On Aug 21, 2:05?am, Kenneth Sloan wrote:
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/
=============================
Ken, my second favorite scheme for chess is to cut the dues way down
and forget about the Mensa Model. The Mensa Model is not absolutely
necessary. I simply think it is a better way to organize a national
chess federation if we have to pay $49. Mensa charges $49 and can
still finance its local chapters. If Mensa can do it, so could the
USCF if it really wanted to do it.

By the way, Birmingham isn't exactly a hotbed of adult OTB chess
events. What actually does go on there? Maybe Birmingham would
benefit from having a funded metro District umbrella in place.

Old Haasie

"Bruce" wrote in message
oups.com...

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.

Okay Bruce - on the whole while I agree, I don't completely - and two days
on newsnet of discussion doesn't really dismiss or exhaust this topic.

The best rebuttal has been by David Kane, the same person who actually
raised a more interesting point, in my own mind and now in myu words [not
hisgrin] that the little-tents catered to are pretty pathic! I don't know
if spending dollar-one on chess would make any difference to those who would
show up anyway? - the problem has been to attract others to the game, in
some way that will increase chess playing, and just as important, to keep em
in.

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

And there is another issue! Does it? Is there a connection between chess
playing and membership in USCF?

Half the adults don't play /any/ rated games. The turn-rate of the 40,000
juniors is an official secret! But about 2 years by my estimate sees 80% of
them come and gone.

Since these juniors take no part in the political process at USCF, do not
organise, but just play for ratings - what are they, the majority members of
USCF, actually members of? I mean; what are they conscious of, except a need
to pay something to get that rating?

If a Mensa, or other model, could be used to do something different, and
stir up interet in the game where none existed before, well and good! Or if
it could retain more of those juniors - let's talk more! My criticism of it
here as proposed is that it is redundant to any useful effect.

Phil Innes

On Aug 21, 10:47 am, "Chess One" wrote:
"Bruce" wrote in message

oups.com...

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.

Okay Bruce - on the whole while I agree, I don't completely - and two days
on newsnet of discussion doesn't really dismiss or exhaust this topic.

The best rebuttal has been by David Kane, the same person who actually
raised a more interesting point, in my own mind and now in myu words [not
hisgrin] that the little-tents catered to are pretty pathic! I don't know
if spending dollar-one on chess would make any difference to those who would
show up anyway? - the problem has been to attract others to the game, in
some way that will increase chess playing, and just as important, to keep em
in.

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

And there is another issue! Does it? Is there a connection between chess
playing and membership in USCF?

Half the adults don't play /any/ rated games. The turn-rate of the 40,000
juniors is an official secret! But about 2 years by my estimate sees 80% of
them come and gone.

Since these juniors take no part in the political process at USCF, do not
organise, but just play for ratings - what are they, the majority members of
USCF, actually members of? I mean; what are they conscious of, except a need
to pay something to get that rating?

If a Mensa, or other model, could be used to do something different, and
stir up interet in the game where none existed before, well and good! Or if
it could retain more of those juniors - let's talk more! My criticism of it
here as proposed is that it is redundant to any useful effect.

Phil Innes

And why did so many young people join USCF Phil? Was it because dues
to join for them were $7.00/year at one point? Was it because it was
a phase and it was popular for a couple years in their lives?

In 2003 when I decided to say goodbye to USCF, I went to Kansas prior
to the U.S. Open and was told in no uncertain terms by a political
insider that a deal had already been struck to vote up adult dues.

Of course that is exactly what they did and I decided at that point
that the organization was never going to change and I was wasting my
time.

As for the Mensa debate you might google it if you think he's only
been discussing it for 2 days here. He was proposing his mensa
metro district plan way back in 2001.

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

$5.00 dues is a concession on my part. The USCF really should have
$0.00 dues.

On Aug 21, 9:13 am, Old Haasie wrote:
=================
In a chess dead or otherwise poor performing area, would it be good
for chess or bad for chess if an individual promoter with some money,
not necessarily a lot of money, showed up and began promoting chess
events?


Okay why are YOU asking this question? Aren't you saying it WOULD be
good or do you just not really know and are only suggesting we try
throwing some money at a problem to see if the problem gets better?
Suppose my answer is no, it wouldn't be good for chess it would be bad
because the promoter showed up spent the money and the area saw no
increased chess activity.


Most people would say it would be a good thing.

So far only one person I know of has said it would be a good thing and
that is you.


Now, if the
promoter was a District umbrella, rather than a traditional individual
promoter, and proposed to do the same thing for the given area, would
that be good or bad for chess in that area?



Rhetorical? In my opinion it would make no difference in overall
chess activity and would waste a bunch of money creating a new layer
of bureaucracy. All those extra funds would be blown on one big
tournament and there would be no appreciable increase in chess
activity. Therefore it would be bad, because it accomplished nothing,
cost a lot and didn't improve things.


