I believe he is one of several posters who nailed past Boards and our exiting ED to the wall for having the chutzpa to essentially make gifts to significant volunteers for the PDGA, that is gifts to people who have spent 100s if not 1000s of hours working for free on behalf of the PDGA (as if a trip to a PDGA meeting to spend your free time talking to the Board can be considered a gift).

Hence my question, has Hawk done something for the PDGA that I don't know of or are we just doing a favor for him?

See what happens when you take to long to post!

All the logic you're missing comes right up.

Nonetheless, my point still holds this is a waste of Board time. Perhaps a better discussion would have been one on whether it's a good idea to extend free memberships to promote the sport and who they should go to?

Furthermore, I still think there is a flaw in Pat's logic. There are thousands of PDGA members out there promoting the sport and working hard to advance it. None of whom have to be bribed to do so. I'd rather rely on one of them to promote disc golf in Hawk's region.

As for Pat's assertion that free memberships have been extended in the past, I'm dying to know who got them. Our local club has extended some also.

Father Dave - one of the biggest promotors of our club and disc golf in Texas, a man loved universally who died last year, was given one.

Rick - Rick's darts and games, the only sponsor who has given every year to Texas States and the biggest local reseller of disc equipment

There are a few others but I think you see the gist. These are memberships based on huge contributions to the local sport and club. However, even Andi Lehmann, Richard, and others who basically grew the sport in Houston from nothing don't have free memberships. So once again, why would we want to extend one to Hawk without a discussion of the practice and it's relevance to the growth of the PDGA?

I know of a bunch of people who are struggling with the decision of renewing membership, and have struggled with this decision in the past. Good people among them, many of them valuable volunteers. The only difference I can see is that they haven't voiced their analysis using this media.

Should I send you a list so you can make a motion for these people also? Or do they have to start self promoting threads on the PDGA DB to be considered?

tim, what is the struggle they are having? if a bunch of people are struggling with ther decision of renewing membership, then yes, we should definitely talk. i would like to find ways to make it easier for those people to decide to renew.

I think it is a BAD precedent to set.
The BOD should not be discussing an individual member's worth unless it is in connection with a disciplinary review.
Individuals who offer to pay for a member's fees is nice and honorable, but NOT when the BOD is conducting official business.
Just my 2 cents.

Happy holidaze to all!

Finding ways to make people want to renew sounds like a good role for the Board. Considering the use of PDGA resources to pay for an individual's renewal because that person is visable on this forum does not.

Last year when the Board went members only one person who got left behind was Felix Sung. Felix was a prolific and informed poster not to mention a major contributer to the NC disc golf scene.



How did Felix "get left behind?" Why didn't he choose to renew his PDGA membership? If he was such a "prolific and informed poster" why didn't he just renew his PDGA membership?

Excellent point Jeff. I think that he never had one. I'm not even sure Felix played, just volunteered. He felt the sport was important and was doing good things. He disagreed with shutting down the participation of non-members.

Regardless, even if he does play and ever was a member, or got "left behind" or quit out of stubborness, the request to give him a free membership was submitted, it was handled by Lorrie, and it was best left there IMO. I liked Felix, and even discussed paying for his membership myself. But, as with Hawk, I believe the discussion of an indivdual membership by the Board is a waste of time. They should be thinking globally. Remember, even when they extend trips to vols, their goal is global, it's to have a discussion on what that vol is doing for the sport, how that should be managed, and how to gain consistency.

BTW - I like your avatar, on the other hand since Christmas is all the Steelers have to look forward to this year it does seem a little depressing... :D

tim i agree with you on that.

if there are people who are struggling with their membership decision, it seems that discussing the struggle could help. hiding the struggle limits the opportunities to improve.

Felix never was a PDGA member. His job as a minister prevented him from playing PDGA events.

I'm not sure why he didn't join. However, the rules were put in place that prevent non members from posting. It's a shame that posters such as Gunion ruin things for great posters like Felix.

Just an FYI, Felix is still around at tournaments here and there and it is always great to see him.

Felix never was a PDGA member. His job as a minister prevented him from playing PDGA events.

I'm not sure why he didn't join. However, the rules were put in place that prevent non members from posting. It's a shame that posters such as Gunion ruin things for great posters like Felix.

Just an FYI, Felix is still around at tournaments here and there and it is always great to see him.



If you see him tell him some of us miss his posts. That man was smart! And darn funny too. Oh, and he did it without nude avatars and sexual commentary, hard to believe isn't it.

tim i agree with you on that.

if there are people who are struggling with their membership decision, it seems that discussing the struggle could help. hiding the struggle limits the opportunities to improve.



I think this is a very important topic. One that Pat has raised before. The question is growth and retention.

In the past Pat has made the suggestion that our losses are due to "improper" PDGA behaviours or some such. Improper might be as simple as we don't spread the love as well as we could. I've asked Pat this question before and have never gotten a good answer, well O.K., I've never gotten any answer. How does our turnover relate to that of other sports or small non-profits? Are we higher, lower, the same? It might be that we are actually stellar at maintaining members relatively speaking and we've just never looked.

On the other hand, if we expect 100% maintenance of everyone who ever plays the sport we're bound to be disappointed.

Now what Pat has said, is that you can always do better and should strive for that. Well spoken. But shouldn't we understand the ground rules first? Shouldn't we know where we stand before we start dilligently changing things up? Wouldn't it be awful if we found out posthumously that giving free memberships to certain players, say Hawk for example, actually hurt our retention?

BTW - speaking of memberships, I finally got around to doing mine. I'd like to thank Pizza God for being an inspiration. After years of harassing Pizza on various threads, it was brought to my attention that he consistently renews as an ACE member. The guilt induced by this realization made me step up to the plate and do the right thing. Now I can go back to berating Pizza guilt free. :D

For those of you who don't know, Pizza is a diligent supporter of Disc Golf is Texas. Pizza constantly complains of his lack of overall funds (he�s a small business owner living on the edge). I�m very worried that he might just run out of cash, and since he does so much for the sport I am adding him to my list of people who should be considered for free membership by the Board.

Hey Lyle, I own a small business that is constantly on the edge, am a diligent supporter of Disc Golf, and also renew as an ACE member each year. :DAny chance you might add me (and my wife DeLynn) to your list?

