[ Post Response ] [ Return to Index ] [ Read Prev Msg ] [ Read Next Msg ]

BGonline.org Forums

A Player Association vs. the association of players

Posted By: Pendragon
Date: Sunday, 29 November 2009, at 10:24 a.m.

Phil Simborg says ( http://www.simborgbackgammonlessons.com/home/controversial-topics ):

Player Association: As it stands now, the tournaments in the U.S. are controlled by a few individuals who are running the tournaments. They are terrific people who have give a lot to the game, and we are thankful for their contribution to the game. But we also need a player's association, just like every game and sport, to decide, for ourselves, what the rules should be, how players should be rewarded, and what standards should be required at tournaments we chose to attend. This will help the tournament directors establish rules and guidelines they know will be approved and acceptable to the players. We also need an association if we are ever to have a chance at olympic status. ...

it seems to me A Player Association would take away what Phil seeks, "...to decide, for ourselves..." the association of players, the Phil Simborg's, the me's and you's presently decide for ourselves what tournament practices we will support and what we will not support, foster and promote. additionally, what's to prevent Phil and i from offering something better? or anyone who believes they have a better way? (what prevented Jordan [user Jordan Lampe] from providing better? [ http://www.dailygammon.com ]) the players association as it exists communicates to current and future event organizers in two ways; first by participation or not, second by simply talking with them, communicating verbally or by writing. the event whose organizer(s) does/do not listen will in short order find a natural death - decided by the association of Backgammon players as it is. we do not need a President nor a handful of Officers, by any name, to decide for us. the power we, the association of players, the many, have now need not be placed in the hands of the few.

in short, if you don't like it, don't buy it - produce what you do like (again, i cite Jordan's DG as an example. [...])

olympic status? who needs that politics?!? Backgammon was alive and well long before that political entity. did The International Olympic Committee make any contribution to Backgammon's glory days (in modern America)? there is no reason to believe an IOC Backgammon downside would not be greater than any upside.

i am in no way being disparaging of Phil. i respect and admire Phil, he makes astute observations and logical critiques of what is. i just disagree with some of his conclusions for solutions. in this case i believe A Player Association would become a part of the problem. identifying a problem as too much power in the hands of a few and suggesting that power be placed in the hands of another set of few, will in the end, solve nothing. it will more than likely only make the problem more complex and harder to solve.

(as Posted by Pendragon at Sun Nov 29 04:36:29 2009 @ dailygammon.com Discussion forum)

another pointed out how the association of players just recently affected the use of clocks at major US events without A Players Association. how did this happen? players wielded the power they already have by threating to not support with entry and participation. and the event organizers had a vested interest to be responsive.

now imagine IF there was a formally organized Players Association that was the power to be dealt with for whatever change. what vested interest would a President, Officers, Board, or Directors have to be responsive? if you can identify a vested interest, would it be stronger or weaker than the vested interest of event organizers?


Post Response

Your Name:
Your E-Mail Address:

If necessary, enter your password below:




[ Post Response ] [ Return to Index ] [ Read Prev Msg ] [ Read Next Msg ]

BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.