Why would an individual
promoter be good and the associative form of a promoter be bad for
chess?

The same reason that more bureaucracy is worse than less bureacracy.
The more layers of bureaucracy you create the greater the waste and
the fraud.


If either type of promoter missed the market, it could change
its approach. But, what would most likely happen in the case of the
individual is that he would quit altogether, taking away from the
chess community at large what was left of his working capital, leaving
a dead chess area with no mechanism to revive organized chess or
sustain it.

If an organizer quits it's because the players don't support his
events and he loses money. You are basically asking the players to
subsidize the local organizers through a dues sharing arrangement with
USCF. You want to take $50.00+ from the players and let the organizer
keep $15.00 of it to promote local chess. The numerous fallacies of
your proposal have been pointed out for years by many others.

If dues are an obstacle to participation at $49.00/year they are going
to be an obstacle when they are higher. Your false presumption is
that players will open their wallet if they think $15.00 of that money
is staying in the metro district. Unfortunately most rational people
don't accept that premise, you being the one exception.


If the District failed in its early attempts, it could
try again and again (using the annual funding) with different local
schemes until they found something that worked. Thus,.. a District
umbrella (a promoter in the associative form) would probably have much
more staying power that the typically thinly funded lone wolf
organizer. This is a benefit of spreading the risk thinly throughout
the organization versus piling all the risk onto one man's shoulders.

If the district fails the players will probably not return nor will
they ever trust the district to wisely spend their money again. What
is really needed to revive chess in an area is gaining the trust and
the participation of the players in that area. In order to do that
one has to know why the players aren't playing in tournaments? Is it
because of costs? Is it because of working? Is it because the time
controls are too fast or two slow? Is it because they hate the
organizer? Is it because their opponent at the last tournament farted
and belched? Is it because USCF dues are too high or entry fees are
too high? Is it because they just got married or had a new child
born? Is it because they have other more interesting activities that
they like better than sitting in a tournament hall playing chess all
day?

The most annoying thing about your Mensa plan is it pretends to know
the answers to all of these questions and it really addresses none of
them except to make the assumption that if a metro district system was
in place that players would crawl out of the woodwork to pay more than
they currently do to play chess.


Old Haasie

"Bruce" wrote in message
ps.com...
On Aug 21, 9:13 am, Old Haasie wrote:
This is the leap: he presumes that the money will benefit chess in the
area
when all it might do is subsidize somethign which is unpopular, ...
(Ray Gordon)

=================
In a chess dead or otherwise poor performing area, would it be good
for chess or bad for chess if an individual promoter with some money,
not necessarily a lot of money, showed up and began promoting chess
events? Most people would say it would be a good thing. Now, if the
promoter was a District umbrella, rather than a traditional individual
promoter, and proposed to do the same thing for the given area, would
that be good or bad for chess in that area? Why would an individual
promoter be good and the associative form of a promoter be bad for
chess? If either type of promoter missed the market, it could change
its approach. But, what would most likely happen in the case of the
individual is that he would quit altogether, taking away from the
chess community at large what was left of his working capital, leaving
a dead chess area with no mechanism to revive organized chess or
sustain it. If the District failed in its early attempts, it could
try again and again (using the annual funding) with different local
schemes until they found something that worked. Thus,.. a District
umbrella (a promoter in the associative form) would probably have much
more staying power that the typically thinly funded lone wolf
organizer. This is a benefit of spreading the risk thinly throughout
the organization versus piling all the risk onto one man's shoulders.

Old Haasie

Why don't you start a chess playing Mensa chapter in your area and
test out your idea? Why do you come on here for 6 years and plug an
idea that no one here but you supports?

A bit too hard. I am not against it, which makes 2 of us. I think there are
larger areas to attend to which are more important, yet the questions of
whatever infrastructure exists will remain, no matter what size the playing
population. The current model is, after all, called 'whatever'.

Phil Innes

I don't personally believe that Mensa and USCF are comparable
organizations but maybe that's just me. If the players want activity
then they should flock happily to your new Mensa chess organization.

How has creating a new bureaucratic structure in between the local and
the national ever been shown to make anything better?

"Bruce" wrote in message
ups.com...

If a Mensa, or other model, could be used to do something different, and
stir up interet in the game where none existed before, well and good! Or
if
it could retain more of those juniors - let's talk more! My criticism of
it
here as proposed is that it is redundant to any useful effect.

Phil Innes

And why did so many young people join USCF Phil? Was it because dues
to join for them were $7.00/year at one point? Was it because it was
a phase and it was popular for a couple years in their lives?

Can we say that no one at all had any intention of 'joining' anything since
it was a simple cost of taking part in tournaments, and getting a rating?

In 2003 when I decided to say goodbye to USCF, I went to Kansas prior
to the U.S. Open and was told in no uncertain terms by a political
insider that a deal had already been struck to vote up adult dues.