Hey Lyle, I own a small business that is constantly on the edge, am a diligent supporter of Disc Golf, and also renew as an ACE member each year. :DAny chance you might add me (and my wife DeLynn) to your list?



I can't believe I forgot you! Done!

BTW - Thanks John, I'd call you more than an avid promoter, I'd say you keep West Texas disc golf on the map by my measurement!

Thanks for the confidence! DeLynn is a huge help also.

Well Rob,

Pat is many things, and he may even be broad minded, but that is besides the point. I think Discette nicely pointed out some of the issues that exist here. And if she doesn't mind I'd like to add to it.

Last year when the Board went members only one person who got left behind was Felix Sung. Felix was a prolific and informed poster not to mention a major contributer to the NC disc golf scene. The discussion that ensued was whether or not we should grant Felix a free membership. The PDGA's resoponse was straight up. Our job is not to give out free memberships. That didn't come from the Board, it came from Lorrie Gibson the Membership Manager, the person who should be responsible for such issues.



Lyle, the loss of Felix Sung (aka: fore) was one i felt immediately when the BoD decided to ban non-members from posting. the consideration of a free membership for Felix though was moot -- he went on record here as saying on principle he could not accept such an offer. like me, Felix thought banning non-members from participating here was not in the best interests of the PDGA -- irrespective of the impact upon him personally. it would be like banning all Texans from running for political office because of one or two poor examples of office holders that say they're from Texas.

Lorrie receives high grades from me, but i don't think she should trump the BoD should they find good reason to offer a free membership in a special case or cases. Felix probably did warrant it except it would be asking him to go against his principles so it would have been bad form.

i don't support a free membership for Hawk -- but it probably took all of 2 minutes to vote it down. i too am puzzled as to why Theo and 4 other Board members each pitched in $10 and bought Hawk a membership. :confused: (Pat didn't pay a dime of it) :eek: if it was merely on his charisma -- i guess i just have to shake my head and tell Hawk: well done (even if i don't get it).

i think Pat has done an excellent job so far and would encourage you -- if you think there is a need for balance -- to run for a position on the BoD too next time it comes up.

Hey Rob,

I'm not sure I see the relevance?

First off, this should be the purview of the Membership Director. If the Board decides that certain types of people should receive free memberships then it will be the MD's job to implement such. That's not trumping, that's the Board defining part of the MD's job. Until the time that some change comes in the policy, it is the job of the MD to take such requests and politely say no.

What in the world does holding an office with the PDGA have to do with Texas or free memberships? I'm afraid I'm just not bright enough to get your allegory.

As for Pat doing a great job, I don't see the relevance. I don't recall saying Pat has done a bad job or even that I disagree with Pat in general. I also don't see the relevance of Pat's performance to this discussion.

I think the numerous posts here well define the issue with the idea of giving Hawk a free membership. I think a discussion of that issue prior to a vote would have made these points clear. This tells me that one of two things happened. Either the discussion didn't occur and the issue was pushed through without it, or the discussion occurred and the issue was pushed to a vote regardless. Either situation is... interesting to say the least.

Pizza only has one more year as an Ace Club member than I do.

But If I'm an Ace Club member, it sort of means that I want to send money to the PDGA.

:confused:
Umm, that's exactly why I've been an ACE club member for a few years now. 4 in a row if I remember correctly. How long has it been available?

I took Lyle's posts as humor, and thought I would play along.
:p
I would never expect someone else to pay for what I enjoy. I take pride in supporting the PDGA in any way I can, and have been a current member for a long time. Only recently have I been in a position to give extra to our organization, and have done it gladly. I will renew my membership as well as DeLynn's (and our ACE club donation) in the next week or two. You won't hear me complain about the price, or ask "What's in it for me?". Just the sound of our check dropping in the mail slot in Augusta.

I wasn't jabbing at you, I was jabbing at Lyle.

I think Bryan is '98-'07 (10 Years)
I got started in '99-'07 ( 9 Years)

Hey Rob,

I'm not sure I see the relevance?





sorry, too much to get done between now and the holidays.
... happy winter solstice! :D

happy solstice rob... here comes summer!

The fuzzy logic of this rationale is highly amusing!. Right, lets have no less an organization than the BoD grant a free membership to a notorious publicity-hound who simply thrives on stirring up controversy, not on discussing anything substantive!. But I surely hope that it is not indicative of the kind of reasoning and insight that the sandal-footed one is bringing to the BoD. Come on Pat, what were you really thinking when you suggested that? And what did you think the rest of the membership would think of it ??!?

Come on Pat, what were you really thinking when you suggested that? And what did you think the rest of the membership would think of it ??!?



not sure why you are calling out Pat but not calling out <font color="blue"> these </font> 5 -- :confused:


<font color="blue"> T. Pozzy, S. Dodge, J. Lyksett, B. Decker and P. May volunteered to contribute $10 towards Mr Corrick�s
membership. The renewal will be processed at HQ upon receipt of all funds. </font>



(above quote taken from the Dec 6 meeting minutes)

i would have at least liked to see them pay for Dr. Evil too as a sort of kryptonite to Hawk's powers :D

What grounds would I have call anyone out on how they choose to spend their own money.

Since Vanessa didn't call out the other 5 I will.

Why in the world would you guys want to pay for Hawk's membership? Enquiring minds want to know.

Let me speculate without having a clue. See Rob, the guys who offered to pay might have the mistaken notion that Boards should act together. Since they voted no on the issue I'm guessing they were agianst it. If someone, say Steve Dodge, made enough of an issue out of the case they might have offered to pay in order to preserve Board integrity, i.e. a compromise to placate a zealous Board Member insistent on his issue.

Naw, that can't be it. Why do you think they offered to pay?

I wasn't jabbing at you, I was jabbing at Lyle.

I think Bryan is '98-'07 (10 Years)
I got started in '99-'07 ( 9 Years)



Gary Duke, another name to add to the list. Gary, against great odds, manages to handle the schedule in Texas every year.

BTW Gary - I just want to make sure that every player who is deserving gets a fair vote by the Board on whether they should get a free membership. Personally, I feel that will help to promote the sport, bring in new players and keep the old ones active.

