Everyone,

I have promised to maintain an informative and responsive link with the membership, and this is the best place to do it. Here are the reasons why I believe it is a good idea:

1) Although it has limits, I believe in a policy of transparency, communication and accountability.
2) The membership elected me as their representative on the Board. They deserve some accounting of what I do there, if only so that they can judge the quality of my service.
3) It helps me a lot because it works both ways. If members know what is going on, they can often provide input that would be useful in making decisions. So I learn from it.
4) It can help the Board by cutting down information glitches and by assuring the membership that the Board is listening.

There must be ground rules for something like this. This isn't like a gossip column, or a campaign platform, or even like a newspaper editorial. I need first of all to consider the feelings of my fellow Board members, who may feel uncomfortable about posting themselves and understandably edgy that I do it. I expect that we will discuss this issue at the Fall Summit meeting (Sep 26-28), and I hope that we can set up ground rules that are agreeable to all of us. Until then I will be reasonably cautious. But not mute.

At this time I welcome your comments and questions. Just keep in mind that I may withhold some responses until after the Summit meeting.

do you know the results from the no-smoking "test" at worlds?
i still dont know what they were testing ,public opinion?
since it was a test id like to know the results or what results they think there were.
id like to know before i renew this next year or i might test my option to not.

to 16670:

I have not yet seen any post-tournament feedback from the "no smoking" ordinance at this year's Worlds. Usually it takes a few months for Worlds reports to be finalized. We might hear something about it at the Summit, but that might be pushing it. And we would not likely make any decisions based on incomplete reports.

It sounds like you are anxious to know what (if any) smoking policies might be put in place for 2012, so you can factor that into your renewal decision. I would hope we would factor membership opinion into any deliberations, and that we would inform the membership of any major policy changes before the end of 2011.

Thanks for your response Peter. Its nice to have a board member that is open to communication with its members in a public forum.

Peter
At the next meeting when the topic of the message board comes up. Ask Theo and Chuck if the message board was a good place for communicating with the members when they launched the app for the iPhone. And when they were asking for feedback from the members.

I know the new website is hopefully launching soon and the discussion board will be changing to a more social media based one. I'm not making any judgements until I see how it is but please keep in mind not all the members are Facebook or Twitter regulars and would still like a way to communicate.

Thanks and good luck

Everyone,

I've been on the Board for a bit more than a month, and recently returned from the Fall Summit. Although Board Member Peter must necessarily be far more circumspect than Board Candidate Peter, this is a good time to open communication with the membership. I can talk more about the Summit than I could about teleconferences, because any PDGA member is free to attend Summits and could thus have received the information from the horses' mouths, so to speak.

I am not the spokesman for the Board. Rebecca Duffy was elected to that position. The recollections and opinions expressed on this thread are entirely my own. I do this out of a sense of personal accountability to the membership, and a desire to get feedback about issues of interest. I can learn a lot from this kind of interaction, as I did during the campaign. I have more time than most Board Members, so it is easier for me to do it.

I ran as a "reform" candidate, so I'll start with some issues I raised during the campaign. Considering the aggressive nature of my campaign, I have been received very cordially by the Board, and heard respectfully. Nez's style as Board President is to fully engage every member, even those who express minority opinions. I have been happily surprised to find that the Board is (and has been) more concerned with many of my "reform" issues than I ever expected. Let's look in detail at some of these:

The Website: The Board is well aware of the sorry state of the website, and has been working on potential solutions for a long time. The problems stem mostly from lack of continuity caused by the buyout of the original contractor, and by the desire to launch a new website that offers more modern capabilities. I don't see a quick and easy fix here, although I'm cheerfully willing to be surprised. But if it does take a long time, it will not be due to lack of effort on the Board's part.

PDGA Signup: The PDGA online signup fee structure will be changed as of January 2012. All event entrants will pay $1.50 plus 4% of their entry fee. In my opinion, this best reflects the actual costs of these transactions, and is thus fairest for all divisions. In addition, some of the ambiguous language in the sanctioning agreements will be changed.

Appointed Board Members: I originally saw a dark purpose in the Bylaws change that permitted this, but I'm much more comfortable with it now. Unless we can somehow create a better-informed electorate, I actually favor appointing some Board Members. That, as many of you know, is a huge shift for me.

Communication: We talked about this at some length. The Board would like more communication with the membership, but this is a very complex matter. As I may hold minority views on many issues, the Board might well wish that someone else wanted to do the communicating instead of me. For my part, I don't want to sacrifice effective working relationships on the Board or introduce unnecessary contentious elements into Board deliberations. The Board seems quite willing for me to give this a try, so long as I observe the protocols that bind all members of nonprofit Boards.

So much for old business. I'll comment on some interesting new developments when I have more time next week.

Hi Peter, thanks for following up with this thread.

I was pleased to read Nez's article in the magazine about trying to communicate better with the membership. He wrote how BOD members will write a column in each issue. Is your turn coming soon and what would you write about?

You report your stances on some of your campaign issues is softening a bit. I think as you get more information you are finding you aren't as far part as you once thought. As you get better communicated with you are finding you are in more agreement than you thought. As you serve your term please keep this lesson in mind as you continue your advocacy for better communication with the members.

Thanks Peter

Hi Peter,

Just one question that I'm sure more members than just me is interested in:

Can we (PRO members of the org) look forward to a different level of membership with a lower annual fee? A lot of the posts I read indicate that many of us long time players do not feel the org is where we want to keep investing our money year after year when the membership fees are $75. Many of us still are involved in the game, just not on the touring level. I'm sure that a lot of pro players do participate in every tournament in their area, but there are many more who don't travel as much as they used to for a myriad of reasons. My experience shows that many long time players are now more involved with their immediate area, organizing weekly/monthly events, exposing new players to the game, designing new courses, and other things that are advancing the game just as much as the touring players. Please share your thoughts on this.

good question john...

i'm to the point where i can't really see the value in a $75 renewal as well...(and still wonder why pro is more than am for that matter)

Peter - Johnrock makes a good point - and in all seriousness I think it could be done using the same theory used for the non-member fee but inverse. If there is a way to bring this up at a teleconference before the end of the year it would be appreciated.

Non playing /supporting Pro pays $30 but gets no ratings available - and then if they play in more than 4 PDGA Events during the year they would have the option to upgrade to full membership rights and see stats, etc.

This $30 membership still gives them the ability to vote, run for offices, be a TD, be a state coordiantor - and for those who don't play as much or not at all - this keeps them from making an all or nothing decision to be a member of the PDGA. In my opinion it would also alleviate alot of the complaining involved with the Pros that are paying the "extra $25" when they don't play and therefore get none of the benefits that the extra $25 covers for the playing pros.

I think the money lost would be more than offset by the retention of those members who wish to remain current and support the sport.

Just my opinion,
Keith

To johnrock, johnbiscoe, keithjohnson:

The Board has already discussed this idea at the recent Summit, and approved the broad concept. The Devil, as they say, is in the details. Everyone would like a membership that catered to their precise needs, for an appropriate price. That would be an impossibility -- an administrative nightmare.

We do want to add to existing membership categories, acknowledging that some members may not need or desire all of the services the PDGA provides (ratings, tournament tracking, magazine etc). We need to define the categories, and decide on a fair price for those services. The Board is not well-suited to make that kind of decision, so we asked the Staff to come up with a plan. My recommendation/desire is to keep it simple at first, just one or two new categories, and then see how it works out.

Here is some recent information related to questions raised during the election campaign:

Some members wanted smoking policies to be clarified before being asked to renew their membership for 2012. At the October teleconference we voted for a modified smoking ban for PDGA Major events. Rebecca Duffy, the official PDGA spokesperson, has written an excellent article about this on the PDGA front page. All the details are there.

There has been an interesting development on the drug-testing front. The WFDF (World Flying Disc Federation) has approved the WADA (World Anti-Doping Association) rules for international competition. The PDGA is not a member of WFDF, but it will be interesting and instructive for us to look at and learn from how this example affects other disc sports.

