| |
BGonline.org Forums
New poll on chicagopoint.com regarding USBGF
Posted By: Daniel Murphy In Response To: New poll on chicagopoint.com regarding USBGF (Rich Munitz)
Date: Saturday, 15 May 2010, at 9:25 p.m.
Rich writes: "The USBGF believes that these results from Open tournaments are public data and anyone attending them all, if they were willing to expend the effort, could produce the same statistics and should not be prevented from doing so. Notice should not be necessary to factually report on publicly available information."
I agree with that. If I responded to the poll, I'd answer (a) or (b). I've long thought and publicly maintained that the natural persons to formally organize a dues-paying U.S. backgammon organization to publicize and promote backgammon, keep a ratings list, etc., would have been the persons who have to date done the most to promote backgammon in the U.S. -- namely, the persons who have been directing tournaments and publishing newsletters these past 20 years. And such an organization need not have followed an altruistic, not-for-profit model. That, by the way, is the NBgF model, but is not the DBgF model. The DBgF model was, from shortly after its formation and for several years after (until 1997-1998), that certain and the same persons took responsibility for two organizations, one a nonprofit national membership federation, and one a for-profit business selling books, directing tournaments, soliciting corporate sponsorships, etc. For many years, most DBgF members were quite happy with that arrangement. For backgammon to grow, someone had to do a lot of work. And it did work. I imagine that if a similar and similarly successful effort to form a U.S. organization had been undertaken by U.S. directors, few would have begrudged them a profit on the side (indeed, who does mind that some (yes, some) involved in U.S. backgammon have been involved because, in part, it has been profitable to them?).
But for various reasons, and I fully acknowledge the efforts of all who were involved in promoting U.S. backgammon, those persons never took the additional step of organizing a formal membership organization. Someone should, in my opinion. Someone should have a long time ago. That a USBGF has been formed and intends to do this and that which needs doing, is fine with me, whether or not that organization turns out to be the one with that has "thousands of future members."
However, I wonder at the rationale for USBGF to make a player's match results available either only to that player or only to all member players -- thus, well, "private," eh? Proprietary? It appears that USBGF, naturally enough, will decide to whom to make what information available, and at present does not plan to make it available to the general public. Why not? Anyone, member or not, can go to dbgf.dk or nbgf.no and review extremely detailed records of match results of member players of DBgF and NBgF.
Having said and with regard to that, I've gone back and reread the discussion in one of the links Rich provided, which was to a discussion last June. Let me say that I don't agree with the views expressed by Bill and Pat and some others there that -- to summarize ever so briefly -- publishing too much information discourages participation; I agree with the views expressed by Marty and some other that players generally, including the less successful ones, like to know how they stand. No doubt some unsuccesful players give up the game. You pay your entry fees, you don't win them back, you may decide that some other passion may be more worth your while. But I seriously doubt that the wealth of information that DBgF and NBgF collects and publicizes on its members has hurt the development and growth of backgammon in Denmark and Norway. Quite, it seems to me, the contrary.
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.