Also, watch were you're jabbing, that one hit my funny bone. :D

That's where I usually aim.

Why in the world would you guys want to pay for Hawk's membership? Enquiring minds want to know.

Let me speculate without having a clue. See Rob, the guys who offered to pay might have the mistaken notion that Boards should act together. Since they voted no on the issue I'm guessing they were agianst it. If someone, say Steve Dodge, made enough of an issue out of the case they might have offered to pay in order to preserve Board integrity, i.e. a compromise to placate a zealous Board Member insistent on his issue.

Naw, that can't be it. Why do you think they offered to pay?



Here is my speculation:
The guys on the BoD are good guys. They did not want to start a precedent of giving away free memberships, but they do value all members.....even the occasional dissenter. Having maturity and wisdom, they know that showing personal kindness to an "enemy" is the best way to influence an "enemy" for the better.

Since Vanessa didn't call out the other 5 I will.

Why in the world would you guys want to pay for Hawk's membership? Enquiring minds want to know.

Let me speculate without having a clue. See Rob, the guys who offered to pay might have the mistaken notion that Boards should act together. Since they voted no on the issue I'm guessing they were agianst it. If someone, say Steve Dodge, made enough of an issue out of the case they might have offered to pay in order to preserve Board integrity, i.e. a compromise to placate a zealous Board Member insistent on his issue.

Naw, that can't be it. Why do you think they offered to pay?



Lyle, i suppose that makes about as much sense as anything.

like you, i seriously doubt if they had spoke out and said they thought paying Hawk's membership with PDGA monies would set a bad precedent, that Pat's willingness to work with them on other issues would have been compromised (BoD integrity can't be that flimsy). BoD's need to be able to maintain Board integrity and work together toward common goals despite disagreements -- even heated ones -- on particular issues.

i am thinking they did it to try and sure up membership faith that they don't take even small expenditures lightly -- and to start a firestorm on this DISCussion Board in a thread like this about "how could they pay for Hawk's renewal?" even though they did so out of their own pockets (interestingly, Pat didn't pay a cent of it). then there will be more "proof" that transparency doesn't work. (j/k)

i am thinking Pat knows that while Hawk is popular amongst some, he is unpopular amongst others. (personally i root for Dr. Evil in the Hawgammon vs. Dr. Evil disc golf Smackdowns). so why did he bring this up? was it to be divisive? was it because Hawk PM'ed him some girlie links that he liked? :eek: (j/k)

or was there some other extenuating circumstance of a more confidential nature regarding Pat's asking the PDGA to pay Hawk's fee that we aren't (and shouldn't be) privvy to?

if it was because Pat wants to appeal to a diverse market for membership and reach out to the Hawk's because they feel disinclined to renew -- that sounds like a good enough reason. Maybe Pat just wanted to get the BoD thinking about the Hawk's out there who feel disinclined to renew.

^tabloid speculation^ ? perhaps. perhaps it was you who once said we should trust those we elect to handle such things. someone else once said: trust but verify. if it is their personal money, noone should gripe. they can move the summit to Hawaii then for all i care ;)

ok -- time to roll. happy holidays and solstice. the light is increasing here in the northern hemisphere. woohoo for disc golf!

Why in the world would you guys want to pay for Hawk's membership? Enquiring minds want to know.



Well, these are incredibly generous, compassionate human beings. If there was even a hint of a financial hardship, they certainly would have donated for that reason. I've seen similar things many times from PDGA board members.

My best guess: It was a lesson in governance, which I hope Pat learned. Their response could well have been saying, "Look, we see you are passionate about this, so we'll acknowledge that passion and give you the goal you want - Hawk as a member - from our own individual hearts. However, having the PDGA pay for it out of members' dues, and through a formal board action, is purely not the way to effectively and positively govern for the members."

So, buried deep inside more rambling is this amazing concoction:


[I] am thinking they did it to try and sure (sic) up membership faith that they don't take even small expenditures lightly -- and to start a firestorm on this DISCussion Board in a thread like this about "how could they pay for Hawk's renewal?" even though they did so out of their own pockets (interestingly, Pat didn't pay a cent of it). then there will be more "proof" that transparency doesn't work.


OMG, I am ROFL&TU!

People who think like that, govern like that. Thank goodness the board members that I served with don't.

Why in the world would you guys want to pay for Hawk's membership? Enquiring minds want to know.

Let me speculate without having a clue. See Rob, the guys who offered to pay might have the mistaken notion that Boards should act together. Since they voted no on the issue I'm guessing they were agianst it. If someone, say Steve Dodge, made enough of an issue out of the case they might have offered to pay in order to preserve Board integrity, i.e. a compromise to placate a zealous Board Member insistent on his issue.

Naw, that can't be it. Why do you think they offered to pay?



Here is my speculation:
The guys on the BoD are good guys. They did not want to start a precedent of giving away free memberships, but they do value all members.....even the occasional dissenter. Having maturity and wisdom, they know that showing personal kindness to an "enemy" is the best way to influence an "enemy" for the better.



Hmmmm, well, I know Theo and this fits his personality and management style.

So, buried deep inside more rambling is this amazing concoction:


[I] am thinking they did it to try and sure (sic) up membership faith that they don't take even small expenditures lightly -- and to start a firestorm on this DISCussion Board in a thread like this about "how could they pay for Hawk's renewal?" even though they did so out of their own pockets (interestingly, Pat didn't pay a cent of it). then there will be more "proof" that transparency doesn't work.


OMG, I am ROFL&TU!

People who think like that, govern like that. Thank goodness the board members that I served with don't.



I tend to agree, well, actually, I fully agree with Terry on this. What's more, I know enough about these guys to know they don't think or act this way. However, the rest of what you (Rob) said was just fine with me.

One point Rob, In general, I do agree with the notion of letting the Board do their job. Here's something for you to think about. Pat is the counter to that, he believes that we need to keep a close eye on the leadership. I'm confident he doesn't feel he should be exempt from such scrutiny.

Felix never was a PDGA member. His job as a minister prevented him from playing PDGA events.

I'm not sure why he didn't join. However, the rules were put in place that prevent non members from posting. It's a shame that posters such as Gunion ruin things for great posters like Felix.