There has been an interesting development on the drug-testing front. The WFDF (World Flying Disc Federation) has approved the WADA (World Anti-Doping Association) rules for international competition. The PDGA is not a member of WFDF, but it will be interesting and instructive for us to look at and learn from how this example affects other disc sports.

Let's be clear though - PDGA will not be implementing the WADA Code anytime soon . . .

At some point, players who get DQd will be required to take a drug test at their own expense to get reinstated. You know it's coming. It's just a matter of time.

At some point, players who get DQd will be required to take a drug test at their own expense to get reinstated. You know it's coming. It's just a matter of time.

No chance . . .

Nez's posts here are welcome, and signal an overall increased desire by the Board to communicate with the membership. We talked about this at the October teleconference. I expect and hope that other Board members will also post here as they please. Remember, though, that not all Board members have the time or inclination to post on discussion boards.

Another indication of that increased desire is our election of Rebecca Duffy as the official spokesperson for the Board. Her article about the new smoking regulations on the PDGA front page is just the first of many we can expect from her.

Peter, do you any problem with the smoking ban being one of the first policies discussed by the new board when the vast majority of those running for office did not state anything about their view on the issue? It seems as though direct involvement by the members was removed from the situation.

Please do not fall back on the survey results taken from a very small portion of the membership due to the length of the survey and the fact that most people don't care to take any PDGA survey.

It may have been better to send out the surveys to Pro players who have attended or have been invited to a major last year.

Basically I feel many of those who responded will never be influenced by this policy while others who never had their voice heard will.

One last thing- Is it also disallowed to carry cigarettes?

Nez's posts here are welcome, and signal an overall increased desire by the Board to communicate with the membership. We talked about this at the October teleconference. I expect and hope that other Board members will also post here as they please. Remember, though, that not all Board members have the time or inclination to post on discussion boards.

Another indication of that increased desire is our election of Rebecca Duffy as the official spokesperson for the Board. Her article about the new smoking regulations on the PDGA front page is just the first of many we can expect from her.


Sometimes discussion and communication are more effective when they occur before policies are set.

Please do not fall back on the survey results taken from a very small portion of the membership due to the length of the survey and the fact that most people don't care to take any PDGA survey.
That's the lamest cop out I've ever heard. If members are against a new policy that was derived from this survey, and they CHOSE not to participate in that survey, then they forfeit all rights to complain about the policy. You don't get to answer a question of "a" or "b" with "I don't care" then cry that "b" won the vote.

If you couldn't be bothered to participate in the survey, I don't think we should be bothered to listen to your complaints about the results.

That's the lamest cop out I've ever heard. If members are against a new policy that was derived from this survey, and they CHOSE not to participate in that survey, then they forfeit all rights to complain about the policy. You don't get to answer a question of "a" or "b" with "I don't care" then cry that "b" won the vote.

If you couldn't be bothered to participate in the survey, I don't think we should be bothered to listen to your complaints about the results.

It isn't a vote......it was a PDGA survey....

Everything I have learned about surveys says that you want to achieve the highest response rate possible and creating a survey which is too long can create more variability in the results when an election occurs.

All I heard about the survey was "I took that PDGA survey and the friggin thing took like an hour and all the questions were the same as the one before".

BTW the response rate of surveys outside of those on the phone rarely exceeds 20% so we shouldn't expect high participation but the PDGA should have made an effort to state what issues may have been covered instead of just saying "Take the PDGA survey NOW!!!"

It isn't a vote......it was a PDGA survey....

Everything I have learned about surveys says that you want to achieve the highest response rate possible and creating a survey which is too long can create more variability in the results when an election occurs.

All I heard about the survey was "I took that PDGA survey and the friggin thing took like an hour and all the questions were the same as the one before".

BTW the response rate of surveys outside of those on the phone rarely exceeds 20% so we shouldn't expect high participation but the PDGA should have made an effort to state what issues may have been covered instead of just saying "Take the PDGA survey NOW!!!"
Fine, it's not a vote. But it's still bull to say that because you didn't feel like taking the survey, its results are bogus. If you have an interest in the direction the organization is taking, you should be taking every opportunity to make you opinions known when they ask for them. Doesn't matter what form it takes or what you hear about it. If YOU didn't take the time to investigate it yourself, then the problem is on you, not the survey. It's a cop out to say "I heard it was long and boring and repetitive, so I skipped out on it."

stand back folks it's going to be a virtual tsunami of sponsors now, just like when they banned drinking and made everyone wear those nifty-materialed collared shirts...


...oh, wait.



oh.

Fine, it's not a vote. But it's still bull to say that because you didn't feel like taking the survey, its results are bogus. If you have an interest in the direction the organization is taking, you should be taking every opportunity to make you opinions known when they ask for them. Doesn't matter what form it takes or what you hear about it. If YOU didn't take the time to investigate it yourself, then the problem is on you, not the survey. It's a cop out to say "I heard it was long and boring and repetitive, so I skipped out on it."

So basically the 90% of people who didn't take the survey and vote should have no room to complain? Ok then sounds awesome! The fact that the PDGA does nothing but tell you the survey is the problem especially when it is time consuming and glitchy. If they would have announced three main points of interest that would be included in the survey the response would have probably doubled.

"Take the PDGA survey where smoking policy, drug testing, whiny pros, and the possibility of term limits for positions such as the Executive and Marketing directors.

BTW I find it funny Layland was pretty much banned for actions which went against the image of the PDGA while others working for the PDGA have more publicized cases which you will find by looking up their name.......and if you view images you can see them both as a "evil guy" and "good PDGA guy". I am sure that helps our image a lot.

stand back folks it's going to be a virtual tsunami of sponsors now, just like when they banned drinking and made everyone wear those nifty-materialed collared shirts...


...oh, wait.



oh.

Get out your poncho!

i've been out of the loop a bit. was one of the appointed board members the surgeon general?

Sometimes discussion and communication are more effective when they occur before policies are set.

Excellent point James.

However, as a vocal critic of the PDGA on the lack of communication to the members I do believe the criticism has been heard and I see an effort being made to improve the situation.

Learning to communicate effectively with an organization isn't like turning on a tap and water flows out. It will take some doing to do it well but I see the effort being made.

So for now, I am pleased with the effort. Keep it up.

to the_kid and james_mccaine:

There was urgency in the "smoking" matter. Some members had requested that we define the policy for 2012 before they were asked to renew their memberships. We felt that was a reasonable request.

It didn't bother me at all that Board members may not have taken a stance on the issue during the campaign. If we could only act on issues from our campaign platforms we couldn't do much of anything. For example, I covered by far the most extensive range of campaign issues, but I said relatively little about smoking. My "smoking" comments were mostly just asides related to drug testing issues.

I voted for the "tobacco-free" policy. I was most strongly influenced by two considerations. First, I felt that the PDGA is making a serious effort to improve its image at showcase events. It seemed reasonable to me that they be allowed to try this policy at Majors -- events actually owned by the PDGA. There are only seven of these, while there are about1000 PDGA events overall. I would not vote for such a policy if it extended beyond the Majors. Second, the concession that smoking could be permitted in areas defined by the TD appealed to me.

Please read the policy as described by Rebecca on the front page. The details are all there. You can carry tobacco products, but "open and visual possession" subjects you to a courtesy violation.

to the_kid and james_mccaine:

There was urgency in the "smoking" matter. Some members had requested that we define the policy for 2012 before they were asked to renew their memberships. We felt that was a reasonable request.

It didn't bother me at all that Board members may not have taken a stance on the issue during the campaign. If we could only act on issues from our campaign platforms we couldn't do much of anything. For example, I covered by far the most extensive range of campaign issues, but I said relatively little about smoking. My "smoking" comments were mostly just asides related to drug testing issues.

