On August 5 Randy Signor, editor of PDGA's Discgolfer magazine, asked me to write an article about the splitting of the age-protected divisions from the Open division. It was to be for a new column called The 19th Hole, in which guest writers can editorialize. I did so, he accepted it on the 11th, and subsequently asked me to send a photo and a short bio to accompany the piece.

Then on the 19th he informed me that the PDGA had taken the matter out of his hands, and forbidden him from running the editorial. The PDGA has given me no reasons for this action, nor suggested any way in which I might revise the article to meet with their approval. I am surprised, because it is certainly not rabid, nor even particularly radical. For example, it doesn't really recommend a split, rather a reorganization within the PDGA umbrella.

Two points are important here. First, Randy's acceptance of my article does not mean that he agreed with it. We can only assume that, even if he disagreed, he felt that respectful difference of opinion may benefit an organization and perhaps make a magazine more interesting and relevant. Secondly, there is nothing illegal about the PDGA's censorship. The PDGA is now the publisher of its own magazine, and publishers have complete control of what does or does not get published.

So I'm not complaining. But I worked hard on this article, and I'd like the membership to be able to read it. I'd try to post it here, but if the PDGA won't let it in the magazine, they probably won't allow it on the message board. I might even get banned.

So I will post it, but not here. I'm not very familiar with the wider world of forums and message groups. Please respond here to let me know what disc golf forums you read that are not subject to PDGA censorship. I will post the editorial to a few of them, and then let you know where you can find it.

Peter,

I made it very clear in my response to Randy that although we have decided to pass on publishing your editorial, you are more than welcome to post your opinion piece on the PDGA Discussion Board just like any other member. In reading it, I do not see where it breaks any board rules so I see no reason why it would possibly be removed or why you would be banned.

The board of directors and I were in agreement that the editorial was not appropriate for the association magazine because it contains inaccurate information and you offer no real information or proof to back up your arguments. While much of your article may be your personal opinion and gut feeling, it does not necessarily make it true or warrant publication in the association magazine.

The Discussion Board on the other hand is the perfect place for the posting of your article because unlike our magazine, and your Senior Discussion Group where all correspondence must go through you before being disseminated to the group, it offers our members the opportunity to discuss, debate, counter and agree or disagree with it in a public forum.

Peter, Please post your article on dgcoursereviewdotcom. There is probably a link on this site somewhere. I'm interested in what you're trying to get across to the dg public. I understand your concerns about posting on this board, the strict supervision and kneejerk reactions are frustrating at the minimum. Then when the apologists put in their 3 or 4 cents, the message gets lost in the noise.

You're not writing opinion pieces that contain inaccurate info, are you?

Brian,

I will consider your invitation to publish my editorial here. It would certainly be the most convenient solution. But your further comments make me feel edgy about doing so.

I don't understand why I had to finally learn here about your objections to the editorial. You could have told me the reasons when you rejected it, and given me an opportunity to revise it to meet with your approval. And I still don't know what these alleged inaccuracies are, or what you would consider to represent proof in an opinion piece.

And you bring up the "Senior Discussion Group" (actually, the Divisional Series Newsgroup) out of left field. I would never consider publishing my editorial in our Newsletter precisely because, as you say, I edit its content. But by the same token, you control the content of this Discussion Board. Perhaps the most appropriate forum is one which neither of us can censor.

The membership should be given the opportunity to judge matters concerning "inaccuracies", "real information" and "proof", so they need to know the sources of the data I used to support some of my opinions. They are as follows:

1) PDGA budget summary information from 2005 and 2009, and the detailed budget for 2008 (the only year for which we have detailed information). All this is currently available in the documents section of the PDGA website.
2) A four-part analysis of the 2008 budget posted to the Discussion Board in September 2008.
Sep 4 The Numbers Part 1: Method
Sep 5 The Numbers Part 2: Income
Sep 7 The Numbers Part 3: Dedicated Program Support
Sep 8 The Numbers Part 4: What Does It All Mean?
This can be found using the Discussion Board search facility. If anyone wants a "one-piece" version of it, please contact me ([email protected]) and I'll e-mail a copy.

