On Aug 20, 11:40 pm, "David Kane" wrote:
"Old Haasie" wrote in message

ups.com...



1. Collecting dues deters membership. Extra dues to support
metro subsidies deters more members.
=======
In my scheme about $10 per adult member would be taken from the
national dues .. pretty much like Mensa itself does it. I would not
be in favor of a $59 dues to fund the Districts.
=======

The marginal dues required to fund the Districts will lead to marginal
reductions in membership.





2. The USCF and its members have neither experience nor,
generally, even an interest in growing chess. Even if the
USCF received a huge influx of free money, giving it
to the USCF members who have created the status quo
is bound to fail.
========
One of my favorite parts of my Mensa Model scheme is: The District
umbrella wouild be offered a proportional share of the membership dues
that originate in the District's area or territory. They'd have to
have some kind of plan as to what would be done with the money. If
they had no plan, or if the locals would not voluntarily staff or even
form up their local umbrella, then they would get no money that year.
I would expect that to happen especially in the early years of a Mensa
scheme. Let's say Pittsburgh simply is too lazy to form up into a
District umbrella. Pittsburg's money would go to District umbrellas
that were up and running. They'd get Pittsburgh's money as a bonus/
reward for being properly organized, operational, and on the ball. Of
course, Pittsburgh would be informed that Minneapolis, Dallas, and
Denver were given Pittsburgh's money. Eventually someone or some
group in Pittsburgh would get tired of seeing area money going far
away,... and they would form up a District umbrella and take
Pittsburgh's money for the benefit of chess in Pittsburgh. I love
that part of my scheme.
===========

And in that case the Pittsburgh people, who haven't been successful
at tapping the region's chess interest in the past will all of a sudden
be spending it on some product that has proven unappealing a dozen
times before. How is that a benefit?

In the meantime, the potential Pittsburgh member might just conclude
that he doesn't want to cough up the extra $10 (probably $20 when you
include overhead) and just stay away.





3. There is no evidence that lack of capital is a factor in the status
of American chess. For example, there are active scholastic
communities and these have sprung up without your metro
subsidies. The capital requirements for OTB chess
are low compared to dozens of activities found in
abundance.

So while your effort to look at alternate structures is
to be applauded, you miss the big picture. It's not capital
that is lacking, but rather good ideas on how to
spend capital in a way that will promote the game
that are lacking.- Hide quoted text -
=============================
If money is not a factor, why does the USCF beg for it all the time.
Kiddie stuff arose because organizers can make money running kiddie
stuff (no $$ prizes, but fairly hefty EF's).

Exactly. They do this *without* "metro subsidies". Why? Because
they've stumbled upon a product that is appealing to that market.
By the way, most of our kiddie tournaments have entry fees of $15
and are driven by a sense of mission, not monetary gain.

Who's kidding whom? The
capital requirements for adult OTB chess are formidible if the so-
called chess capitalist (organizer/promoter) has modest working
capital, which is the case for most of them.

Compared to what? Compared to golf? Baseball? Dungeons and
Dragons? A restaurant that serves Italian food?

Chess needs a small amount of reasonably comfortable space.
Frankly, it's hard to think of many things that require less than
chess does.

Not many rich people

waste time running adult open events. As I said elsewhere the risk of
running adult OTB events is almost always concentrated on the
shoulders of one promoter, and the risk is almost always much greater
that the profit potential. Many promoters run these things out of
some sense of duty to chess, like Kevin Bachler who admitted on here a
few years ago that if he could be assured of merely breaking even, he
run an event monthly. Even WG of CCA posted here some time back that
he, the top promoter in the country, makes only about $80,000 a year
running adult OTB stuff all over the place. What that shows me, at
least, is that most adult OTB is run not by real chess capitalists but
rather by defacto chess mission bearers ... defacto non-profits for
the most part.