I voted for the "tobacco-free" policy. I was most strongly influenced by two considerations. First, I felt that the PDGA is making a serious effort to improve its image at showcase events. It seemed reasonable to me that they be allowed to try this policy at Majors -- events actually owned by the PDGA. There are only seven of these, while there are about1000 PDGA events overall. I would not vote for such a policy if it extended beyond the Majors. Second, the concession that smoking could be permitted in areas defined by the TD appealed to me.

Please read the policy as described by Rebecca on the front page. The details are all there. You can carry tobacco products, but "open and visual possession" subjects you to a courtesy violation.

I think keeping Pros from destroying property at Majors would do more for our image than this policy. Also like i stated before the PDGA seems to look to image when it meet the objectives of those in control. Glad we had our first $100,000 Worlds...even if it was promised by a man in 05' who still remains very high ranking and is the "image" of the PDGA. Can't we find another decent looking educated guy to fill this role.

Basically I think the priorities are all mixed uip....the PDGA having more of a role in keeping Pros behaved iis more important in my mind. Even some of the "good" guys are just Johnsons on the course and to those running the events.

to the_kid and james_mccaine:

There was urgency in the "smoking" matter. Some members had requested that we define the policy for 2012 before they were asked to renew their memberships. We felt that was a reasonable request.

It didn't bother me at all that Board members may not have taken a stance on the issue during the campaign. If we could only act on issues from our campaign platforms we couldn't do much of anything. For example, I covered by far the most extensive range of campaign issues, but I said relatively little about smoking. My "smoking" comments were mostly just asides related to drug testing issues.

I voted for the "tobacco-free" policy. I was most strongly influenced by two considerations. First, I felt that the PDGA is making a serious effort to improve its image at showcase events. It seemed reasonable to me that they be allowed to try this policy at Majors -- events actually owned by the PDGA. There are only seven of these, while there are about1000 PDGA events overall. I would not vote for such a policy if it extended beyond the Majors. Second, the concession that smoking could be permitted in areas defined by the TD appealed to me.

Please read the policy as described by Rebecca on the front page. The details are all there. You can carry tobacco products, but "open and visual possession" subjects you to a courtesy violation.

What about a Joe Camel or Marlboro dyes? WHat about having butts in your bag? My favorite was the candy cigarette one though.

The issue I don't get is no e-cigs at all due to the fact they make ones that look nothing like cigarettes.

To johnrock, johnbiscoe, keithjohnson:

The Board has already discussed this idea at the recent Summit, and approved the broad concept. The Devil, as they say, is in the details. Everyone would like a membership that catered to their precise needs, for an appropriate price. That would be an impossibility -- an administrative nightmare.

We do want to add to existing membership categories, acknowledging that some members may not need or desire all of the services the PDGA provides (ratings, tournament tracking, magazine etc). We need to define the categories, and decide on a fair price for those services. The Board is not well-suited to make that kind of decision, so we asked the Staff to come up with a plan. My recommendation/desire is to keep it simple at first, just one or two new categories, and then see how it works out.

Peter,

I respectfully disagree - Breiner's system is/can be geared to any and all pricing and the admin side would be exactly the same as it is for a Supporting member going to full but in reverse - the system can see who is who on the PDGA side when batches are uploaded and non-members - are turned "on" when the dues are paid now, so it would be just the same idea - there is no need to try and make it a huge undertaking - price it at $30 like a student membership - if they decide to play in Events and not just be a TD - then they pay full membership fee of AM or PRO - it just adds 1 more set of codes to the database -Non member, Supporting member, TD or non-playing member, and full member.

Pretty darn (can't say dam thanks to a only allowing a pc set of words in the last 8 years) simple and I would bet that the goodwill gained and the monies earned by people supporting the sport as well as not lost by members dropping out would be well worth the week or so of someone coding the system to regulate and maintain it.

Just my opinion - and as someone who has been a full time 5 year renewing at a time member since 1996, TD for 16 years running over 40 PDGA Events and over 60 total Events, and State coordinator for the last 5 years - it sounds like an idea whose time is long overdue.

I hope the staff gives serious consideration to these types of ideas and that the BOD will support efforts to grow the membership base which should be in 25-50,000 renewing every year instead of just at 50,000+ TOTAL members now.

Keith

to keithjohnson:

We aren't in disagreement, Keith. A plan like yours has the kind of simplicity that I am hoping for and could support. Is it the best plan? You are actually more qualified to judge than I, because I don't have the kind of experience you have had. I am sure that the staff is looking into ideas like this one. I believe that they read this thread, but if you wanted to be sure you could send your idea directly to Brian Graham.

And certainly the Board is anxious to support measures designed to increase member signup and retention. Our concerns during our discussion were much like the ones you express in your last paragraph.

Dear Mr. Shive:

I'm a bit underwhelmed by your response and the pDGA's response to my request for an explanation of what benefits the pDGA would provide if I decided to sanction the biggest tournament in Louisiana with the pDGA.

Do you think it is wise to act as though the pDGA has a monopoly on sanctioning? It's been my observation that businesses that adopt the attitude you all have displayed usually end up being destroyed by competitors with better customer service and an
eagerness to attract new business.

Everyone,

I need your advice. When the PDGA launches its new website, we may lose the Discussion Board, and have no other PDGA-supported forum for free exchange of ideas. If we do, I will want to continue communicating with the membership on an outside forum. I have two questions.

In the past I have used discgolfersrus and discgolfreviews. One problem with these is that they lack the detailed internal structure of the PDGA Discussion Board. As a result, individual threads can be overwhelmed by posts on unrelated topics, and it becomes difficult to follow the thrust of complex issues.

Are there other forums I should consider? Are there solutions to the problem I note above?

I think disc golf course review has a little better organized message board than either discgolfersrus and discgolfreviews.

I'm waiting to reserve judgement until we see what the communications portion of new website will entail. It will supposedly be a combination of social-based media outlets such as Facebook and Twitter, and a traditional message board-based interface. If this new social-based website does not meet the satisfaction of the members, or if the powers that be decide to eventually transition away from a message board interface despite strong opposition from the membership, I am sure there will be considerable protest, and rightfully so.

I know virtually none of the details, but I do think it is safe to say that I think it's a little premature to paint a "sky is falling scenario" that a "PDGA-supported forum for free exchange of ideas" is going to essentially disappear altogether. Despite other advances with communications on the website, if the membership is overwhelmingly opposed to the removal of a message board-type interface, I'm sure they will let our elected Board of Directors and PDGA Office know about it.

Jeff,

I agree with you, to a point. I'll be thrilled if the PDGA makes a committment to an open Discussion Board on the new site. And it may. But it hasn't yet.

And if it doesn't, I want to explore all possible options beforehand. I don't want to wait until after the sky falls to begin to think about the future. There is no harm in preparing for possible disappointment, and much to gain.

Hey Peter,

As disappointing as it is to hear about possibly losing the Discussion Board, why not take a closer look at the Disc Golf Course Review site? Tim G. has posted there that he would entertain the idea of a pDGA only thread (or section). Even though the pDGA couldn't work out a way to use his course directory services, maybe the board over there would suffice for pDGA info and chatter.

johnrock:

That's a great idea. I'll check into it today. Maybe it could become a good fallback position for us.

Peter, while I agree with you 100% that there is no harm in preparing for possible disappointment and much to gain, this seems to me like a "we'll cross that bridge when we need to" scenario. Additionally, surely you and the rest of the BoD have a lot more pressing issues which demand more immediate attention and resources. Surely there are some more important issues which should be hammered out now so that folks know well ahead of time whether they want to renew with the PDGA in 2012 or not. That has been one complaint for some time now - relatively important changes which may have affected their membership renewal being dumped on them in the spring.

It just seems to me like a waste of time to make preparations and go through all the labor & effort for something that may never even come to fruition and you'll never even need to address. I don't claim to know anything about the agenda or workings of the BoD, but I have to think that there are a lot more important issues right now than preparing for the potential loss years down the road of an internet message board, which nobody definitively said was ever going to happen anyway.