Of course that is exactly what they did and I decided at that point
that the organization was never going to change and I was wasting my
time.

As for the Mensa debate you might google it if you think he's only
been discussing it for 2 days here. He was proposing his mensa
metro district plan way back in 2001.

I mean that it has only been responded to for a few days. I am not
advocating it in any self-serving way, since it does not serve rural
districts at all, which I think contain most of the chess population.

What it does is stimulate thought on what USCF actually does as a policy in
supporting chess clubs. If, even in reaction to Mensa-Metro scheme, we find
something of value, that is more than I see USCF currently does. You agree,
Bruce, with this [harsh!] and limited statement on the worth of discussion?

Phil

This is the leap: he presumes that the money will benefit chess in the
area
when all it might do is subsidize somethign which is unpopular, ...
(Ray Gordon)
=================
In a chess dead or otherwise poor performing area, would it be good
for chess or bad for chess if an individual promoter with some money,
not necessarily a lot of money, showed up and began promoting chess
events?

Bad, because the force compelling someone to claim that money is far greater
than the force compelling people to join organized chess because of the
money.

This is literally "throwing money at the problem."

No dues would fix the problem a lot faster. Let USCF figure out how to
monetize its mailing list and everyone would be able to join free.


Most people would say it would be a good thing.

Most people can't find their home state on a map.


Now, if the
promoter was a District umbrella, rather than a traditional individual
promoter, and proposed to do the same thing for the given area, would
that be good or bad for chess in that area?

Bad, because it would create patronage for speculative results. It would
also have to be multiplied by about 300 to cover every district.


Why would an individual
promoter be good and the associative form of a promoter be bad for
chess?

The individual promoter is restrained by the use of his own money, which is
a natural check on being stupid.


If either type of promoter missed the market, it could change
its approach. But, what would most likely happen in the case of the
individual is that he would quit altogether, taking away from the
chess community at large what was left of his working capital, leaving
a dead chess area with no mechanism to revive organized chess or
sustain it.

Meaning he would no longer subsidize chess in the area.

Without a market incentive, you're less likely to make chess work.

If the District failed in its early attempts, it could
try again and again (using the annual funding) with different local
schemes until they found something that worked. Thus,.. a District
umbrella (a promoter in the associative form) would probably have much
more staying power that the typically thinly funded lone wolf
organizer. This is a benefit of spreading the risk thinly throughout
the organization versus piling all the risk onto one man's shoulders.

How much funding for how many districts?

300 districts at $3,333.34 a year is $1 million a year right there.

The money would become pure pork and go to the very chess politicians who
caused the problems in the first place.


--
Ray Gordon, The ORIGINAL Lifestyle Seduction Guru
http://www.cybersheet.com/seduction.html
Seven day, no-obligation FREE TRIAL! (limit of ten)

Don't rely on overexposed, mass-marketed commercial seduction methods which
have been rendered worthless through mainstream media exposure. It really
is game over for community material.

http://moderncaveman.typepad.com
The Official Ray Gordon Blog

The most annoying thing about your Mensa plan is it pretends to know
the answers to all of these questions and it really addresses none of
them except to make the assumption that if a metro district system was
in place that players would crawl out of the woodwork to pay more than
they currently do to play chess.

I'd be quicker to endorse enhancing the prize money for the state
championships, and strengthing state-level organizations, maybe tying them
in more with USCF.

--
Ray Gordon, The ORIGINAL Lifestyle Seduction Guru
http://www.cybersheet.com/seduction.html
Seven day, no-obligation FREE TRIAL! (limit of ten)

Don't rely on overexposed, mass-marketed commercial seduction methods which
have been rendered worthless through mainstream media exposure. It really
is game over for community material.

http://moderncaveman.typepad.com
The Official Ray Gordon Blog

On Aug 21, 3:20 pm, "Ray Gordon, creator of the \"pivot\""
wrote:
The most annoying thing about your Mensa plan is it pretends to know
the answers to all of these questions and it really addresses none of
them except to make the assumption that if a metro district system was
in place that players would crawl out of the woodwork to pay more than
they currently do to play chess.

I'd be quicker to endorse enhancing the prize money for the state
championships, and strengthing state-level organizations, maybe tying them
in more with USCF.

--
Ray Gordon, The ORIGINAL Lifestyle Seduction Guruhttp://www.cybersheet.com/seduction.html
Seven day, no-obligation FREE TRIAL! (limit of ten)

Don't rely on overexposed, mass-marketed commercial seduction methods which
have been rendered worthless through mainstream media exposure. It really
is game over for community material.

http://moderncaveman.typepad.com
The Official Ray Gordon Blog

I think Haas has had some major issues with the state officials which
is why he has always been hostile to working with a state
organizational format to accomplish the same goals.