I don't dispute your characterization. However, the underlying
reality is that the products that these mission bearers offer are not
widely appealing. The Mensa scheme makes it a little easier
for the politically well-connected USCFers to offer their unpopular
products. The cost is leaving thousands (millions?) of American
chessplayers who opt out of these activities unserved.
Not a good trade in my book.

One advantage of the Mensa scheme is that it spreads

the risk lightly among all paying members .. about $10 per person per
year. There are other advantages that I will touch upon elsewhere.

It just doesn't make sense to subsidize bad ideas. The amount is irrelevant.





Old Haasie- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

He's been beating this dead horse for over 7 years.

"Bruce" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Aug 20, 11:40 pm, "David Kane" wrote:
"Old Haasie" wrote in message

ups.com...



1. Collecting dues deters membership. Extra dues to support
metro subsidies deters more members.
=======
In my scheme about $10 per adult member would be taken from the
national dues .. pretty much like Mensa itself does it. I would not
be in favor of a $59 dues to fund the Districts.
=======

The marginal dues required to fund the Districts will lead to marginal
reductions in membership.





2. The USCF and its members have neither experience nor,
generally, even an interest in growing chess. Even if the
USCF received a huge influx of free money, giving it
to the USCF members who have created the status quo
is bound to fail.
========
One of my favorite parts of my Mensa Model scheme is: The District
umbrella wouild be offered a proportional share of the membership dues
that originate in the District's area or territory. They'd have to
have some kind of plan as to what would be done with the money. If
they had no plan, or if the locals would not voluntarily staff or even
form up their local umbrella, then they would get no money that year.
I would expect that to happen especially in the early years of a Mensa
scheme. Let's say Pittsburgh simply is too lazy to form up into a
District umbrella. Pittsburg's money would go to District umbrellas
that were up and running. They'd get Pittsburgh's money as a bonus/
reward for being properly organized, operational, and on the ball. Of
course, Pittsburgh would be informed that Minneapolis, Dallas, and
Denver were given Pittsburgh's money. Eventually someone or some
group in Pittsburgh would get tired of seeing area money going far
away,... and they would form up a District umbrella and take
Pittsburgh's money for the benefit of chess in Pittsburgh. I love
that part of my scheme.
===========

And in that case the Pittsburgh people, who haven't been successful
at tapping the region's chess interest in the past will all of a sudden
be spending it on some product that has proven unappealing a dozen
times before. How is that a benefit?

In the meantime, the potential Pittsburgh member might just conclude
that he doesn't want to cough up the extra $10 (probably $20 when you
include overhead) and just stay away.





3. There is no evidence that lack of capital is a factor in the status
of American chess. For example, there are active scholastic
communities and these have sprung up without your metro
subsidies. The capital requirements for OTB chess
are low compared to dozens of activities found in
abundance.

So while your effort to look at alternate structures is
to be applauded, you miss the big picture. It's not capital
that is lacking, but rather good ideas on how to
spend capital in a way that will promote the game
that are lacking.- Hide quoted text -
=============================
If money is not a factor, why does the USCF beg for it all the time.
Kiddie stuff arose because organizers can make money running kiddie
stuff (no $$ prizes, but fairly hefty EF's).

Exactly. They do this *without* "metro subsidies". Why? Because
they've stumbled upon a product that is appealing to that market.
By the way, most of our kiddie tournaments have entry fees of $15
and are driven by a sense of mission, not monetary gain.

Who's kidding whom? The
capital requirements for adult OTB chess are formidible if the so-
called chess capitalist (organizer/promoter) has modest working
capital, which is the case for most of them.

Compared to what? Compared to golf? Baseball? Dungeons and
Dragons? A restaurant that serves Italian food?

Chess needs a small amount of reasonably comfortable space.
Frankly, it's hard to think of many things that require less than
chess does.