Jeff:

You worry that I'm "fiddling while Rome burns". I believe in accountability to the membership, so I have to take your concern seriously even though it requires a response that is uncomfortably self-serving.

I have faults as a Board member, but they do not include laziness, inattention to pressing business, lack of anticipation or slowness of response. Of course my saying this doesn't make it so. You'd need candid unbiased private opinion, and you are welcome to request it from any source, including Brian Graham or any Board member.

Or you could consider the very point you raised, attention to issues that are important to new and renewing members. I consider the two most urgent of these to be smoking and consideration of new membership categories. Smoking 2012 is a done deal. I raised the need for expedition in this matter, and the Board acted promptly. The Office has already raised the need for new membership categories. I expressed enthusiasm for the idea, and made the motion to have the Office move forward with the development of a specific plan. It's "in the works" as much as it could be, and if you have any specific recommendations you could contact the Office directly.

What else would you like me to be working on? I'd be happy to consider it, and even give you an opinion about it.

Peter, I'm not aware of what the most pressing topics facing the BoD currently are, so I can't give any suggestions. But I'd ask that you just continue doing the fantastic job you've been doing in addressing the most important issues, as well as communicating your opinions on them to the membership. This has been a very refreshing change from past Boards and I for one appreciate your candor.

I started a thread about the survey PDGA sent to state and provincial reps, but no one seems interested.

Would you please review the second question from the survey and my response.

Question 2
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset">


One of the biggest problems we have in the PDGA Office is tracking registered players for those events requiring PDGA membership and passing of the Officials Exam. We try to help out TDs by calling those players displayed on their pre-reg lists as either non-current or not having passed the exam, but quite often the TDs don�t keep those pre-reg lists updated daily and we end up in a crunch just prior to the start of the tournament trying to track down those late-listed people or the TD ends up in a bind to collect memberships and/or get people to pass the test before they can tee off.

We are working on tying in the pdgasignup.com registrations into the database to provide automatic updates to the on-line pre-reg lists. Once this is done, those pre-reg lists will always be up-to-date and we can provide automatic alerts for those players who are not members or need to pass the official�s exam.

Once this is completed, we�d like to require that all US-based Majors and NTs use pdgasignup.com to do their registration so those events will take advantage of the system. This will not include A-tiers.

Note: the Board has already instructed pdgasignup.com to modify their registration fee structure to make it more equitable to all divisions.

Do you agree or disagree with this approach?


</td></tr></tbody></table>


My reply


If the "biggest problem" the PDGA office has is tracking players requiring an Officials Exam - perhaps they should no longer require an officials exam. Also, since the certification is good for three years, I suspect the bulk of the player testing has already occurred.

Even if the PDGA decides to keep the Official's Exam requirement, they still don't need to force events to use pdgasignup. Players already get instant notification when they pass the Online Officials Exam. They can simply forward the email to the TD or print it out for verification. Same goes with memberships - print out the receipt or show your soft card to the TD. Since players can already easily verify test results or membership, the PDGA does not need to force any events to use pdgasignup.

In short, the PDGA should not be able to force Majors and NTs to use pdgasignup to solve a problem the PDGA created when it decided to require Officials Exams for players at Majors and NT's. Will you be voting in support of forcing Majors and NT events to use pdgasignup?


(PS - I can certainly understand the PDGA using pdgasignup for Worlds and any events at the IDGC since the PDGA "runs" these events. However, use of pdgasignup should not be forced on all the other Majors and NT's because required testing is causing problems for the office.)

Discette,

I have already seen your post on another thread, and almost responded to it there. Thank you for reposting it here.

Very complex issue. The PDGA would make the following points:
1) They should be able to require such things for events that they "own" as well as ones they run. That includes showcase events to which they provide a stipend, like NT's.
2) They won't require compliance until the system is brought to the point that it can offer seamless and rapid updates. That would remove some of your objections.
3) They have accepted modifications to PDGAsignup (see the PDGAsignup section of post #7 above) that will make it more generally attractive to the membership and to TD's.

I am sympathetic to all these arguments, and I might be persuaded to vote "yes". However, I doubt it. I have two objections, somewhat different from yours, and somewhat more fundamental than the above sympathies.
1) I feel that TD's are our most important resource. I have said that they are more important, even, than the PDGA. I would like to allow them the maximum possible freedom of choice.
2) I worry about the precedent. I do not want to see the requirement steadily extended until all events are forced to use PDGAsignup.

I'm probably missing some relevant arguments, and I invite other opinions from all. Also, I assure you that the PDGA will be very interested in the results of that survey.

Discette,

I have already seen your post on another thread, and almost responded to it there. Thank you for reposting it here.

Very complex issue. The PDGA would make the following points:
1) They should be able to require such things for events that they "own" as well as ones they run. That includes showcase events to which they provide a stipend, like NT's.
2) They won't require compliance until the system is brought to the point that it can offer seamless and rapid updates. That would remove some of your objections.
3) They have accepted modifications to PDGAsignup (see the PDGAsignup section of post #7 above) that will make it more generally attractive to the membership and to TD's.

I am sympathetic to all these arguments, and I might be persuaded to vote "yes". However, I doubt it. I have two objections, somewhat different from yours, and somewhat more fundamental than the above sympathies.
1) I feel that TD's are our most important resource. I have said that they are more important, even, than the PDGA. I would like to allow them the maximum possible freedom of choice.
2) I worry about the precedent. I do not want to see the requirement steadily extended until all events are forced to use PDGAsignup.

I'm probably missing some relevant arguments, and I invite other opinions from all. Also, I assure you that the PDGA will be very interested in the results of that survey.

I'll chime in so you can see another board member's view:
1. I completely support the required use of pdgasignup.com for PDGA Majors and NT events, but I would not support its use in any other events that are not PDGA controlled, funded or owned. This should be applicable to events that the PDGA provides major financial, marketing and resource benefits. TDs/clubs are not required to host or become Majors or NT events - they do so in partnership with the PDGA,and this is one minor requirement of this partnership.

2. I support the PDGA exam requirement for these same events for the same reasons. I could see this requirement moving downward to A-tiers. Competency of rules should be a basic premise of playing our top events IMHO.

Now that the PDGA has required the rules test and therefore assured competency of rules at our top events has anyone noticed a difference?

I haven't been at these top events so I have no idea. The message board community might have commented on that previously but since it is dying I haven't heard a word about it.

Has anyone noticed a difference? If not, it seems hard to discount Discette's solution of just dropping the requirement if this is one of the bigger problems facing the PDGA office and there isn't a noticible in having this requirement. I understand the theory of the rules exam but what is reality?

Peter, yet another deadline on the website improvement has come and gone. After announcing and missing the late September deadline I haven't seen another word.

What is going on? You surely agree this is ridiculous. The website should be the primary interface with all things PDGA. It has turned into a joke instead.

When they said the fix would be up and running by late September I assumed they meant 2011. Looking closer, a year was never specified. Are we just 11 short months away from getting this done?

I played 2 majors this year and in my opinion, rules knowledge is much improved. I think the exams have proven useful in reducing rules questions/controversies. I support continuing to require a rules exam for eligibility for pDGA majors.

Pete:

1) Feedback about the effect of the rules exam has been anecdotal but, in my opinion, generally quite positive (see for example Mike's comment above). Complaints about it have been mostly about cost, glitches in the test interface and communication problems like the one Discette noted. No one seriously argues that it doesn't improve players' knowledge of the rules. I would not vote to dump it.

2) Yes, it's ridiculous. I agree and I'm sure the rest of the Board agrees. This is, and was even before I joined the Board, a paramount Board and Office concern. We all wish that it were possible to snap our fingers and fix it quick, but it's not. And if you want the quick fix then I'm probably not your cup of tea because the solution I proposed as a candidate (dumping Accuvent) could indeed take 11 months to put in place.