Just an FYI, Felix is still around at tournaments here and there and it is always great to see him.



Seems I am in the minority here, but I found Felix to be rude and condescending and have not missed him at all. I found it rather audacious of him to come on the board and insult people without having paid the subscription.

gotta disagree with you there mike- felix was a benefit to this board and to dg in general- hopefully he is still making invaluable contributions to the raleigh area scene.

Glad to hear he his putting his energies towards the betterment of disc golf. My only exposure to him was through the board, so I admit I probably didn't have a total picture of what he does.

Sounds like he's still contributing where he can help the best which is great.

So, buried deep inside more rambling is this amazing concoction:


[I] am thinking they did it to try and sure (sic) up membership faith that they don't take even small expenditures lightly -- and to start a firestorm on this DISCussion Board in a thread like this about "how could they pay for Hawk's renewal?" even though they did so out of their own pockets (interestingly, Pat didn't pay a cent of it). then there will be more "proof" that transparency doesn't work.


OMG, I am ROFL&amp;TU!

People who think like that, govern like that. Thank goodness the board members that I served with don't.



I tend to agree, well, actually, I fully agree with Terry on this. What's more, I know enough about these guys to know they don't think or act this way. However, the rest of what you (Rob) said was just fine with me.

<font color="blue"> did you &amp; Terry miss that just after the part Terry quotes i wrote "j/k" to point out i was "just kidding" :confused: </font>

One point Rob, In general, I do agree with the notion of letting the Board do their job. Here's something for you to think about. Pat is the counter to that, he believes that we need to keep a close eye on the leadership. I'm confident he doesn't feel he should be exempt from such scrutiny.



<font color="blue"> it seems a little deceptive or unaware to characterize your position as one that supports "letting the board do its job" and Pat's position as: "counter to that" ! Pat wants to let the board do its job too -- and wants there to be an open door so that the membership is free to observe that the board is doing its job. we could argue that a gallery gets in the way of our top pros doing their jobs -- but i hope we won't! ;)
now obviously we don't want them obstructing putts, but that isn't the type of "openess" Pat is advocating -- is it? ;) </font>

<font color="blue"> did you & Terry miss that just after the part Terry quotes i wrote "j/k" to point out i was "just kidding" :confused: </font>

ah, Rob... isnt this just even more proof that the internet stinks as a communication medium? after all, if someone could overlook the "j/k", especially someone with impeccable credentials in the internet, macademia, and just generally life overall, doesnt that just prove the point?

<font size=+6? <font color="purple"> J/K </font> </font>

well, Terry for one characterized the referenced paragraph as an: "amazing concoction" so even if he did miss the fact that i was kidding he did at least appreciate my creative imagination and he used big words to say so :eek: :D

thanks...I knew I was up there
I hope all have a great coming year!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So, buried deep inside more rambling is this amazing concoction:


[I] am thinking they did it to try and sure (sic) up membership faith that they don't take even small expenditures lightly -- and to start a firestorm on this DISCussion Board in a thread like this about "how could they pay for Hawk's renewal?" even though they did so out of their own pockets (interestingly, Pat didn't pay a cent of it). then there will be more "proof" that transparency doesn't work.


OMG, I am ROFL&TU!

People who think like that, govern like that. Thank goodness the board members that I served with don't.



I tend to agree, well, actually, I fully agree with Terry on this. What's more, I know enough about these guys to know they don't think or act this way. However, the rest of what you (Rob) said was just fine with me.

<font color="blue"> did you & Terry miss that just after the part Terry quotes i wrote "j/k" to point out i was "just kidding" :confused: </font>

One point Rob, In general, I do agree with the notion of letting the Board do their job. Here's something for you to think about. Pat is the counter to that, he believes that we need to keep a close eye on the leadership. I'm confident he doesn't feel he should be exempt from such scrutiny.



<font color="blue"> it seems a little deceptive or unaware to characterize your position as one that supports "letting the board do its job" and Pat's position as: "counter to that" ! Pat wants to let the board do its job too -- and wants there to be an open door so that the membership is free to observe that the board is doing its job. we could argue that a gallery gets in the way of our top pros doing their jobs -- but i hope we won't! ;)
now obviously we don't want them obstructing putts, but that isn't the type of "openess" Pat is advocating -- is it? ;) </font>



Have to disagree with you Rob. I'll give a current example.

A short while ago the board voted on an issue and came to a result that Pat didn't care for. His response was to bring that issue to the MB, presumably so the MB followers could judge the Board for themselves? In his posting on the issue he ridiculed the Board Member who was against bringing it here.


That action is consistent with someone who feels that the Board needs greater scrutiny by the MB in the cases where they come to "unsatisfactory" conclusions, would you not agree? Even if you disagree, does it not seem appropriate that if Pat acts to inform us at his discretion of Board decisions and how they play out, that we should also discuss his actions?

BTW Rob,

If I come on the MB and a write that the Country is in dire straights, that the War in Iraq was a mistake and is now a mess, and that our economy is suffering, does it take much insight to conclude that I credit that to the President and Congress?

Pat has pointed out in no unsure terms that he feels the new Constitution gives up member rights, that there is poor communication from the leadership, and that we are getting short shrift. He states it politely, he never mentions a name, but his message is clear. Now, you may agree with him, and you can even support him, but the voting membership, a group that represents a much larger group than the antagonists on this MB disagreed with Pat and sent a clear message that they disagreed with his message when they voted in the last election. Unfortunately, Pat wasn't listening. Good communication isn't a one-way street, it takes good talking and good listening.

Final Point, like Pat, you've fallen into the mistaken notion that good communication means this MB, it does not. This MB is one element of communication, and not even one of the top methods (yet). It is a great place to rabble rouse, but overall, it is still pretty minor. That will change with time, that is why I support more information here, but to disrupt the leadership and make it a major issue when it is not suggests something. Pat is using this medium to build a power base and push his agenda with the Board. There is a better way. It's called consensus building and negotiation...