Everyone,

I'm still considering options for posting the "banned editorial". As I see it, they are:

1) Here on the Discussion Board. Most convenient, to be sure. But as you can see from my reply to Brian Graham above, I feel edgy about posting a piece that the PDGA has already banned to a forum that the PDGA censors.
2) An independent private forum. I've looked into a few of these. DGcoursereviews seems too oriented (naturally) to courses. Disc Golf Reviews seems too oriented to discs. Discgolfersrus is a possibility.
3) Club forums. Three or four only, so I could keep track of comments and questions. One would be the Mile High Disc Golf Club, because I am familiar with it and have posting privileges there. The others should be geographically spread, not controlled by the PDGA, and easily accessible to readers -- at least one back East and one in California, but I'm not sure which ones.

If you have suggestions about the best club or other independent forums, please post them here or directly to me ([email protected]). I'd like to make a decision within the next few days.

Just post it up Peter, Brian has said this is the place.

Peter,

If the Executive Director of the PDGA has stated in writing that "you are more than welcome to post your opinion piece on the PDGA Discussion Board", and "The Discussion Board on the other hand is the perfect place for the posting of your article", then I would not be concerned with posting it here.

I understand your frustration. I, for one, would take a great deal more time and effort into creating a document to be pubished in the Association's house organ than I would in creating a posting here, and it would be disappointing to me to not have it used. I would suggest to you, though, to minimize the use of words that have meanings that arouse, such as "banned" and "censorship" when referring to not having your article published in the DiscGolfer.

I know that Brian and you, as I do as well, have the interests of the Association and the sport in mind, and I would welcome reading your article here.

I thank you for the work you are doing to promote the interests of the senior level DGers (I can hardly believe that I qualify for that group now - I joined the PDGA as a teenager!) and I look forward to see where we go from here.

Side note: Wham-o sponsored the "World Frisbee Championships" (WFC) from 1974 to 1982, and in 1981, what we would now call the age protected divisions were spun off into its own Championship. This event was held at a different time and location than the WFC (IIRC, it was held at the same time and place as a WFC qualifying event), and did not receive anything close to the publicity that the WFC did, but I heard it was quite a special time for those participants. I have mixed feelings about splitting off the Seniors, since I have experience the comraderie of both WFCs and WDGCs, but I believe that it is a valid discussion to have.

Peter,

As I stated earlier, there is nothing in your article that breaks any discussion board rules so I see no reason why it would be moderated. I invite and encourage you to publish it here on the PDGA discussion board where our members can discuss and debate it in an open forum.

Just to clarify, your editorial was not "banned" as you have put it. DiscGolfer magazine often receives submissions that are judged not suitable, inappropriate, or just not good enough quality for publication and quite simply your article falls into this category. Nobody is trying to silence you or keep you from expressing your opinions. We just don't feel that the association magazine is the appropriate place for it because it does not afford the members an opportunity to discuss and debate it.

Peter,

I know absolutely nothing about your "banned editorial" other than what I've read in the posts in this thread on the PDGA DISCussion Board.

And two things concerning this issue make *me* "feel edgy."

#1) That you refer to "PDGA censorship" and "I might even get banned." As a former Communications Director of the PDGA and this message board, you are perhaps one of the most qualified persons in the world on this message board and its policies. You worked directly for a period of years, almost on a daily basis, with a team of moderators to codify our policies, and establish that nothing would ever get censored from this message board unless it was overtly and egregiously offensive; for example, content containing profanity, personal attacks, physical threats, flagrant offensive material, etc. No majors changes in philosophy have occurred in the time since you stepped down as Communications Director, which includes the addition of a clause that derogatory posts about the PDGA and/or its members are not permitted. This clause has been used exceedingly sparingly and only in the rare occasion when a PDGA member wasn't using our message board as a communication tool to present constructive criticism - the process of offering (in a polite and helpful manner) valid and well-reasoned opinions that are intended to improve something. Surely an article that was submitted for publication in our association magazine would never contain anything egregiously offensive that would also break PDGA DISCussion Board rules. And furthermore, that you would, as you say come "out of left field" with the notion that the PDGA is some 1984 Orwellian anti-thought crime entity that would use some heavy-handed censorship and ban you for presenting what appears to be a well researched article using data to support your opinions, is extremely curious.