There's a lot of justified anger about this situation, but it is not the fault of the present or even the previous Board. If blame is to be assigned you might as well blame me, because I helped negotiate the original contract with Ciphent (now Accuvent) in 2008. If I had only known . . . .

Peter and Mike, thx for the anecdotal evidence on improved rules awareness. I am pleased but would love to hear more opinions on that as well.

As for the website, I don't want to fix blame for the problem. I merely want the problem fixed. OK< I want better communication too.

Thanks

Please just dump Accuvent...they've strung us along for far too long. At least four (maybe even five?) deadlines have been missed now. In what line of work is this an acceptable business practice?

...disregard

hi peter,
i received my membership renewal email on november 16. there appears to be no lower priced "partial" membership option... was this idea tabled by the board?

thanks,
john biscoe

John,

From the Fall Summit minutes:
"An Entry Level PDGA Membership Plan by Sara Nicholson
‐ At the previous board meeting Sara was tasked with developing a solution for an entry‐level or noncompetitive membership while simplifying the current structure. Sara went over the details of the current membership structure. Sara came up with a plan to help to get new people to join by reducing the cost of their membership.
This needed to be done without adding to the already complex membership structure. The solution was to offer a discount of $20 (40% off) with a coupon code usable at pdgasignup.com.
The benefits of a discounted membership verses adding another membership level to choose from:
� Keeps it simple for members
� Does not diminish current structure (taking away from the membership levels already in place)
� Prevents potential problems or difficulty to the Tournament Directors
11/16/11
� Works with current IT infrastructure
� Keeps us on schedule for the 2012 membership year
� Saves the PDGA a great deal of money on printing costs and marketing
� Turns current members into ambassadors (including our affiliate club programs and state
coordinators)
� Target marketing which is able to be tracked. (Answering the questions: Where are the newmembers coming from? How did we get them?) Sara then discussed the different costs associated with the different membership levels and new versus renewal memberships.
The board discussed the pros and cons of this type of membership, what the revenue implications might be and whether this was to be used to gain new members or also to entice non‐current members to
renew. The code option is very flexible and can be used for target marketing which will let us know exactly where the members are coming from that use the codes.
MOTION:
Peter Shive motions that the office be responsible to manage a membership marketing program.
Bob Decker seconds.
Motion passes unanimously."

Note that we did not adopt Sara's suggested plan exactly as described above. We endorsed the concept of a "membership marketing program" and charged the office with the development of a specific plan. I expect that we will be asked to approve a plan at the December teleconference, so it could be in place for the 2012 season.

thanks peter...

am i correct in garnering from the minutes that there will be no discounted/reduced price renewal options for current members?

thanks peter...

am i correct in garnering from the minutes that there will be no discounted/reduced price renewal options for current members?

That's what I was thinking as I read it. Sounds like there will be discounts for AMs but not for PROs. Is the plan to get rid of long time members?

"turns current members into ambassadors"- i wonder who came up with that spin...

Hey Peter,

As disappointing as it is to hear about possibly losing the Discussion Board, why not take a closer look at the Disc Golf Course Review site? Tim G. has posted there that he would entertain the idea of a pDGA only thread (or section). Even though the pDGA couldn't work out a way to use his course directory services, maybe the board over there would suffice for pDGA info and chatter.

Peter, I think this is an awful idea, and any casual internet user can find out for themselves why this is the case. Disc Golf Course Review forum posts are largely garbage. More precisely, a cluttered mixture of poorly informed but nevertheless strong opinions on a variety of topic, a huge dose of poking and ribbing between addicted regular users, armies of trolls aiming to derail threads and incite emotional responses, etc.. They have driven away all the knowledgeable and reasonable users to other forums. You can still find some nuggets at DGCR, which occasionally appear in some threads by magic, but you'll have to read dozens (if not hundreds) of pages of garbage first. The level of discussion is perhaps the lowest in the disc golf online universe.

Our club just set up a PhPBB forum. It was relatively painless, and it works great. I think PDGA should be able to manage something like this, and keep the operation in-house.

As for the larger internet issues, I'm not certain why PDGA is doing business with a firm that is chronically (perhaps fatally) unable to make any progress? I've worked (on and off, since 1994) in the website business, and I have to say that this is some of the worst performance I've ever seen.

amazingly enough i agree with jhern. the pdga needs to maintain a message board of it's own.

As for the larger internet issues, I'm not certain why PDGA is doing business with a firm that is chronically (perhaps fatally) unable to make any progress? I've worked (on and offsince 1994) in the website business, and I have to say that this is some of the worst performance I've ever seen.

I could not agree more!

From the 2011 Fall Summit Minutes (http://www.pdga.com/pdga-documents/minutes-from-2011-fall-summit):

Our original launch date for the upgrade was June 28th. We ran into problems with the Drupal 7 architecture and module problems. There are portions of �Phase II� code that need to be rewritten versus a straight conversion. Currently, a new project manager has been assigned to our account. The new account manager will begin work on 9/26 and 80% of his time will be devoted to our account. We have also instituted weekly status meetings that include Nesbitt, Graham and Accuvant management.


From the latest Board Teleconference Minutes (http://www.pdga.com/pdga-documents/minutes-from-october-2011-teleconference):


IT Report
New Website

The work on the new website appears to be accelerating and Accuvant has multiple resources currently assigned to the project. Dave Gentry is expecting that the course directory will be finished this week with alpha testing to start immediately afterwards. Dave had a meeting with Accuvant on Monday morning and will be working on a specification documents most of this week. They are tentatively planning on doing beta testing the week of October 24th to 31st.


Seriously, are you friggin kidding me? After everything we've been through, shouldn't multiple Accuvant project managers be spending 100% of their time on this? And as of a month ago, we're still doing beta testing?!?

This entire saga has reached comic proportions, and about the only thing that gives me of any ray of hope is seeing that Steve Ganz was added to the PDGA IT Committee. I worked with Steve out at Pro Worlds this year and he really knows his craft - he is a principal web developer at Linkedin and previously worked at eBay and McAfee. If anyone can rescue this, it's Steve. http://www.pdga.com/discussion/images/icons/icon14.gif

This area of discussion is a touchy one, and has been speculated on infinite-m on this message board. Let me do what I can to address this issue.

As of 16 Sep, as CEO and Board President of the PDGA, I have been on a weekly teleconference every Friday with a senior VP and other senior executives of Accuvant, with Executive Director Brian Graham and IT Manager David Gentry joining me. Accuvent is fully aware of the impact and ramifications this issue is having within our organization - there are up to five (5) Accuvant people working on this issue nearly constantly, including on nights and weekends where appropriate. I have been kept abreast nearly daily of the ongoing developments and issues as they arise. In turn, the board has been informed on a routine basis of the issues at hand.

This is an incredibly complex business issue with enormous nuances and ramifications to the PDGA as an organization. We have looked at this issue from all angles in consultation with our IT group including Steve Ganz. We have numerous hurdles to overcome in resolving this issue, and they are being addressed on a daily basis by numerous resources within Accuvant and within the PDGA.

As a volunteer, I have spent countless hours addressing this issue with Accuvant, and with our PDGA staff. This issue is getting the utmost attention from our entire organization to upgrade this website, and we have had numerous hurdles to overcome. We the PDGA are moving forward, making decisions on the best path for the organization both in the short and long term. When it is appropriate for us to do so, we will provide further details on the launch of the new site and the steps we have taken and are taking to do so.

As a side note, the Board and the PDGA staff have committed to the discussion board for the foreseeable future even with the launch of the upgraded site, until such time that we have an alternate mechanism in place to allow us to continue this general form of communication with our membership.

I understand and sympathize with the frustration expressed, and we ask for your continued patience as the Board and the PDGA office work together as a team to get this upgrade completed.

thanks dave.