<font color="blue"> did you & Terry miss that just after the part Terry quotes i wrote "j/k" to point out i was "just kidding" :confused: </font>

ah, Rob... isnt this just even more proof that the internet stinks as a communication medium? after all, if someone could overlook the "j/k", especially someone with impeccable credentials in the internet, macademia, and just generally life overall, doesnt that just prove the point?

<font size=+6? <font color="purple"> J/K </font> </font>



I think my wife summarizes this the best. You can say pretty much anything you want, as long as you add the j/k to the end. In terms of written and verbal communication, it's a powerful way to get to state your message and then duck out the back door and escape being called on it. Nice try.

well, Terry for one characterized the referenced paragraph as an: "amazing concoction" so even if he did miss the fact that i was kidding he did at least appreciate my creative imagination and he used big words to say so :eek: :D



It was an amazing concoction. Take if for what it is, a compliment. BTW - I respect the fact that Terry knows how to write well and uses the language to it's fullest. I admire a person who believes thinking is important. That's how you keep yourself from making mistakes.

Felix never was a PDGA member. His job as a minister prevented him from playing PDGA events.

I'm not sure why he didn't join. However, the rules were put in place that prevent non members from posting. It's a shame that posters such as Gunion ruin things for great posters like Felix.

Just an FYI, Felix is still around at tournaments here and there and it is always great to see him.



Seems I am in the minority here, but I found Felix to be rude and condescending and have not missed him at all. I found it rather audacious of him to come on the board and insult people without having paid the subscription.



The Felix who's posts I read was rarely condescending. He was incredibly well informed and in today's America we often take that as condensation...cention...ments... Whatever. Felix was a great arguer and showed little mercy, but he was never rude to me.

http://www.earthoffice.net/pdga/donotfeedthetrolls.jpg

http://www.earthoffice.net/pdga/donotfeedthetrolls.jpg



So you're dismissing the opinions of a PDGA member? Is this the same person as the one that was espousing the value of all PDGA member's opinions, even those that were of a dissenting nature? How convenient.

Perhaps the view was presented too clearly and intelligently without bashing the old board, new board or PDGA in general for you to take it seriously?

no, not at all. every Member's opinion does count, or it should anyway.

http://www.earthoffice.net/pdga/donotfeedthetrolls.jpg



Wow! Let me see, first, he supports a free membership for one of the biggest Trollers on the MB, Hawk, then he suggests the fact that I have problems with that and post about it is a troll. Nice try Pat but I'm not buying.

Actually, I think tkieffer's post is important. Members do have opinions, including Pat. My problem is that I don't think that member's opinions should be fostered on others outside of the democratic process.

no, not at all. every Member's opinion does count, or it should anyway.



It's called democracy Pat. Members exercize their voices via the vote. How they vote and who they vote for demonstrates their opinion. I admit, the process isn't perfect, that's how you got into office, no one ran against you, but better that than a dictatorship, even a benevolent one.

Pat has pointed out in no unsure terms that he feels the new Constitution gives up member rights, that there is poor communication from the leadership, and that we are getting short shrift. He states it politely, he never mentions a name, but his message is clear. Now, you may agree with him, and you can even support him, but the voting membership, a group that represents a much larger group than the antagonists on this MB disagreed with Pat and sent a clear message that they disagreed with his message when they voted in the last election. Unfortunately, Pat wasn't listening. Good communication isn't a one-way street, it takes good talking and good listening.



<font color="blue"> Lyle, we no longer have a Constitution-- we have bylaws -- but i guess that is what you meant. i wouldn't characterize Pat's position the way you did above. rather, i would say Pat has communicated here that the new bylaws do not enunciate member rights and therefore leave some loose ends that we might do well to tidy up and that the leadership could do a better job of communicating with members. also, i find your logic regarding the voting membership faulty at best. to say they rejected Pat's perspective when there is no evidence that voting members were doing more than rubber stamping what the PDGA leadership recommended be passed. it seems a bit reckless for you to conclude what the voting membership felt about Pat's posts since only about 5 of us even read much of this message board and there was no portion of the ballot directed at sandalman Pat other than the part where people could vote yes for him to be part of the BoD (which they did) :p </font>



Final Point, like Pat, you've fallen into the mistaken notion that good communication means this MB, it does not. This MB is one element of communication, and not even one of the top methods (yet). It is a great place to rabble rouse, but overall, it is still pretty minor. That will change with time, that is why I support more information here, but to disrupt the leadership and make it a major issue when it is not suggests something. Pat is using this medium to build a power base and push his agenda with the Board. There is a better way. It's called consensus building and negotiation...



<font color="blue">
okay, now you are just yanking my chain or trying to be funny. i shouldn't pretend to speak for Pat, but i would guess Pat and i believe good communication from the leadership to the membership should take advantage of this message board as one means of effective communication. Pat is building a power base via this message board? /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif i would say instead that Pat is simply saying some things that make sense and demonstrates a willingness to treat the membership as his equals. do you really think he is building a powrer base? :confused: today a BoD member -- tomorrow the ED or Commish? we should be so lucky! ;) </font>

Felix never was a PDGA member. His job as a minister prevented him from playing PDGA events.

I'm not sure why he didn't join. However, the rules were put in place that prevent non members from posting. It's a shame that posters such as Gunion ruin things for great posters like Felix.

Just an FYI, Felix is still around at tournaments here and there and it is always great to see him.



Seems I am in the minority here, but I found Felix to be rude and condescending and have not missed him at all. I found it rather audacious of him to come on the board and insult people without having paid the subscription.

I disagree with ya also Mike, Felix is one of the nicest people you will ever meet, when out on the course he will go out of his way to say hi, or help somebody out on the course. I think it is a shame that he cannot contribute his knowledge to the board anymore.

He has chosen not to.

Here (http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Board=Other PDGA Topics&Number=475265&Searchpage=0&Main=474904&Search=true&#Post475265) is the last post Felix contributed before the PDGA decision to only allow members to post here effectively banned him:


Goodbye, folks.

It was fun while it lasted. I certainly have benfitted from my conversations with folks on the board; and I hope I have, in some small way, contributed positively to the conversation.

I very much regret that the '05 Bull City Showdown marks the last occasion that I will be volunteering at a PDGA-sanctioned event, at least for the forseeable future. Had I known of this decision by the PDGA Board earlier, I would have rearranged my schedule to be able to attend today as well.

While I have very much enjoyed my time volunteering and getting to know�and learn from�many of the players in this region over the past 5-6 years, and while I do not dispute the right of the PDGA to establish whatever policies it chooses or to limit the use of its resources in any way it chooses, as a non-PDGA member for both personal and vocational reasons, I am simply unable to answer to my own satisfaction the question of why I should continue to donate my time, energy, and sponsorship monies to an organization whose officers apparently believe that the only people whose thoughts and opinions are worthy of being heard are those of dues-paying members.

To the several members (and you know who you are) who have offered over the past several weeks and months that, in the event the PDGA were to implement a members-only posting policy for the board, you would pay the dues for me to become a member: while I am touched by the generosity of your offer deeply appreciate the vote of confidence it represents, I trust you will understand why, as a matter of principle, I must decline your offer.

To my fellow NC disc golfers (and you, Chris Hysell :)), my thanks for your good will and your cameraderie. I trust that our paths will cross on occasion, be it at monthlies, random doubles, or out on the course during casual rounds.

To the many of you, such as Dave Dunipace, Harold Duvall, Rhett, Keith Johnson, Bruce and Jon Brakel, Discette, gnduke, et al., whom I have not met in person but have known only as a name or an avatar here on the DISC_ussion board, thanks for making the board an informative and entertaining place.

Again, goodbye and Godspeed.

Respectfully,
Felix Sung

(aka: fore (http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showprofile.php?Cat=&User=1300&Number=475265&Board=OtherPDGATopics&what=showflat&page=&view=&sb=5&o=&fpart=3&vc=1) )

So,

Let me make sure I understand, like Pat, you get it, and the rest of us, including the voting membership who "rubber stamped" what was recommended to them... don't. Whew, boy what would we do without you guys to protect us from our own stupidity?

As for your second point, WOW! what a weak argument. Yes, I know, ridicule works well, at least for the President, but only when the other side lets you get away with it.

Beyond the obvious, that everyone who debates any point here instead of in private is trying to affect more than one person, one simply has to peruse Pat's posts to realize he is supporting and building up those people he wants to support him. Happy holidays Grunion, support for UPM and Jason, free memberships for Hawk, pats on the back for you here. Funny, but I don't see other Board Members doing this. BTW - reread that hit list. Pat's supporting some of the biggest problems on this MB.

Don't get me wrong, some of what those people want is good, but their technique is so bad that they're counterproductive... as is Pat.

Let me be clear, what Pat wants, I want. I don't for a minute think it's as important as Pat is selling it to be, but I do think it is important. What I don't support is Pat!

A long time ago, I realized that people will support certain other people if those people will give them what they want. Bush is our latest version of this. It doesn't matter that he lied, or stole, or cheated, he is giving some very rich people what they want so he gets very powerful support.

I won't support someone just because they are willing to give me something I want; I'd like a little more. Pat's method and technique is bad. It's dishonest and disruptive. It doesn't matter that what Pat wants is good. I'll go somewhere else thank you.

wow, are you sure that was a response to my post? :confused: :p

Pat favors erring on the side of openess and transparency and that is the exact opposite of Bush who would do everything behind closed doors if he could gat away with it.

it sounds to me like you are reading in past experiences you have had with Pat into his tenure as BoD member. what exactly has Pat done that you find untoward since he took on the role of being on the PDGA Board of Directors? and why haven't you been equally critical of past leaders :confused:

finally what are some actual recommendations you would make to help Pat improve his standing in your eyes?

Rob, that was only the last of many posts on the topic by Lyle. All you have to do to get many answers to your questions is read some of those.

rob, he is prolly just building up grassroots support for his BoD campaign this year.

LOL

I would vote for lyle for the BOD, no question. I would trust his judgement.

I would vote for lyle for the BOD, no question. I would trust his judgement.



i don't care for the original messenger, but i like the message:

"Trust, but verify"

wow, are you sure that was a response to my post? :confused: :p

Pat favors erring on the side of openess and transparency and that is the exact opposite of Bush who would do everything behind closed doors if he could gat away with it.

it sounds to me like you are reading in past experiences you have had with Pat into his tenure as BoD member. what exactly has Pat done that you find untoward since he took on the role of being on the PDGA Board of Directors? and why haven't you been equally critical of past leaders :confused:

finally what are some actual recommendations you would make to help Pat improve his standing in your eyes?




Fair enough Rob.

Let me start with two examples that have been already discussed here.

Before I begin I want to discuss the idea of dishonesty and disruption and what it means. The reason is that a complaint has been made about my questioning Pat's honesty and I have been warned. I want to make sure that I don't offend anyone's sensibilities too much.

Honesty to me means being what you say you are and stating clearly what your opinions are. I consider hiding your true feelings behind a mask, as dishonest. I believe painting a portrait of yourself in one venue that is not maintained in other venues is dishonest, especially when it is done for political reasons. I believe that indirectly suggesting things without coming out and saying what you mean is dishonest. I fully recognize and respect other people�s right to disagree with that.

Let�s take a recent example.


an idea similar to that was discussed and declined. i'm not supposed to discuss the reasons for the declination here. for now we will need to go with this kind of thread.



This is a post by Pat in the "ask the board" thread. Now, I don't really know, but I'm guessing that there has been a discussion in a Board meeting about what gets said and posted and what it means to respect the opinions and decisions made in Board meetings. To me, this reads like:
Well, I think this is a good idea, the rest of the Board doesn't, and I've been told not to talk about it, Oh by the way, I'm going to make my point here anyway with this little aside.

My feeling is that this is disingenuous. It appears to be an attempt to make the Board look bad. Now, this one is fairly mild but it is endemic in Pat's posts. I've seen him use this tool many times. It can't help but disrupt his relationship with the Board and it just reads badly.

On Pat's behalf, his goal is good, he wants to have an open discussion about this and feels his hands are tied, but his approach reads very poorly. Furthermore, I will admit maybe I have misread Pat's intent so let me give you another clearer example.