Not many rich people

waste time running adult open events. As I said elsewhere the risk of
running adult OTB events is almost always concentrated on the
shoulders of one promoter, and the risk is almost always much greater
that the profit potential. Many promoters run these things out of
some sense of duty to chess, like Kevin Bachler who admitted on here a
few years ago that if he could be assured of merely breaking even, he
run an event monthly. Even WG of CCA posted here some time back that
he, the top promoter in the country, makes only about $80,000 a year
running adult OTB stuff all over the place. What that shows me, at
least, is that most adult OTB is run not by real chess capitalists but
rather by defacto chess mission bearers ... defacto non-profits for
the most part.

I don't dispute your characterization. However, the underlying
reality is that the products that these mission bearers offer are not
widely appealing. The Mensa scheme makes it a little easier
for the politically well-connected USCFers to offer their unpopular
products. The cost is leaving thousands (millions?) of American
chessplayers who opt out of these activities unserved.
Not a good trade in my book.

One advantage of the Mensa scheme is that it spreads

the risk lightly among all paying members .. about $10 per person per
year. There are other advantages that I will touch upon elsewhere.

It just doesn't make sense to subsidize bad ideas. The amount is irrelevant.





Old Haasie- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

He's been beating this dead horse for over 7 years.


Though I've seen him mocked repeatedly, I've
seen very little substantive discussion of the merits.
Most of the objections I've seen are of the
"anything different is bad" variety, which is a
far more destructive idea than anything he'd
be capable of coming up with.

Old Haasie wrote:
1. Collecting dues deters membership. Extra dues to support
metro subsidies deters more members.
=======
In my scheme about $10 per adult member would be taken from the
national dues .. pretty much like Mensa itself does it. I would not
be in favor of a $59 dues to fund the Districts.
=======


Please explain where you will find the budget cuts necessary to free up
this $10/member.

And then, please explain why it would not be better to make the budget
cuts and cut dues to $39.

ALL of the money comes FROM the members. There Ain't No Such Thing As A
Free Lunch.

--
Kenneth Sloan
Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://www.cis.uab.edu/sloan/

Kenneth Sloan writes:
Please explain where you will find the budget cuts necessary to free
up this $10/member.

Kill the rag.

And then, please explain why it would not be better to make the budget
cuts and cut dues to $39.

Cut the dues to zero.

ALL of the money comes FROM the members. There Ain't No Such Thing As
A Free Lunch.

The stuff the members are getting for their money is not worth it.
So stop sending it, and stop charging them.

Paul Rubin wrote:
Kenneth Sloan writes:
Please explain where you will find the budget cuts necessary to free
up this $10/member.

Kill the rag.

And then, please explain why it would not be better to make the budget
cuts and cut dues to $39.

Cut the dues to zero.

ALL of the money comes FROM the members. There Ain't No Such Thing As
A Free Lunch.

The stuff the members are getting for their money is not worth it.
So stop sending it, and stop charging them.


Individual members can, of course, implement this well thought out plan
any time they choose.

--
Kenneth Sloan
Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://www.cis.uab.edu/sloan/

Kenneth Sloan writes:
Individual members can, of course, implement this well thought out
plan any time they choose.

That would in fact explain the USCF's perennial losses.

"David Kane" wrote in message
...


He's been beating this dead horse for over 7 years.


Though I've seen him mocked repeatedly, I've
seen very little substantive discussion of the merits.
Most of the objections I've seen are of the
"anything different is bad" variety, which is a
far more destructive idea than anything he'd
be capable of coming up with.


That's right. Chess players are show-me types, not tell-me types, and in
order to show something other people got to look! There is hardly any
practice at sensibly evaluating differing plans - and even if the Mensa
model proves not appropriate, we will only know that by hashing it out.


Besides, and another fault I find with Bruce, inventor of the Bruceski,
grin has even forgotten how to top-post!

Cordially, I was there at the time! Innes

"Kenneth Sloan" wrote in message
...

The stuff the members are getting for their money is not worth it.
So stop sending it, and stop charging them.