Thanks for the speedy response, Nez. http://www.pdga.com/discussion/images/icons/icon14.gif

I'm sorry about the speculation ad infinitum on this message board, but all we have to go on is essentially what is contained within the BoD minutes. Your additional level of insight provided is greatly appreciated, and it's very encouraging to hear that additional Accuvant staff are working on the issue.

I'm sure that the BoD is just as frustrated if not more so than the PDGA membership, but given what we all know (which is admittedly little) it just appears like the situation has basically reached the point where some additional measure of accountability and responsibility is warranted. It's been my experience that in just about any walk of life, this level of service is not acceptable business practice with regards to delivery on objectives & expectations. I know for sure that if I gave this level of performance at the Fortune 500 company at which I work, I'd be given punitive action up to and including demotion or termination.

It's simply human nature that when something this big goes down so wrong, there must be some level of accountability shown to get back into peoples' good graces. I wish this weren't the case, but deep down I think for folks to come back around, a person or persons or an organization needs to take the fall for letting the situation get to this point. Personally, I think that the further we stay on with Accuvant and the more deadlines we keep missing and the longer the website stays in such a sorry state, it will only continue to reflect negatively on the PDGA and could possibly affect membership renewal rates. The website is simply the face of the organization.

I realize that this is a "touchy" subject, but hopefully this constructive criticism is received in a positive manner. I think it should go without saying that it's of utmost importance that in the upcoming months of December and January when members are renewing, major progress is demonstrated with the website upgrade. I just feel that beyond that time, it's quite unreasonable to ask or expect any more continued patience with this matter.

My $.02

Peter or Nez or both,

Has anymore discussion been held on a flat fee for insurance on a SERIES, as I asked about earlier in 2011?

I just filled out the 6 sanctioning agreements for the GSSS and it sucks that for 6 Events in 6 months I have to spend 300 for insurance when I'm pretty sure that there is a possibility that the insurance costs could be less or sanctioning costs could be lessened by paying for all 6 at one time.
The PDGA is getting $300 sanctioning plus $300 for insurance (which I'm pretty sure is not all paid to the insurance company) and $125 minimum times 6 for the C-tier player fees which is over $1000 over the last 4 years (2012 being year 5) just from my Events, and there are several other TD's running Series nationwide along with several others who run Non-Sanctioned Series who would probably sanction thier Series, if it was for a reasonable price.

Thanks in advance for any consideration or discussion that helps this going forward.

Keith

Keith,

We haven't talked about insurance costs since I joined the Board.

I wish that overall TD costs were lower, but I'd reduce player fees before I would discount the insurance. I believe that $50 to insure an event is a very good deal, that liability does not decrease with volume, and that it would be cumbersome to keep track of "series" vs. "nonseries" events.

All this is, of course, personal opinion. For the official policy you should call the office. Perhaps there is some aspect I'm not aware of.

Peter, I agree that $50 is not a bad deal per se' - BUT EVERY insurance company of any kind gives discounts for bundled insurance things -(car, home, life, multi car, no accident good driver, etc.) - so to say that liability doesn't decrease by volume goes totally opposite how the insurance industry views things as they don't charge you solely on liability and volumes. The more business you give them, the lower the cost for them to bundle things together.
Maybe it's just a matter of ASKING the insurance company and seeing if they lower the price - maybe the PDGA keeps it at $50 for individual Events and $40 -$45 per Event for Series and the PDGA can STILL MAKE MONEY from the TD's before the Events even happen, or maybe as a loss leader as they can say - we KNOW we'll be getting $750+ from Mr. TD running a Series in players fees and maybe they would eat the 30-50 bucks they might be "giving" to the TD with discounted insurance - I mean at best we are talking only 15-25 TD's that are running Series Events at this point in time - hell alot of them don't even PLAY, but have to pony up the 50-75 bucks just for the right to RUN a PDGA Sanctioned Event - they could use some of that money for this program - which if my Series is any indication - helps DRIVE players to be PDGA members therefore making the PDGA more money than if someone just plays one or 2 Events and pays the Non-member fee for them.

Also it is EXTREMELY easy to keep track of Series versus non Series, as it could be a check box next to the Events as it is with member or non member, official or not an official, etc. and would have to be set up where all Series Events were sanctioned at the same time, therefore making it a piece of cake to tell which Events are part of a Series and which were not.

Thanks for your opinion, I agree with you on fees as already pointed out in my previous post of the $942 in fees from just MY Series alone on TOP of the $700 in Sanctioning and insurance costs - and hopefully the office will be able to discuss the idea and give it some serious consideration.

Keith

Peter I was surprised to see in the October BOD meeting minutes you voted in favor of extending, even expanding the smoking ban in 2012.

Back in June you wrote this...

""There are two issues here. The first is policy. The second is enforcement of policy. I approve of the current PDGA policy banning alcohol and drug use. Cigarettes is different. I'm not a smoker, and I wish people wouldn't smoke at tournaments, but I don't believe that I would vote to ban smoking. I'm close, and maybe I could be convinced. I'd want to consult the membership before I voted. The recent cigarette thing bothered me because it seemed hypocritical -- a draconian policy toward tobacco when everyone still just looks the other way about the bigger issue, which is drug use.""

What changed your mind?

Pete,

I've already discussed my smoking stance in post #28 on this thread. Here is an excerpt from that post:

"I voted for the "tobacco-free" policy. I was most strongly influenced by two considerations. First, I felt that the PDGA is making a serious effort to improve its image at showcase events. It seemed reasonable to me that they be allowed to try this policy at Majors -- events actually owned by the PDGA. There are only seven of these, while there are about1000 PDGA events overall. I would not vote for such a policy if it extended beyond the Majors. Second, the concession that smoking could be permitted in areas defined by the TD appealed to me."

So yes, I voted for it, even to extend it from two to seven events. I did note during the campaign that I was "close" and could be convinced. I repeat now that I would not vote for any extension of the ban to events that the PDGA does not own, unless a member survey directed otherwise.

THx Peter. I missed your post 28.

The Board has just adopted a completely new method of determining Player of the Year and Rookie of the Year Awards. I expect that the office will post the details early next week, but I want to give everyone a heads up asap because an early start to your season may be critical. Top players take note, and please pass this on to other top players.

This new method is points-based, and open-ended in the sense that points continue to accumulate for all results, instead of being calculated for a certain number of "best" events as before. Points can be acquired for results in any event, even C-Tiers. Although the award is only for "North American Player of the Year", international majors are important.

The message to potential candidates is, "Quantity is far more important than before". If you want to win this award, play as often as you can. Anyone who plays 40 events in 2012 will have a significant advantage over someone who only plays 30, etc.

The Board has just adopted a completely new method of determining Player of the Year and Rookie of the Year Awards. I expect that the office will post the details early next week, but I want to give everyone a heads up asap because an early start to your season may be critical. Top players take note, and please pass this on to other top players.

This new method is points-based, and open-ended in the sense that points continue to accumulate for all results, instead of being calculated for a certain number of "best" events as before. Points can be acquired for results in any event, even C-Tiers. Although the award is only for "North American Player of the Year", international majors are important.

The message to potential candidates is, "Quantity is far more important than before". If you want to win this award, play as often as you can. Anyone who plays 40 events in 2012 will have a significant advantage over someone who only plays 30, etc.

will league points go towards these awards?

As of 16 Sep, as CEO and Board President of the PDGA, I have been on a weekly teleconference every Friday with a senior VP and other senior executives of Accuvant, with Executive Director Brian Graham and IT Manager David Gentry joining me. Accuvent is fully aware of the impact and ramifications this issue is having within our organization - there are up to five (5) Accuvant people working on this issue nearly constantly, including on nights and weekends where appropriate. I have been kept abreast nearly daily of the ongoing developments and issues as they arise. In turn, the board has been informed on a routine basis of the issues at hand.



I understand and sympathize with the frustration expressed, and we ask for your continued patience as the Board and the PDGA office work together as a team to get this upgrade completed.

ok so 5 Accuvant people working constantly nights and weekends included for almost 4 months.Im so exited to see what this 6000 man hours of work(at 10 hours a day) will produce. we should have the coolest website ever with that commitment!!!!!!!!

Now really this makes us the PDGA look like a joke.Fire these losers its obvious any company getting a website designed after 4 months of promises and no results would be done!!!!!!!!!!

Or at least let us (the ones that pay your bills)know WTH is going on!!!!

ok so 5 Accuvant people working constantly nights and weekends included for almost 4 months.Im so exited to see what this 6000 man hours of work(at 10 hours a day) will produce. we should have the coolest website ever with that commitment!!!!!!!!

Now really this makes us the PDGA look like a joke.Fire these losers its obvious any company getting a website designed after 4 months of promises and no results would be done!!!!!!!!!!

Or at least let us (the ones that pay your bills)know WTH is going on!!!!

I understand your gripes; thus the reason I spend 30-60 min extra every week of my volunteer time as a board president to insert myself into a process not normally involving the board, just to be sure everyone involved in its development knows the importance of this issue to the organization and the membership.

A basic premise that is the major delay in its release is the conversion to Drupal 7. One can debate that premise as wise or not. First, understand I am an engineer, not a programmer. One of the things we have learned in the past four months is that many of the modules had to be "customized" to properly perform, and is probably the main reason for the numerous and extended delays. We chose, rightly or wrongly, to move to the latest version of Drupal, an open source code language, and the open source modules in key areas were not up to snuff when it came to our website upgrade.

Lastly, we are trying not to release a new website until it is as thoroughly tested as we can, both from a functionality side and from a load/bandwidth/consecutive user side. We continue to run into issues over the past 30 days that have extended our planned release. We are so close I can feel the release is near, but we won't release it until we think it is ready.

It's not going to be the coolest website ever; we've had to re-organize and structure a website built on a number of varying efforts. What we are hoping it will be is an updated and stable platform on which we can build new features and benefits for the foreseeable future.

to 16670:

You asked, "Will league points go towards these awards?"

Good question. As written, the new POY/ROY formula does not specifically exclude bonus points for league wins. However, I can't imagine that any Board member would support league results counting toward these awards. We should certainly discuss and clarify this point.

The proposed plan is to record B-tier points for league final standings. So if a league actually shows up in the PDGA event results as a B-tier, instead of something else like an L-tier, the points would be calculated toward POY short of action by the Board. Considering each league would only count as one B-tier, it would be tough for leagues to make much of a dent in the POY standings when a player might only get enough rounds for 2 or 3 league finishes since the contenders will be traveling regularly.

Hi Peter.

Do you have an update on the new website?

The BOD meeting minutes from the January meeting (posted this week) included this...

IT Report �Gentry
New Website
The journey to get the new website launched has been a long and interesting journey. We have been making slow but consistent progress over the past month. All of the PDGA obligations have been completed and Accuvant is finishing up bugs that were discovered during functionality testing.
The current plan is to have a fully functional website ready for extensive beta testing by Thursday January 12th. At that point we will be doing an extensive review of the site and determining if any changes need to be made before launch. If all goes well the new site could be launched as soon as January 17th although a day or two for fine tuning and modifications would not be unexpected.

Pete:

New IT Director Steve Ganz has done a thorough review of the website situation. He has recommended actions that I applaud, and these will be implemented soon. Some information should be released after this Tuesday's Board teleconference, when we will presumably approve the minutes of our February meeting (which will include a report from Steve). More will be released when the minutes of the Spring Summit are approved. I can't tell you the details yet -- I must honor certain protocols involving Board confidentiality.

I notice that you have asked Steve the same question you asked me. He is the point man in this matter, and it may be that the office might choose to have him report directly to the membership sometime, rather than releasing episodes piecemeal in Board meeting minutes. I would prefer that, since Steve could tell the story better than I (or the minutes) could. That will be their choice, but in the long run it will not make a difference in the outcomes.

I will say that I now have total confidence in how the office and the IT Director are handling this issue. I believe that we are, finally, on the right track.

OK thanks Peter, see you in Pueblo

to wsfaplau and others:

I call your attention to this item in the minutes of the February Board teleconference:

"IT Report � Ganz Steve
Ganz gave the Board an update on his first month as the new director of Technology for the PDGA. Ganz reported on a face to face meeting with website developer Accuvant at their offices in Maryland and that it was initially encouraging, but he has since lost confidence that they can complete the website project to his satisfaction. A quote was requested from a new company and will be presented to the board at the spring summit. Ganz also reported on recent ad server challenges as well as options to consider to eliminate the problems we are encountering."

So, to quote Australian bush poet Banjo Patterson, "There was movement at the station". Things are beginning to happen. Stay tuned.

Thanks Peter.

The movement is back to the drawing board.

to wsfaplau:

Certainly not in the sense that we will be starting from scratch. Remember, Steve's meeting with Accuvant was "initially encouraging". In other words, much has already been accomplished. Steve is only saying that he does not recommend continuing with the same team.

I would prefer to put it that we will build on what has already been done, but using a different provider.

Recently the PDGA Front Page featured a story about NonStopDiscGolf, a business that runs disc golf tournaments. I initiated Board level discussion, expressing concern about selective promotion of businesses, especially those in which Board members have a financial interest. I wanted us to clarify that such stories carry no implication that the Board has specifically endorsed the business, or favors it over any other business that offers a similar service. To do this I need to explain how Front Page stories are chosen.

The PDGA Office Staff chooses them, and runs them without consultation with the Board. In fact, Board members do not even see Front Page stories before they appear. This is fine with me. I wouldn't want the Board involved with that kind of detail. Brian Graham explained that they are looking for stories that are "newsworthy and good for the sport", and chose the NonStopDiscGolf story on that basis. They would run a newsworthy story from any PDGA member, and would not rule it out just because it happened to describe a particular business or because Board members were directly involved.

Again, this is fine with me, as long as the membership realizes that there is no implied endorsement by the Board of the featured business.

As noted on the PDGA front page, Dave "Nez" Nesbitt has resigned from the Board of Directors of the PDGA. I need to talk about Nez a bit.

I have never known a Board member who put as much time and effort into serving the PDGA. I think I work hard at it, but Nez had me beat hands down. For example, I talked the talk about the website, but Nez walked the walk and did the heavy lifting to lead us to what I now believe was the proper way to proceed.

As Board president Nez made me feel welcome to a Board that I had outspokenly criticized during the election campaign. He held no grudges. He encouraged me to speak out, even when he knew that our views diverged, as they most often did. In fact, he extended himself to do this. I can still hear Nez saying, "Peter, you've been awfully quiet about this. Surely there is something you would like to say." There usually was.

I want to publically thank Nez for his service. I will miss his presence on the Board.

Current sanctioning requirements allow TD�s to limit added cash allocations (on a proportional basis) when there are fewer than 20 Pros entered in their event. The PDGA Board recently voted to eliminate that flexibility in 2013. That means, for example, that the TD of a B-Tier event would be required to add $500 to the Pro purse even if only one Pro were registered. It would of course be much more in an A-Tier or a National Tour event. There was much discussion of this issue, and it is not my intent to review the pros and cons of the Board�s decision here. I only wish to point out that concerned TD�s still have a way of retaining flexibility.

Any TD who is worried that unforeseen conditions (weather, competing events etc) might lead to larger than desired added cash payments to a small number of Pros can simply choose to sanction their event as a C-Tier.

Are we ready for The Seniors Worlds now ?

Current sanctioning requirements allow TD�s to limit added cash allocations (on a proportional basis) when there are fewer than 20 Pros entered in their event. The PDGA Board recently voted to eliminate that flexibility in 2013. That means, for example, that the TD of a B-Tier event would be required to add $500 to the Pro purse even if only one Pro were registered. It would of course be much more in an A-Tier or a National Tour event. There was much discussion of this issue, and it is not my intent to review the pros and cons of the Board�s decision here.