#2) That you continue to carry on this dialogue about your editiorial in open public view and air this dirty laundry. Surely you have new magazine editor Randy Michael Signor's cell phone number as well as that of PDGA Executive Director Brian Graham, or could have waited until Monday morning and called the ED directly at the PDGA Office. Surely these objections could have been presented to you (and an opportunity to revise your article) discussed over the phone, via private e-mail, or optimally, in person. But instead, you chose to take this issue straight to a public message board, which imo should have been a last resort.

Given the combination of the above two points, I'm sure I'm not alone in thinking in that the way this issue is being handled makes it appear simply like sour grapes on your part because your article was rejected. And after the high places our sport and the PDGA has reached in the last month with a highly successful Pro Worlds and National Tour Event in Massachusetts, it's sad to see the sport and our national organization being represented in such an unfavorable light.

My $.02.

I think that there are many sour grapes out in our association right now, its a big problem, and this stems from comments(Maybe perceptions is a better term) made by our "leadership" and the inability to run the office at optimal levels. With a small organization a lot of the burden is stressed, and that does not always seem to help out our needs. ITs a tough balancing act, and growing pains will happen, but are we really growing the right direction?

In this persons $.02 this is another case of communication that is not working in our body. There is a HUGE disconnect from the folks doing some of the work to the folks making it happen. Until that bridge is fixed, built, or given a new passage we are all hurting our sport.

I personally feel as though a few select people are giving much too much input in our sport and that there are changes that need to be made in order for us to succeed. Our sport is growing in many areas, and the biggest factor our sport is growing in is age. We must not only look at alternate levels in the older population (our sport is NOT attracting and keeping younger players on a national level, with few exceptions), but also at better ways to engage local youth driven initiatives that require little budget costs to schools. EDGE is too expensive for most schools. If we want to grow our sport it must come from the youth, but it must also come from the older generation that helps understand how to drive and make it happen.

I will seek out this article from Pete, (but I again personal feeling here) feel as though that Pete's information about his frustration should be noted in here as this affects the thought process that goes on for the people that want to help out in our sport.

Pete is a fine example of putting his mouth and body in motion to make things happen. If it upset him so based on this, I am willing to bet that its more than sour grapes that brought him to bring it to our attention.

Again my opinion, but then I am a un-elected individual participant of our sport.

And after the high places our sport and the PDGA has reached in the last month with a highly successful Pro Worlds and National Tour Event in Massachusetts, it's sad to see the sport and our national organization being represented in such an unfavorable light.




A bit melodramatic don't you think?

Peter inquired about posting an article that may say the Senior players needs aren't being met by the PDGA (but I don't know what it says).

If he says the senior player's needs aren't being met by the PDGA maybe he is concerned that may be considered a derogatory post about the PDGA and be in violation of the discussion board rules.

Based on him even broaching the subject drawing a rebuke from you about shining an unfavorable light on the PDGA maybe his concerns are more well founded than you would like to admit.

Peter

Having been part of the org, you must remember the strategies used to handle DISCourd from the members. First ignore the communications and then attack the rat that dares to speak out.

LaGrassa proves my point with: "Given the combination of the above two points, I'm sure I'm not alone in thinking in that the way this issue is being handled makes it appear simply like sour grapes on your part because your article was rejected. And after the high places our sport and the PDGA has reached in the last month with a highly successful Pro Worlds and National Tour Event in Massachusetts, it's sad to see the sport and our national organization being represented in such an unfavorable light."

We are listening Peter, we want to learn more. Suggesting DGR as your best spot to post further.

steve timm

I would post a link to a thread ready for you but this discussion bored's rules prohibit links to "offensive content".