Pat's compensation. At one point Theo asked Pat to carry out some IT duties for the PDGA, he offered to compensate Pat and told Pat to keep that information private. Pat didn't like that situation and if I remember correctly declined payment. Good enough. Here's where the problem starts. When Pat ran for office, he forgot that he'd been asked to keep that information private and brought it to this message board. At the same time he was presenting it here he managed to convey (again, maybe only to me) that Theo had acted inappropriately. I agree with Pat, that information should be public. However, I am not arrogant enough to think I'm absolutely correct in that belief and would tend to follow the opinions of other Board members and past Boards in deciding how to proceed, if it were my decision to make. I've taken hard positions on topics like this one, only later to find I was dead wrong. There is only one excuse for bringing something like this public, if what Theo had asked for was illegal. It is not. You might not like the policy, but it is common enough in the business and public sectors and is morally and ethically correct by our current business rules, both written and unwritten. You can argue that it is bad management, but that is all.

Therefore, Pat's exposing this information to curry political favor bothered me greatly, even more so that to all appearances he was making commentary on our Board�s morals and ethics on the topic. It would have been simple enough for Pat to say, I believe that information on all compensation and payments should be made available to the membership and that isn�t currently the case.

Now, because I have been warned, if you come back and post that you think what Pat did here was O.K. then I will post an apology to Pat and keep my opinion on the topic to myself. I should also tell you that I've asked the moderator to read this post and to determine if he thinks it is inappropriate. That should save someone the time of having to contact him.

On the other hand, if you think the postion has merit, in answer to your question, I would ask that Pat respect private communications. I would ask that he not make offhand comments on Board issues that he doesn't agree with. Then I can go back to respecting Pat again.

Last point. Read Steve Dodge's posts. He is in Pat's political camp. I like and respect Steve greatly. I have had a number of issues come up and in every case Steve's position has impressed me.

BTW - there was one other point you made that I didn't address, issues with other Board members. You might have asked the question another way, why take the Mickey out of Pat.

In general, I think taking the Mickey out of anyone is bad technique, even if I disagree with them. You have to play pretty nasty for me to want to go after you. Take the discussion we are having here. While it may not seem so, I think very highly of you and the way you argue.

I have taken the Mickey out of past Board Members and even the ED. Huh? You say. You'd have to go back about 6 years to find the posts and it dealt with rules changes. My complaints were polite and well presented because I didn't know the situation but still, they were basically critical. What I got in return was a very polite response. Thank you for being fair and not incendiary and we think your point has merit. (Go read Idaho Jon's suggestions on the �ask the board thread� for how I proceeded). I quickly learned that by treating those guys with respect and honesty I could get great interactions and exactly what I wanted, or at least a good explanation why not. Well, that made me like and respect the leadership and so I never went after them again. I play by the rules that make for good relationships and as a consequence have good relationships with those guys.

As an aside, when Brian first approached me about volunteering I warned him and told him I might not agree with everything they wanted. He told me no one in this organization agrees with what he wants. It's called compromising, he said. I had to respect that the man didn't care that I might disagree, but that he wanted to be treated with politeness...

Pat seems to show a great deal of distain for the ED and the Board. He does it without mentioning names but it is there. I think it is unnecessary, unproductive, and well you can decide for yourself. Beyond the fact that I think it is unproductive, through direct interactions and observations I've learned that all those Board Members, past and present, and the ED, are honest, hard working, smart, and caring. I might not agree with them, but I won't try and make them look bad, even in the instances where they do something I disagree with.

Last post,

You and Pat speculated about a BoD run on my part. Pat actually knows better. He knows because I've told him I will not serve with him. My morals, misdirected as they might be, mean that I stand by my word.

thanks for your post(s). i would say it feels to me like you have some issues with Pat that seem to me at least to be out of proportion to the things you are citing. i'm just speculating though.

i am not sure how you immediately conclude Theo asked Pat to keep the pay info quiet and Pat forgot that or disregarded it -- it could be equally possible Theo meant to ask Pat that as a matter of his normal protocol but forgot to.

as for your interpretation that endemic in Pat's posts is an intent to make the Board look bad -- i guess you mean the Board minus himself? i think you are indeed misreading him. Pat, it seems to me respects the Board members but also believes disagreement is not bad. the BoD does not need to pretend to be a body that agrees on everything. in fact, it is healthier and we are better served if there are differences of opinion. what i think you are taking as an ill will toward the BoD is instead a wish to challenge the status quo and to make the BoD more open, responsive and less top-down in style than it is presently.

that said, i am not sure why you and i are speculating on what the real intentions are of Pat, Theo, or other BoD members. it's probably too close to gossipy for either of us.

also, as to your potential service to the membership as a BoD member -- i'm not sure why you would refuse to serve with Pat as a matter of principle for if you think he is acting at all untoward you should feel called to get on the BoD to help counteract it. i would be interested in Steve's take on your reading of Pat though -- but that would put him in an awkward position as Moderator here and colleague of Pat on the BoD. still, i have seen him walk trickier lines with balance, so maybe he'll offer some general input :D

Pat wants to share info with the 15* of us who come often to these types of threads here on the Message Board. if frustration spills out when he posts he has been asked to not discuss something -- maybe that is more a sign of genuiness than would be his saying something you might find more "obedient". i really don't see the damage. this isn't high stakes politics :p

* i say 15 jokingly -- it may at times be closer to 25 /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Pat -- if you're reading this here is a quote for you:

"to punish me for my contempt for authority -- fate made me an authority myself" -- Albert Einstein

I would vote for lyle for the BOD, no question. I would trust his judgement.



Me, too.

Simple enough Rob,

Pat told us that Theo told him not to reveal the information. So when I said Pat forgot, well I was sort of being sarcastic.

Now, you are right in your assumption that I have an issue. I take my morals very seriously. What I've found is that if you don't, no one else will either. Furthermore, if you don't you slip into grey areas and before you know it, you're in politics.

Pat isn't eggregious in what he does, he just slips around the edges. You are correct, most find that O.K.; it's the norm in Washington. I think given that one of his main issues is openess and that not being open can lead to misconduct, that he should also be careful about how he conducts his own communications.

i really don't see the damage. this isn't high stakes politics


Well, it looks, smells, and sounds a lot like politics.

And it's a matter of (revealing) opinion what each of us thinks "high stakes" are, but I for one consider the health and welfare of the PDGA to be pretty high stakes.