I think it is best if a Board Member does not discuss Board deliberations on the internet, but would you be willing to explain your point of view versus mine? I was one of the Competition Committee members who argued for the $500 as being an inflexible obligation.

Bruce

There were several reasons why I voted to retain the flexibility. Let's consider B-Tiers with the $500 requirement.

1) If the event has more than 20 pros (as is customary) the added cash works out to less than $25 per pro. It seemed absurd to me that a TD could be required to pay as much as $500 added cash to just one pro.
2) Most TD's who requested flexibility wanted to be able to do more for Amateurs when the Pro enrollment was small. I felt that was reasonable.
3) I worried about the burden on the TD's, who generally depend on Amateur entry fees to come up with some of the added cash for the Pros. Events with only a few Pros may also have only a few Amateurs (for example because of bad weather). In that case the TD might have to pay some of the $500 out of his or her pocket.
4) Removing the flexibility probably means that more TD's will choose to sanction at the C-Tier level to avoid the above problems. I felt that this was not in the PDGA's best interest.

OK, guys and girls, you have seen how you were treated as second class players at the is big *** event. Very little coverage of some of the closest play in the whole week. I think the time is now for the Seniors to host and run their own Worlds. Quality play, 3 somes on the course. You keep moving, no mind numbing waits in between shots. You don't have to start so **** early. Get done in lot's for time for dinner and clean up before the eaving activties. All the local publicity would be focused on "us"
WE are the foundation of the Sport. Without us , the rest of it does not happen.
Think about it. Let's do it! WE have the connections, we have the clout. WE can do this!!

I read the recent board minutes from August and noticed there was a vote to approve a new version of the rules. Is that new version publicly available? If so, where? If not, when will it likely be made publicly available?

Can you comment on the straw poll regarding the proposed change to the rule for marking the lie at the rear edge of the disc instead of the front edge? Just curious if it was unanimous, split, or which direction it generally leaned.

Regarding the approved rule variance for OB, is that now an option that any TD can invoke? If so, is prior approval from the TM required?

JenniferB:

The rules rewrite that we passed changes no rule. It is a reorganization of the existing rules into a format that should make it easier to find what you are looking for. I'm not sure when it will be generally available, but I will ask at the Summit this coming week and get back to you.

We did consider "tail marking", but we decided not to go forward with it at this time. I opposed it. I felt that the current method is better because 1) it doesn't need fixing, 2) it permits interesting tactical choices, 3) it decreases the chance of hand injuries, and 4) tail marking would force absurd lies when the tail contacts the leading edge of trees and inbounds structures and ravines.

We did allow the rules variance you mentioned for this year's USDGC. Any other event desiring a variance would need permission from the Tour Manager or (in the case of Majors and NT's) from the Board.

Peter,

Chuck posted on another thread that range finders and measuring devices will be allowed outside the 10 m circle in the new rules.

Did that change?

wsfaplau (and JenniferB):

Chuck is correct, and I was wrong when I said above that the rules were just reorganized but not changed.

Tail marking, however, was not implemented.

I'm glad tail marking did not make the cut. There are a number of other changes I'm not too fond of. It would be good if these new rules could be publicly posted by the PDGA somewhere so that those of us not on the rules committee could discuss and hammer out the unintended consequences prior to them going live in January.

See rules section of the forum

Hi Pete - in the recent issue of Discgolfer we were told that a new IT person has been hired and is reworking the website. To me it seems like the course directory is in the biggest need for improvement, as it is practically functionless without exact zip codes. Any ETA for rejiggering the usability of this feature?
Thanks.

to unwrinkledear:

Cliff Towne has been working to update course directory information in cooperation with IT Director Steve Ganz. Cliff points out that you don't need the exact zip code -- a nearby zip code should be sufficient. Most people probably don't start their search with zip codes anyway. The City/State search field is somewhat more direct. Finally, even if you don't know the zipcode or City/State you can try "Course Name" under "Advanced Search" if you only know some of the words in the name.

Cliff also noted that most courses in the US now have correct GPS locations for the first tee. In addition, he is working (by state A-Z, currently in Ohio) on the Course Map Project.

Steve expects that the course directory interface will be improved when we launch our next generation website. Like the other matters he has set his hand to, this is a pretty safe bet.

to unwrinkledear:

Cliff Towne has been working to update course directory information in cooperation with IT Director Steve Ganz. Cliff points out that you don't need the exact zip code -- a nearby zip code should be sufficient. Most people probably don't start their search with zip codes anyway. The City/State search field is somewhat more direct. Finally, even if you don't know the zipcode or City/State you can try "Course Name" under "Advanced Search" if you only know some of the words in the name.

Cliff also noted that most courses in the US now have correct GPS locations for the first tee. In addition, he is working (by state A-Z, currently in Ohio) on the Course Map Project.

Steve expects that the course directory interface will be improved when we launch our next generation website. Like the other matters he has set his hand to, this is a pretty safe bet.

Thanks Pete - Cliff always did an amazing job with the book directory. (And he's one of the most fun local guys here to play with!)

I a couple more questions: any eta (month? year?) when the next generation website will be launched?

Also, I understand that plugging in any zip code around the area works well - it just usually means that if you are planning a trip, you need to visit one more website to find out a relevant zip code BEFORE you come here (at least for me, finding out a destination zip code is not first on my agenda when planning a trip for fun or work).

And I guess it's just me, but I am always trying to use the city/ state search. 75% of the time, it pulls up a map of the state with blue dots everywhere. Well, if I have never been to winter park, CO, and I don;t know the area, I have no idea where to begin to zoom in on that map. Its just a bunch of blue pins. Sure, I can click on each one, but there are hundreds. And with no accompanying list, I don't know if there are any in the city or not.

Now, when i do a zip code search (and 25% of the time when i do a city/ state search) a text list comes up telling me the name of the closest courses to that zip code. Much easier to navigate.

Anyway, it'd be nice to get to the text results easier.

Thanks for the help!

I a couple more questions: any eta (month? year?) when the next generation website will be launched?
Most certainly in 2013, if not sooner. Sorry I can't be more specific. We're intent on launching the next version of the website with critical new functionality and I don't want to release anything before it's ready.

I guess it's just me, but I am always trying to use the city/ state search. 75% of the time, it pulls up a map of the state with blue dots everywhere. Well, if I have never been to winter park, CO, and I don;t know the area, I have no idea where to begin to zoom in on that map. Its just a bunch of blue pins. Sure, I can click on each one, but there are hundreds. And with no accompanying list, I don't know if there are any in the city or not.

Now, when i do a zip code search (and 25% of the time when i do a city/ state search) a text list comes up telling me the name of the closest courses to that zip code. Much easier to navigate.
If you type "Winter Park" into the City field and select "Colorado" from the State dropdown menu and then click the Search button, you will get exactly what you're asking for.

Most certainly in 2013, if not sooner. Sorry I can't be more specific. We're intent on launching the next version of the website with critical new functionality and I don't want to release anything before it's ready.


If you type "Winter Park" into the City field and select "Colorado" from the State dropdown menu and then click the Search button, you will get exactly what you're asking for.

Thanks Steve. I'm an idiot in a lot of respects, but 75% of the time when I do that search, all I get is the visual map - not the text list. I blame me, my computer, etc. It's not the website's fault.

Thanks Steve. I'm an idiot in a lot of respects, but 75% of the time when I do that search, all I get is the visual map - not the text list. I blame me, my computer, etc. It's not the website's fault. Feel free to message me with your operating system, browser information, etc. if you'd like to troubleshoot further.

Thanks Steve. I'm an idiot in a lot of respects, but 75% of the time when I do that search, all I get is the visual map - not the text list. I blame me, my computer, etc. It's not the website's fault.That happens to me a lot. It might be that when I see the map slide over to the location after entering the city and state, then I forget to hit the search button. Are you old?

[Sorry, Peter, for another post on your thread not asking you anything! :D ]

...