Individual members can, of course, implement this well thought out plan
any time they choose.

10,000 did so in 03/04.

No one at ChessHut cared. Paul Rubin cares, which I suppose makes him a
chess player, and if he says USCF have nothing marketable for him, then I
suppose that sort of defines where ChessHut's head is at. no jokes please!

While its nice to have a mission in life, to ignore chess players as such,
Dr. Sloan should beware what happened to his namesake, who also ignored
actual chessplayers.

Phil Innes

--
Kenneth Sloan
Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://www.cis.uab.edu/sloan/

On Aug 21, 7:22 am, "Chess One" wrote:
"Kenneth Sloan" wrote in message

...

The stuff the members are getting for their money is not worth it.
So stop sending it, and stop charging them.

Individual members can, of course, implement this well thought out plan
any time they choose.

10,000 did so in 03/04.

No one at ChessHut cared. Paul Rubin cares, which I suppose makes him a
chess player, and if he says USCF have nothing marketable for him, then I
suppose that sort of defines where ChessHut's head is at. no jokes please!

While its nice to have a mission in life, to ignore chess players as such,
Dr. Sloan should beware what happened to his namesake, who also ignored
actual chessplayers.

Phil Innes



--
Kenneth Sloan
Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://www.cis.uab.edu/sloan/- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

This idea of his has been hashed and rehashed numerous times for 6
years. Someone just pointed out the numerous reasons it won't work
but the main reason it won't work is that redistrubition of wealth
only works when there is wealth to redistribute.

The USCF can't even operate profitably on the members it has now and
the dues it charges them. He basically wants USCF to charge lower
dues than they do now and then give about 1/3 of them back to the
organizers as rebates.

It doesn't take a financial genius to figure out that this would
quickly bankrupt the USCF. It also never addresses the accountability
factor. For example he assumes these organizers will use their
rebates to promote chess in their metro district rather than merely
pocket the rebate and spend it on themselves.

A far better idea would be for USCF to slash dues to encourage
membership, not that they can afford that either.

On Aug 21, 8:22 am, Bruce wrote:
On Aug 21, 7:22 am, "Chess One" wrote:





"Kenneth Sloan" wrote in message

...

The stuff the members are getting for their money is not worth it.
So stop sending it, and stop charging them.

Individual members can, of course, implement this well thought out plan
any time they choose.

10,000 did so in 03/04.

No one at ChessHut cared. Paul Rubin cares, which I suppose makes him a
chess player, and if he says USCF have nothing marketable for him, then I
suppose that sort of defines where ChessHut's head is at. no jokes please!

While its nice to have a mission in life, to ignore chess players as such,
Dr. Sloan should beware what happened to his namesake, who also ignored
actual chessplayers.

Phil Innes

--
Kenneth Sloan
Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://www.cis.uab.edu/sloan/-Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

This idea of his has been hashed and rehashed numerous times for 6
years. Someone just pointed out the numerous reasons it won't work
but the main reason it won't work is that redistrubition of wealth
only works when there is wealth to redistribute.

The USCF can't even operate profitably on the members it has now and
the dues it charges them. He basically wants USCF to charge lower
dues than they do now and then give about 1/3 of them back to the
organizers as rebates.

It doesn't take a financial genius to figure out that this would
quickly bankrupt the USCF. It also never addresses the accountability
factor. For example he assumes these organizers will use their
rebates to promote chess in their metro district rather than merely
pocket the rebate and spend it on themselves.

A far better idea would be for USCF to slash dues to encourage
membership, not that they can afford that either.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Rubin has been arguing for $5.00 dues for years, so naturally any
policy to lower member dues would appeal to him.

To be honest I'd rather go with the $5.00/year dues plan than the
Mensa plan. Why does Haas need to send money to USCF and have them
send some of it back? Why not just add the fee that Haas wants to the
entry fee and keep it?