Brian and Jeff,

Randy's key e-mail to me was perfunctory, saying two things. First, he said that the PDGA had "prohibited" him from running the editorial. That means "banned" to me, but I'll be happy to refer to it as the "prohibited editorial" if you would prefer. He also said that the matter was out of his hands, and in a subsequent e-mail made it clear to me that he wanted nothing more to do with it. Neither Randy nor Brian offered recourse to the decision, and I saw no point in requesting it. Although I would have welcomed an explanatory call from Brian, not even he is saying that I should have called him.

Brian now argues that the editorial was nixed partly because members might need to discuss and debate it. I agree that they would have. But then it is silly to have a guest editorial section in the magazine in the first place, because any non-boring editorial would have to be rejected for the same reason. I was beaten before I started.

Two years ago I was the world's expert on Discussion Board policies, but I believe that there have been important changes since then. For one thing, that new clause allowing censorship of derogatory posts about the PDGA is precisely what makes me feel edgy. I appreciate Brian's invitation to post here, and I'm sure that my editorial would be posted just as I wrote it. The problem is the aftermath. I have no way of knowing whether subsequent comments might be judged "derogatory" and thus disappear from the debate. Secondly, the Discussion Board seems very different in tone to me now, more highly regulated. The "rough and tumble" posting issues that bedeviled me so as Communications Director have almost completely disappeared, and I sort of miss them. Perhaps it is only that I was a lousy CD and the board has recovered naturally from my misguided administration, but I'm just not sure that this forum is still the best place to air contentious issues in which PDGA policies are in question.

Jeff, you seem to wish that I would not tell my story or criticize "our national organization", and would prefer warm fuzzy posts about Worlds (yes, it was great), and Vibram. In that sense you validate my misgivings about posting here. Perhaps most current readers do not believe that the PDGA should be criticized on its own website.

Look, I was stunned over what happened. I'm just one person, deliberate by nature, and I need to be very careful how I proceed. I need to tell my story so people understand where I'm coming from. And I feel that I need to be very careful about how and in what forum I criticize the PDGA. It will take me a few days to work that out.

Come on, just post it. Way too much drama, and an inconsistent message.

It is unfair (absurd actually) to declare the PDGA guilty of censorship, when they are inviting you to use their resources to voice your concerns and/or criticisms.

thanks Pete...explains why I can't find the article now.

I think that you are spot on in the reasoning that you are choosing to do it this way.

I very rarely post in this room because it is very scrutinized IMHO, so why bother?

The organization wants to have its cheerleaders, and countless times the people that do the cheering are really not the people doing the work that make our sport great.

Pete you are a fine example of that microcosm. You have done due diligence in regards to helping your cause and our sport and left not only competitors in the dust in the process, but also have done things that many at your age would not do. Pete coming to events with his own agenda irritates some, and I applaud it as a TD, I think that he is a leading advocate for what all of us should do.... Having that knowledge of you first hand only leads to my excitement of reading your article about what in your eyes should happen.

Forget the fact that is was "prohibited", I am sure it was a well thought out reasoning of your stance as you see it. Why on earth would you choose to do that for an editorial piece? Come on, really? Your own opinion, you should know better at your age!

It boils down to trust in our sport and the belief that we are going in the right direction. If we have the leadership of the PDGA determining the content of editorial pieces that is their concern, as for publications (especially their own) it needs to be a strong cheering section of the sport. But to not allow it in the forum (which is what Brian said is a good thing-so post it) makes that fuel to possibly have it in another light to discuss and bring out some needed changes that many may be thinking but may not be able to pen the thought correctly. Your insight is clearly a true vision to a certain extent Pete, and many would love to see it as we have indicated.

I look forward to reading it, and hopefully gaining some insight. More importantly with the new board members coming in, I am hopeful that they will take a more open stance on how to help the sport grow at all levels and continue to use our grass roots development to find better ways to get our sport in the hands of every person, not just a select few who will only benefit.

I am hopeful, but given our current track record our sport is not growing as the PDGA offices would like us to believe. Stats can point to all directions.......how people really use them to drive our business is the important thing. How people perceive the body is another, and how they play and the love of the game is what keeps us, but ultimately selfish reasons for what we do in the love of the game will either make us or break us, recently our growth has done nothing in my mind to feel that we are any better now than we were in 2003. Your insight may open new areas.