Nice to know where you stand on that, Rob.

Lyle, "morals" is a loaded word and before you question another's imo you should have something more substantial. absent that, questioning another's morals is an exercise in irony, if not hypocrisy.

you may be setting the "honesty" bar at an imaginary and unachievable height. we are a culture steeped in dishonesty. we tell kids honesty is the best policy and they should be honest and value hard work -- then we showcase and trump dishonest people like Donald Trump as the epitome of "success." the point being -- we are conditioned to dishonesty and there is dishonesty in criticizing others for *their* lack of family values when we are too familiar with our own lackings to give ours as much notice. as Twain once joked -- it is easier and less trouble to address the failings of our neighbors. what again are the moral shortcomings you are publicly accusing Pat of?

stating positions in a way that doesn't pizz off the masses is tact and political skill -- doing it to benefit a private minority while panning it off as if it is in the interest of the majority -- is true dishonesty and i am afraid you are quite right -- there is far too much of that about. Pat as leader is a different animal than Pat as lone message board gunslinger. they are two different roles and Pat capably fills either it seems to me so far.

read Pat's answers to the questions and thread Nick Kight subjected him to and i doubt you'll leave unimpressed. i defend him here not so much for his sake as for my own -- i value having a representative with Pat's management philosophy as a member of the BoD.

ok fellas, i was not logged in (pretending to be a nonMember to see what that experience is like) so i got a chance to read the fascinating psychoanalysis of myself from various parties. gosh, if i become the topic of any more conversation i fear Hawkgammon and MTL might start to hate me for taking all of their publicity :D

Lyle and Terry, while I disagree with your assessment of my views I am always open to feedback and appreciate your taking the time to air your thoughts here publicly. Rest assured I do not think my way is necesarily gospel and I appreciate the need to work toward building consensus rather than railroading things through. Stay tuned and keep posting your thoughts. thanks.

...if i become the topic of any more conversation i fear Hawkgammon and MTL might start to hate me for taking all of their publicity



I can't believe I'm lumped in with Bobbie like that.

I don't have time for a full reply now but let me be clear. Morals aren't subjective, if you're playing around in the grey area you've got a problem. I wonder at anyone who feels they have to make an argument that it's O.K. Just because Trump is a scumbag doesn't mean I have to accept and like it. Second, given what has been implied about other Board members, I've never had a question about their morals or positions. I knew where they were standing and what their intent was. With Pat, I don't. I know if it's in the interest of his goal he will take a PM or a private conversation and spill it here. I don't know what Pat's goals are, I know his stated goals, but we can never know all of someone's goals. How do I know Pat is on the up and up when he does these kinds of things? Sure he can tell me he's a good guy, but his overall behaviour isn't.

So, are you telling me, well, Pat only does unsavory things when its to accomplish good things, but never for any other reason? I don't buy the argument. My experience is that it doesn't work that way.

There's something to remember here. Brian was crucified on this MB for the way he did business, with absolutely no evidence of any wrong doing. Theo has been punished in kind, and indeed by Pat, again with no evidence of any wrong doing. I don't recall either Pat or you stepping up on their behalf. And yet, here we have clear evidence of Pat acting in a somewhat unkind fashion and you're telling me I'm wrong for commenting on that? Doesn't seem fair to me.

There's a reason that our parents told us to judge people by their actions and not by what they say. If Pat wants me to view him in a better light, his actions should be better. Especially given that the implication has been that because the Board and ED didn't communicate in certain ways that their behaviour was questionable. Shouldn't we hold Pat to the same level of accountability?

wow

wow



Double wow.

wow



Double wow.



Triple wow!!!

Got Ya Rob. You tried to turn my pointing out that Pat's motivations aren't 100% moral or upstanding and compared it to Donald Trump. You're acting like I set some impossible bar. Look, if my morals are a little suspect, then they are a little suspect. If they're kind of suspect then they're kind of suspect. If they're a lot suspect then they're a lot suspect. What I'm saying is that Pat isn't being fair and he's not acting very nicely. If you try and turn that into a referendum, that is you compare Pat's unkind behaviours to a ridiculous height or to nothing at all, well I'll play along. But really, all I'm saying is Pat isn't playing very nicely and I have problems with that.

I will point out one thing though, given that Pat plays in the grey area, why did Pat try and swing a free membership for Hawk? Now I'm sure that Pat's stated goal of it's good for business really is what motivated him, by why Hawk? The fact is I don't know why. I know Pat will do things I wouldn't in support of his agenda, might he not do this in support of someone who supports his agenda? I don't know, and that's the problem...

Got Ya Rob. You tried to turn my pointing out that Pat's motivations aren't 100% moral or upstanding and compared it to Donald Trump. You're acting like I set some impossible bar.



what? i pointed out we are the products of a society that considers Donald Trump a "success" and that we are all to an extent dishonest (even our story of George Washington and the cherry tree is fiction). i never likened you to Donald Trump. your suggesting that i did, and your accusations about Pat seem to me a better example of dishonesty than what i hear you presenting here...

I will point out one thing though, given that Pat plays in the grey area, why did Pat try and swing a free membership for Hawk? Now I'm sure that Pat's stated goal of it's good for business really is what motivated him, by why Hawk?



International Disc Golf Celebrity baby!

Actually,

It's simpler than that. You keep implying that I am holding Pat to some standard and you imply that it is an impossible one. I'm not holding Pat to any standard. I'm pointing out that Pat set a standard for Theo, Brian, and past Board members and found them wanting. I'm also pointing out that Pat doesn't live up to the very standard he set.

I do admit, that bugs me...

Actually,

It's simpler than that. You keep implying that I am holding Pat to some standard and you imply that it is an impossible one. I'm not holding Pat to any standard. I'm pointing out that Pat set a standard for Theo, Brian, and past Board members and found them wanting. I'm also pointing out that Pat doesn't live up to the very standard he set.

I do admit, that bugs me...



you have a knack for refuting arguments that were never really made. i really don't see what use there is in discussing your interpretation of Pat's shortcomings further. i think he is doing just fine and i think our BoD is better for having him on it.

time for me to get back to rooting for Seattle ->