A Chess forum. ChessBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » ChessBanter forum » Chess Newsgroups » rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics)
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

More Mensa



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old July 21st 03, 03:47 AM
Altes Weisel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default More Mensa

MENSA annual dues: $49.

Additional family member: $33

3 year membership: $130

5 year membership $215

Add $14 for first class delivery of MENSA bulletin (it does not say to do so
PER YEAR)

Donation to Mensa Education and Research Foundation

Subscription ot Mensa Research Journal $21.

Life Dues: ARE AGE BASED

0-9 Pay $1,396.

80-84 pay $301

Many gradations in between


  #2  
Old July 21st 03, 05:12 AM
RSHaas
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default More Mensa

Of course, from the perspective of the chess player, the important thing
to be drawn from Mensa is that it willingly shares a portion of its national
dues with its mostly metro scaled subunits.
Chess HQ on the other hand is more than happy to collect what it can from
its basic markets and keep it all... effectively starving its basic markets of
what could be reasonably adequate sums of chess oriented working capital.
Evidently most of you here on rgcp think that is a good thing. I don't. I still
believe the most ideal form for a national chess federation is one based
roughly on the Mensa model as it would be adapted for chess. (RSHaas)
  #3  
Old July 21st 03, 10:22 AM
Jane Adams
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default More Mensa

Count me on board for revenue sharing. Don't give the bloggers too much
money. They beat you to death with it.

Jane
http://www.lvcm.com/jadams

"RSHaas" wrote in message
...
Of course, from the perspective of the chess player, the important

thing
to be drawn from Mensa is that it willingly shares a portion of its

national
dues with its mostly metro scaled subunits.
Chess HQ on the other hand is more than happy to collect what it can

from
its basic markets and keep it all... effectively starving its basic

markets of
what could be reasonably adequate sums of chess oriented working capital.
Evidently most of you here on rgcp think that is a good thing. I don't. I

still
believe the most ideal form for a national chess federation is one based
roughly on the Mensa model as it would be adapted for chess. (RSHaas)



  #5  
Old July 21st 03, 07:51 PM
RSHaas
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default More Mensa

"What about SASP funds that the state affiliates get? Given that most state
affiliates are built around 1, maybe 2 metro areas, isn't this, in theory, the
same thing?" (Don Shennum)
==============
The states don't get SASP anymore. SASP was too small to be of much effect
and SASP money could not be used for normal operations.
My idea is that $10 per adult and $5 per junior should go directly to the
basic markets for organized chess..the metro areas and the money could be used
by the Metro District org (umbrella) in a wide variety of ways... including but
not limited to the direct promotion of tournaments. The whole scheme is NOT
designed for or intended for the aggrandizement of state chess associations.
It is designed to make the Metro District org the "promoter organizer of first
and/or last resort as the need may be in the territory in which it operates."
If the Florida Chess Association, for example, received $15,000 to $20,000
with no strings attached, the last thing the FCA board would think about is..
the condition of chess in its many different areas and the needs in those
different areas. The FCA would first think of jazzing up their newsletter.
Then they'd think about jazzing up the state open and maybe a kiddie event.
They'd blow all the money on the newsletter and one or two "major" events and
call it a year. The FCA in effect would choke its many areas by using the
money that came from all those areas on its own agenda... and probably in the
president's hometown.. or just in Miami or whatever. The FCA has no sub-state
organizational structure, so it could not execute 2 to 4 times a year in each
of its main areas and 1 to 2 times a year in many more lesser areas. I don't
want a scheme whereby Tampa Bay, for example, would be put in the position of
having to beg for its share of money from a state chess association that
already had big ideas about how to spend Tampa Bay's money in Miami or Orlando.
I'm led to believe that Jacksonville is down and out organizationally. The FCA
will not help Jacksonville even though some of the would-be $15,000 would have
originated from Jacksonville. It will spend Jacksonville's money elsewhere and
let the town remain chess dead.
Thus the Mensa model as I conceive it is not for state chess associations.
But there could be some exceptions and/or special conditions. My scheme is
pretty flexible. (RSHaas)
  #6  
Old July 21st 03, 09:18 PM
Kevin L. Bachler
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default More Mensa

In article ,
says...

My idea is that $10 per adult and $5 per junior should go directly to the
basic markets for organized chess


What are the consequences of this?

Kevin L. Bachler

  #7  
Old July 21st 03, 10:02 PM
Don Shennum
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default More Mensa


In your opinion, what is the role of the natl. federation?

