SN By-Laws

Re: SN By-Laws

dustin morris — Tue, 09 Aug 2011 16:53:37 -0500

I just seen the date on yalls post...nvm

Re: SN By-Laws

dustin morris — Tue, 09 Aug 2011 13:11:29 -0500

Are you saying you must lose 4 tournaments and 6 months? I think the 4 tourny rule alone is fine.

Tax Man Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> hobbit489 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > True, I understand your point about un-doing
> what
> > previous board members have put into place. In
> my
> > opinion, the 4-tourney rule allows someone to
> > "give it a try" and actually put up some money
> in
> > doing so. Conversely, the 6-month rule can be
> > circumvented by just not playing a tournament
> for
> > that length of time.
>
>
> or it makes a player TRY a new divison for at
> least 6 months. I guess maybe the change should
> have been if you play at LEAST 4 events in 6
> months and do not cash.

Re: SN By-Laws

jtolbert — Wed, 15 Jun 2011 15:10:12 -0500

Well, we definitely need two different sections in the by-laws for ratification and amendment.

Ratifcation would be for the BoD establishing a principle or ruling where one didn't exist. This could just take a majority vote from the 6 BoD members. 4 out of 6 would work. Any other ideas?

Amendment would be the BoD changing a principle of ruling that already exists. For this, I would suggest us making the vote more than just a majority. Maybe 5 out of 6? I dunno. I'm asking for advice here.

Re: SN By-Laws

Gilligan — Tue, 14 Jun 2011 22:21:47 -0500

It wasn't left out... it was set up that way purposefully... John K has already stated this.

Re: SN By-Laws

Tax Man — Tue, 14 Jun 2011 16:11:13 -0500

Gilligan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bob... don't you want to make the SNDC only open
> to people that played a doubles event? and/or
> open to everyone?
yes, and yes if Kevins is correct
>
> Isn't that changing what a previous board set up?
> It appears that something was left out in THIS case. And not the other :)

> It just seems like when it's your idea then it's a
> good change but when it's someone else's idea
> (mine for example <-- that was a joke) it's
> terrible and ruining the series.

never said it ruined anything!

Re: SN By-Laws

Gilligan — Sat, 11 Jun 2011 11:33:23 -0500

Bob... don't you want to make the SNDC only open to people that played a doubles event? and/or open to everyone?

Isn't that changing what a previous board set up?

It just seems like when it's your idea then it's a good change but when it's someone else's idea (mine for example <-- that was a joke) it's terrible and ruining the series.

Re: SN By-Laws

Rouster — Fri, 10 Jun 2011 07:04:58 -0500

I'm with Adam on this one, I think 4 tourney's is better. It actually forces someone to actually play, therefore making them at least give it a try. The old rule didn't make that happen.
Most of the rules that are in place are subjective. For everyone that loves one rule, someone will hate it. I still don't understand why the age requirement revolves around a calender year when the season isn't based on a calender year. But, it is what it is and you deal with it.

As for undoing something that was done, that's just the nature of the beast. Anytime your going to rotate board members, your going to get new ideas being pushed. Can't really say if that's good or bad. The real key is for THE PLAYERS to make sure and voice their opinion and let it be known what THEY want. Because this should be 100% about the PLAYERS.

The sad part is that far too often people's ideas get ridiculed around here. Especially based on the like or dislike of individual people. Being a small series, if we all worked together we'd get a whole lot more accomplished.

Re: SN By-Laws

Tax Man — Fri, 10 Jun 2011 06:21:45 -0500

hobbit489 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> True, I understand your point about un-doing what
> previous board members have put into place. In my
> opinion, the 4-tourney rule allows someone to
> "give it a try" and actually put up some money in
> doing so. Conversely, the 6-month rule can be
> circumvented by just not playing a tournament for
> that length of time.

or it makes a player TRY a new divison for at least 6 months. I guess maybe the change should have been if you play at LEAST 4 events in 6 months and do not cash.

Re: SN By-Laws

hobbit489 — Wed, 08 Jun 2011 21:04:27 -0500

True, I understand your point about un-doing what previous board members have put into place. In my opinion, the 4-tourney rule allows someone to "give it a try" and actually put up some money in doing so. Conversely, the 6-month rule can be circumvented by just not playing a tournament for that length of time.

Re: SN By-Laws

Tax Man — Wed, 08 Jun 2011 11:19:18 -0500

hobbit489 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The "new" rule is better than the previous in this
> particular case.

that maybe a matter of opinion :)~ You could easily throw 4 events in a month to move back down. Instead of staying commited to 6 months of at least trying.....

and Adam, my point was the bod has done as they please and have already changed guidelines put in place by past boards. So I am all for having a system to prevent that from happening again. As it could be argued that the past BOD thought the six month rules was just fine. Then you have a new one come right along and change it cause they have nothing better to do, or thought the 4 tourney rule was better.....

Re: SN By-Laws

hobbit489 — Wed, 08 Jun 2011 08:21:45 -0500

The "new" rule is better than the previous in this particular case.

Re: SN By-Laws

Tax Man — Tue, 07 Jun 2011 15:24:09 -0500

Gilligan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Welcome to the SN Justin. ;)

well I do not see any suggestions by you either! but sure have seen plenty of other BS in your 8233 posts.

Justin, I like some of your thoughts. Although some on the current BOD have done plenty of changing of guidelines that where put in place by past BOD members. Slight tweeks maybe ok, but changing the 6th month rule to 4 tournies.... should be avoided.

Re: SN By-Laws

jtolbert — Tue, 10 May 2011 07:19:13 -0500

Thanks Al.

Let me get some consultation on the penalties for the issues with money and TDs running tournaments. I think that may be better suited for the handbook.
Nevertheless, it is something we need to look into and add SOMEWHERE. We also have to make sure that we don't punish the players that attended a tournament in which the TD didn't follow the rules.

Re: SN By-Laws

bigal5657 — Mon, 09 May 2011 21:42:53 -0500

how bag tags should be out by first championship. money for tourneys have to be in no later than 30 days or a penalty of 10% more will be added(have to have some sort of penalty). TD's not following rules made by BoD(I.E. Offering Am Master a year after it was gone) should be punished somehow.

There! I gave some ideas. Let the bashing of them begin!

Re: SN By-Laws

Gilligan — Mon, 09 May 2011 21:05:14 -0500

How many half brains does it take to get by-law?

Re: SN By-Laws

Bluff Magee — Mon, 09 May 2011 20:26:54 -0500

It's actually more ironic that after you ran everyone with half a brain away that you ask for input.

Re: SN By-Laws

jtolbert — Sat, 07 May 2011 14:04:41 -0500

Yep. It's ironic to see people barking about how we need certain things but then never help out with input.

Re: SN By-Laws

Gilligan — Fri, 06 May 2011 23:17:45 -0500

Welcome to the SN Justin. ;)

Re: SN By-Laws

jtolbert — Fri, 06 May 2011 20:54:39 -0500

Am I doing this by myself?

SN By-Laws

jtolbert — Thu, 05 May 2011 11:02:14 -0500

We need some suggestions from the current BoD, previous BoD members, and players on what we should include in the SN by-laws. Here is a list of what I have so far from my own suggestions and suggestions from other players:

-BoD position procedures (election, resignation, voting, etc.) <---we would remove all of this from the handbook and reword it
-BoD duties
-BoD requirements (attendance, standards, meetings, etc.)
-Requirements for adding to the handbook
-Requirements for amending/removing a previous addition to the handbook, particularly something that a previous BoD put in place
-Procedures/requirements for the players to "impeach" a BoD member

This is not final and will need a lot of tweaking. Let's please have some constructive input and try to stay on topic.