| |
BGonline.org Forums
Favorable Review of Rob Maier's Pittsburgh Tournament
Posted By: Robert Maier In Response To: Favorable Review of Rob Maier's Pittsburgh Tournament (Stick)
Date: Tuesday, 22 February 2011, at 8:04 p.m.
Well, we now have a national federation for backgammon. I know, because I finally paid my dues this last weekend.
Stick said, among other things, "Also, if somebody doesn't change it the rule will always be an outcast. I'd rather be the first to adopt something I think to be an improvement than the last.
I think it's a terrible rule that's easily fixed to a better degree and I don't understand why we don't do it."
So how about the USBGF does something about it? Or at least takes a formal position on the matter, if it remains unwilling to work on a new USBGF recommended rule set? If the USBGF says, in a statement to the membership, "We believe that LMR is in the best interest of the game, and would encourage directors to adopt LMR at their tournaments," then I'd be all over it. The USBGF would of course be communicating this to their membership, which hopefully most of the people at the tournament would be members, and then everyone will or should know, and in addition, the change would have the overt backing of the group that has been formed to grow the game here in the US.
I don't really see why I should take this responsibility on myself, or be criticized for not doing so, when we have an organization that we should be able to look to to take the lead in this/these matters. I was part of the USBGF subcommittee, or subsubcommittee, on rules, and right about the time we were getting into making suggestions, our work was rather abruptly terminated. Being the small cog that I was, I shrugged and moved on. I would be quite happy to see that work restarted. I feel that this particular ball is clearly in the USBGFs court.
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.