In Mensa's case, it is primarily a facilitating organization in which
members can interact with other members in SIG's(Special Interest
Groups). Yes, they do sponsor events, but they are primarily a central
place where members can network with each other.

In the USCF's case, I see them as more of an event-driven entity.
Maintain a central ratings system, sponsor major events, and empower
individuals to organize more regionalized events. Similar, but still
different enough where the Mensa model can not be equaly applied as it
impacts how they carry out their mission statement.

I'm indifferent right now to the approach....just trying to bounce
ideas around right now.

Regards,
Don

On 21 Jul 2003 17:51:39 GMT, (RSHaas) wrote:

"What about SASP funds that the state affiliates get? Given that most state
affiliates are built around 1, maybe 2 metro areas, isn't this, in theory, the
same thing?" (Don Shennum)
==============
The states don't get SASP anymore. SASP was too small to be of much effect
and SASP money could not be used for normal operations.
My idea is that $10 per adult and $5 per junior should go directly to the
basic markets for organized chess..the metro areas and the money could be used
by the Metro District org (umbrella) in a wide variety of ways... including but
not limited to the direct promotion of tournaments. The whole scheme is NOT
designed for or intended for the aggrandizement of state chess associations.
It is designed to make the Metro District org the "promoter organizer of first
and/or last resort as the need may be in the territory in which it operates."
If the Florida Chess Association, for example, received $15,000 to $20,000
with no strings attached, the last thing the FCA board would think about is..
the condition of chess in its many different areas and the needs in those
different areas. The FCA would first think of jazzing up their newsletter.
Then they'd think about jazzing up the state open and maybe a kiddie event.
They'd blow all the money on the newsletter and one or two "major" events and
call it a year. The FCA in effect would choke its many areas by using the
money that came from all those areas on its own agenda... and probably in the
president's hometown.. or just in Miami or whatever. The FCA has no sub-state
organizational structure, so it could not execute 2 to 4 times a year in each
of its main areas and 1 to 2 times a year in many more lesser areas. I don't
want a scheme whereby Tampa Bay, for example, would be put in the position of
having to beg for its share of money from a state chess association that
already had big ideas about how to spend Tampa Bay's money in Miami or Orlando.
I'm led to believe that Jacksonville is down and out organizationally. The FCA
will not help Jacksonville even though some of the would-be $15,000 would have
originated from Jacksonville. It will spend Jacksonville's money elsewhere and
let the town remain chess dead.
Thus the Mensa model as I conceive it is not for state chess associations.
But there could be some exceptions and/or special conditions. My scheme is
pretty flexible. (RSHaas)


  #8  
Old July 21st 03, 11:45 PM
RSHaas
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default More Mensa

There are only two main things I borrow from Mensa: (1) automatic sharing of
the national dues; (2) capitalization of more or less metro sized untis. That
seems perfect for chess.
Other than that I don't care what else Mensa does or does not do. (RSHaas)

  #9  
Old July 22nd 03, 04:37 AM
RSHaas
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default More Mensa

"But how does that model support your idealized mission statement?" (Don)
==============
What idealized mission statement? I think the Metro District scheme can be
applied to the USCF's mission. To me the Metro District scheme generally is
the best way to "promote" chess... capitalize the basic markets, ie., the
metropolitan scale. Capitalizing the state association scale would be much
less effective even if the same amount of money was involved.
Another way to answer your question is simply to ask you or anyone else to
imagine the real Mensa tomorrow morning transformed into a chess federation
exclusively. With little if any changes, Mensa could perform all the necessary
national office functions PLUS operate chess programs in each of its metro
scaled units.
I'd like to have a chess federation that could "reach down" from HQ and with
"hands on" actually do something about chess in this country, at least at the
basic market level. I am least interested in what we have now... a national
office that is aloof from its grassroots other than harvesting therefrom
whatever it can.
I'm led to understand that adult chess is dead in Louisville, Austin, maybe
Jacksonville, and probably elsewhere. The USCF will sit idly by (state
associations, too) and let them remain fallow. My kind of federation would go
in and get dead areas up and running and keep active areas active. My kind of
federation would become very much a "manager of the chess landscape" in
partnership with the Metro District orgs. That's what I'd do if I had a free
hand to do it. (RSHaas)
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Will Bill announce election results this year before USCF? Bruce Draney rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 15 July 17th 03 07:55 AM
Another Longtime Chess Club Bites the Dust Fifiela rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 8 July 11th 03 09:45 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:17 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 2.4.0
Copyright 2004-2017 ChessBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.