Looking forward to reading it!

Post it at DGR please. Thank you

It will take me a few days to get all the atention I crave.

Fixed that last sentence for you.

I honestly think you'd rather cry about injustice and be a martyr than post the article. I may be wrong, but the way you are acting sure makes it seem that way.

If you have something that needs to be read by the masses, just post it already. If the issue is truly that important, you need to make this more about the issue, and less about you.

Fixed that last sentence for you.

I honestly think you'd rather cry about injustice and be a martyr than post the article. I may be wrong, but the way you are acting sure makes it seem that way.

If you have something that needs to be read by the masses, just post it already. If the issue is truly that important, you need to make this more about the issue, and less about you.

Seconded.

Based on him even broaching the subject drawing a rebuke from you about shining an unfavorable light on the PDGA maybe his concerns are more well founded than you would like to admit.

The rebuke was for not simply calling Randy Michael Signor or Brian Graham on the telephone and saying "Let's talk." The fact that the whole PDGA membership as well as non-members and potential sponsors are now witness to the lack of communication between these parties, in all its silliness, is what drew the rebuke.

Jeff, you seem to wish that I would not tell my story or criticize "our national organization", and would prefer warm fuzzy posts about Worlds (yes, it was great), and Vibram. In that sense you validate my misgivings about posting here.

It is 100% false to assume that I wish only to see favorable and "warm fuzzy" posts about the PDGA on this message board.

It is unfair (absurd actually) to declare the PDGA guilty of censorship, when they are inviting you to use their resources to voice your concerns and/or criticisms.

Couldn't agree more. There are literally hundreds of posts & threads on this message board publicly debating our competition structure, age protection, sandbagging, and a myriad of other issues which outright question PDGA policies and issues which our competition system may bring about. Many of them have been personally made by me - when I am eagerly awaiting to turn Masters age two years from now, something is DEFINITELY wrong with the system.

It has been stated time and time again that PDGA members should feel free to engage in all the constructive criticism they wish because the ED and BoD honestly believe that these topics encourage positive discussion, ways to improve the PDGA, and help to make for a better organization. But all this brouhaha seems to be more about anger about the article not getting published & a lack of communication, not actual debate about age protection and PDGA policy.

...sigh.... I must agree, it seems that the fruit is more edible when you smell it first, so either lets read it, or move on.....no soup for you. NEXT!

Everyone,

Brian Graham called me this afternoon, and we cleared much air. We agreed that we should have spoken sooner, and that we shared the blame for that. He explained the details of the PDGA's objections to my editorial, pointed out that I'd reach more readers on the Discussion Board than I would have in the magazine, and relieved my edginess about publishing here.

So I'll sleep on it and post the editorial here tomorrow morning on a different thread. I've decided that it is fairer to Brian and the Board to post it as I originally wrote it, without trying to revise it to respond to their objections. That way they can respond to the points that bothered them, and you will understand their reasons for objection. Based on today's conversation, I expect to be able to effectively counter most of those objections, but perhaps not all.

You should note that even if I had talked with Brian earlier and revised the piece, the PDGA would still have rejected it because they believe that a magazine with a three month cycle is not an appropriate place to publish potentially controversial opinion pieces.

I look forward to reading your editorial, Peter.

I welcome anything that challenges the status quo when it comes to our longstanding competition structure.

It is 100% false to assume that I wish only to see favorable and "warm fuzzy" posts about the PDGA on this message board.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Again, it continues to boggle the mind why someone who seeks to put down all things PDGA continues to renew.

If you're so unhappy with the PDGA, then please, don't renew in 2010. The PDGA will work to grow the sport of disc golf just fine, and without your negativity dragging it down.

if you renew each year seemingly only to publicly attack the efforts of volunteers & employees on this forum; then please, don't renew in 2010. The sport will grow just fine without you.

If you are so unhappy with the marketing and the PDGA in general, then please, don't renew next year.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

:confused: