Member in attendance - Robby Harris, Eric Day, Zack Hudson

Topics
Novice Division
-Discussed the division and how many events one may play in the division.
SNAC
-2013 Southern National Amateur Championship Bid
-TUPELO, MS
-TUPELO DISC GOLF ASSOCIATION
-The City of Tupelo, Tupelo Park and Recreation and the Tupelo Disc Golf Association would like to formally present our bid for the 2013 --------Southern National Amateur Championships.

-Tournament directors: Zack Hudson, Jason Cross, Michael Russell, Matthew Gardner

-Courses played: Tombigbee 1 (18 holes) Tombigbee 2 (18 holes) Veterans park (27 holes). Courses will be in Championship caliber condition for this event.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/18/2012 02:38PM by Eric Day.

Few questions on one thing that's really holding this series back...

1. How much longer on this site no one has control over? It's been talked about and talked about, but it's clearly not going anywhere it appears.
- how much longer are we gonna have a new set of rules no one can find ?
- how much more money is the SN going to lose over the ad space it could be selling?

Last but not least, I've asked several times but never got an answer and I don't think anyone knows,
2. Those ebay ads at the top, are the companies paying to be there or is there a glitch and is the SN helping these people sell there stuff for free? It use to be SkySouth's products now its tons of sellers.

I think it's a glitch, 3 reasons

It use to be skysouth, I don't see Jim orum selling space off on this site. I don't think he is up to speed on the digital age... No disrespect just sayin.
Brian moon would of had to of edited the coding in the website, I don't see him editing anything...
When you see eBay feeds its usually one seller, not 5 different ones in the same feed. I've checked, they're all different on the same feed.

People have asked before, can we find out? Thanks.

Dillon Gourley Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Few questions on one thing that's really holding
> this series back...
>
> 1. How much longer on this site no one has control
> over? It's been talked about and talked about, but
> it's clearly not going anywhere it appears.
> - how much longer are we gonna have a new set of
> rules no one can find ?
> - how much more money is the SN going to lose over
> the ad space it could be selling?
>
> Last but not least, I've asked several times but
> never got an answer and I don't think anyone
> knows,
> 2. Those ebay ads at the top, are the companies
> paying to be there or is there a glitch and is the
> SN helping these people sell there stuff for free?
> It use to be SkySouth's products now its tons of
> sellers.
>
> I think it's a glitch, 3 reasons
>
> It use to be skysouth, I don't see Jim orum
> selling space off on this site. I don't think he
> is up to speed on the digital age... No disrespect
> just sayin.
> Brian moon would of had to of edited the coding in
> the website, I don't see him editing anything...
> When you see eBay feeds its usually one seller,
> not 5 different ones in the same feed. I've
> checked, they're all different on the same feed.
>
> People have asked before, can we find out? Thanks.

Dillon, thanks for posting your question in a respectable way. I understand the concern for all this and really wish I could fix it.....however

Control over site? You left some words out so I will answer what I think you are asking. I am afraid we are getting to the point where we are going to drop this site and start fresh, we may never have the control needed to keep the site up to where it needs to be without full access for board members.

New set of rules, again we need the access to fix that... I can sticky the new rules onto every forum if that would help

Ad Space, we are losing way to much money not having this. Until we have access or a new site we will just keep losing

Ebay Ads, I have yet to hear from anyone that knows what is going on with that. As you said it has to be some kind of glitch in the coding, but without access nobody on the board can fix it.

How are topics for the meetings decided? It does seem that things are discussed, then tabled and never brought up again. Not complaining, just asking, I know it's a lot needing to be talked about/done by the board.

I will say I think it all starts with a new site.

Jason O

We just decide in the days before the meeting what will be discussed, or occasionally we will just wing it with a new topic. Most of the time any thing being discussed has already been talked about in the "private board forum" and we are just going over it one last time before we decide if we need to vote on it.

The reason things get tabled then not brought up again for a long time, we have more then likely discussed about everything involved with it and are waiting on more information before we continue the discussion. We also may bring a subject to the private forum where we will discuss it as info comes in.

The Board Meeting is only a tiny bit of our discussions, we discuss topics throughout the week.

I think you should leave the Novice rule alone. It's the only skill classification players can't move back to. TD's can bump up Novice players after the player's first event if they are bagging. Novice players are usually local to the TD so if the player should be bumped the TD is likely in a good position to know that. Every rule change and its effective date should be reflected in the handbook, not just in a meeting minute. Rules changes should by default be resisted until the publication issue is fixed.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/18/2012 03:04PM by Discjazz.

Discjazz Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think you should leave the Novice rule alone.
> It's the only skill classification players can't
> move back to. TD's can bump up Novice players
> after the player's first event if they are
> bagging. Novice players are usually local to the
> TD so if the player should be bumped the TD is
> likely in a good position to know that. Every
> rule change and its effective date should be
> reflected in the handbook, not just in a meeting
> minute. Rules changes should by default be
> resisted until the publication issue is fixed.

I don't think the rule will be changed at all, it was just being discussed. Just because we bring something up in a meeting, it doesn't mean we plan on changing it. The reason it was brought up this week was because there is concern that the TD force up rule was misused on the novice division in an event, because the TD felt novice was a play once and move up division like many other think. Just to be Clear, there is NO Rule saying that Novice/Rec can only play one event before moving up to Int. Ams.

Thanks Eric. You are wise and informative. The TD would have to know some justifying past performance to bump up a player, but is under no obligation to do so.

While I'm at it let me add, I have yet to see a nicely formatted pdf of the new handbook sections adopted. When I see that and evidence it was forwarded to Brian Moon with a replacement request unfilled after a reasonable time I will be convinced we have to have a new site, although there are good reasons for one anyway as posted above.

There is a wealth of information and resources residing within the current SNDG website. Brain is a talented individual whom gifted the SNDG with his forum authoring and database abilities. Without this web foundation, it is quite likely the SNDG would not have enjoyed the growth and nature of it's present existence. Therefore, caution is expressed as to hastily made decisions or changes concerning the site.

I have yet to view another "volunteer" disc golf community duplicate the database record keeping/points programing of the SNDG. The "SNDG Points System" is the very basis of this series. Consideration must be given as to this system and how it may be incorporated into a new site (without the possible assistance of Brian). The historical information of years of forum post are also to be considered. Due to the revolving nature of new and young players coming into the game it is safe to say that history does repeat itself time and time again. Past forum threads are a great resource and can answer and enlighten the reoccurring attitudes of the community.

Revamping the site seems especially important here lately. This is why I express these concerns. These are challenges that must be carefully considered. A new flexible and more controllable site certainly offers more promise but much research and experimentation much be done before making that final decision.

Every effort needs to be made to discuss the situation with Brian. If he no longer has the interest, I suggest a professional database experienced web designer be employed to oversee this task. Yes, employed means "paid". Paid means "responsible". If it's going to happen, then do it correctly.

The SNDG community may feel a new web presence will be a paradise that will solve all their problems. With that, I close with a quote from Joni Mitchell ......


Don't it always seem to go,
You don't know what you've got til it's gone.
They paved paradise,
Put up a parking lot.

Let's make sure we don't end up with just a parking lot.

Since the beginning, in the Southern Nationals anyway, Novice has been a "play it once" division for the first time tournament player, afterwhich they moved into their repective divisions to compete. It's purpose was to take away some of the competitiveness out of the mix to allow the beginning player to just "have some fun", and recruit new players and grow the sport! Fun is a thing the Southern Nationals has ALWAYS been about!

To have a novice player continue in this division, shooting scores that would allow them to either win or cash in the Amateur divisions seems silly! Why, when you can take a stack of plastic home instead of a trophy and a disc tops? I guess, after I play and fail to cash per the guidelines, I will start playing NOVICE! Yea, Right!!! How far do you think THAT would fly? But by your "published rules" it is possible!

It has been, perhaps, an "unwritten" rule that has been in place since I started playing! Maybe it needs to be spelled out! Also, we have no "Novice" division listed, unless you are calling "recreational" Novice, and then THAT needs to be spelled out.

All the crap I have heard lately about what a TD can and can't do about this division, and mostly from "beginning" players is just that - CRAP!

Any future events I TD will no longer offer a Novice division, and if one is asked for by three or more players, it will be TROPHY ONLY!

WOW! Problem solved! We apparently no longer wish to support the beginning players out there.

Dg Guy - Disc GOlf Plaques & Awards
662-660-0339

Know what you throw. . .
. . . throw what you know!

"I don't think the rule will be changed at all, it was just being discussed ......... The reason it was brought up this week was because there is concern that the TD force up rule was misused on the novice division in an event, because the TD felt novice was a play once and move up division like many other think. Just to be Clear, there is NO Rule saying that Novice/Rec can only play one event before moving up to Int. Ams."

If there are no changes to the rule as written then the decision is up to the TD, right? If left up to the TD to determine what defines a Novice, he is within his right to define it as he see's fit. No change to the novice description leaves this a very GRAY area for "TD discretion".

Wikipedia defines Novice as "a person or creature who is new to a field or activity." Truthfully, few players just show up to a tournament and have never played the sport of disc golf. Therefore, disc golf is not "new" to them, but the "playing" of a tournament event would be considered new as it had never been experience at any time previously. Once a tournament is played by said "creature or person", then they would no longer be considered a novice (even if their DG skills and scores are lousy).

I have to side with Bill as it has always been an unwritten rule to initiate new tournament players into the procedures of tournament play. The Am division already has two "baggable divisions" with no clear line between them. Novice, although unwritten, has always been plain and simple. The rule, or lack there of, needs some teeth to it and needs certain clarity for all, otherwise future rumblings will continue and this very needed division may not be offered.

The unwritten rule has always worked well. Put it in black and white.

I think Novice = a "play it once" division is a long standing SN tradition. Any time I was the TD that was the rule. I even put it on some of my flyers (first timers only). Somewhere along the line I discovered other TD's were allowing multiple Novice plays, so I checked the rules. The SN rules written in 2005 do not limit Novice to "play it once". The new rules don't either.

I think the new rules allow a TD to offer Novice and/or Recreational or neither. If the TD has a Recreational division (no higher division FA acceptors), it qualifies a player for SNAC or SNDC late sign up. If the TD has a Novice division, players do not so qualify unless the BOD takes action to combine those results with Rec. I don't know if there is any actual history on that yet.

Both possible divisions are like all other divisions though in that the only move up force is a TD.

The logic being used here is so totally backward....Do you really think grown men want to play novice? of course they don't. But they do need to get their feet wet a couple times before being thrown in the intermidate pool. If I'm a TD, I am cool with how many times a player plays novice. I'm doubling my money when one signs up.. charging $30 and paying out $15 per player. So why should it concern any of you as TDs how many times a person plays nov/rec.

The one that brought all this to a head was 2 guys that had been playing not even 3 months but had played novice 2 weeks before at a tourney . Asked if they could play novice and were not allowed . They lost by 37 and 52 stokes in AM men. But the said TD did allow 6 others to sign up in novice and 3 of the 6 would have cashed in AM men . And yes everyone played same tees.

We do for sure need the novice /rec division in our series.

Very well said Hudd! I completely agree!

Until we have a way to force people up, We should not be telling people they cant play novice

It is of no concern to me as a TD as to how many times a player chooses to play novice. The issue here, or pardon my "backward logic", is that there is NO CLARITY as to what defines a novice player. Historically, many, many TD's have considered it a "one time" opportunity for a player to learn the ropes of tournament play. Just how many tournaments does it take for a player to understand the many variances of tournament to casual play? For most .... once!

Novice is not supposed to be a competitive or pay-out division. It is a learning division. The only reason to play it more than once is so they can experience "winning" against players of their (or lesser) skills. This reason is contrary as to the true reason for the division.

Forcing players to move up is an entirely different topic of conversation. This pertains only to Intermediate and Advanced divisions. The SNDG seems to have enough on it's plate trying to devise a manner in which this can be handled. Why would one want to offer another division for this same consideration? The unwritten rule of Novice handled itself. These other divisions are a totally different scenario that would require a defined rating system .... which the SNDG does not have at the present time.

The only reason for my reply is to communicate how this division has been dealt with by many in the past and to offer a suggestion on how it could be clarified for the future so that it is not a TD decision. It is apparent that many TD's have used this "backward logic" for many years and if the BOD wants it to continue as a "TD discretion" decision then no action is required. Otherwise, give the division some clarity and teeth so ALL TD's know how to handle it.

I agree that both Novice and Recreational divisions are extremely important. No one is asking they be diluted or scaled back. Tournaments are competitive events. Hopefully at some point in the future a ratings system can be established for the competitive divisions but for these two non-compete divisions, only simple rules are needed. "Backward logic" keeps it simple .... learn once, then either play REC or COMPETE!

Well then just change it from nov to rec. the last few tournaments I have ran there have been people playing novice for 2nd and 3rd time that do not belong in Int. If the BOD has so much on their plate. Then they need to get the priorities in order. Fix the INT division by forcing players up. I'm sorry but the winner and down to 5th place in a three round tourney should not be shooting under par especially double digits. Instead of hurting the truly novice players lets get the adv players out of INT!

True. In the scheme of things both Novice and Recreational divisions are incidental to TD's. More concern is required for the higher divisions. A TD does not want or need to verify how many time a person has played Novice. A one and up rule is simple for TD's and also would not have to be included in any future ratings system ... which seems to be the greater priority.

Allowing TD's to define the novice division creates unknowns, confusion, and conflict. All that is being requested of the BOD is to clarify the matter for all.

The lack of clarity in this case was only the TD's failure to know the rules. That doesn't mean we need a rule change. It means we need to fix the publication conflict. The TD did in fact follow the rules even though he was mistaken about them.

There is a lack of rules and definition for the novice division, therefore, how is the TD to determine said rules? For clarity sake, what is a publication conflict?

The conflict I referred to is SN recognition of beginner division names. The old rules recognize "Novice". The new rules recognize "Recreational", with a back door (combination) for Novice and other division names. TD's have always been free to follow the "play it once" tradition or not. So this TD also mistook a tradition for a rule. Like I said though, he still followed the rules even though he did not understand them.

Yes, new and old rules bring in a whole new aspect to the matter. I've only relayed the way it's been dealt with in the past and how it still seems to be unclear to many. I wish that whoever decides to change, or to leave it be, the best of wisdom in this matter.

If a TD decides to have a division named "Novice", the players in it risk non-qualification for the championships. I do not know how great that risk is because the rules allow the BOD to combine Novice results with Rec results and I have not studied whether the BOD did combine those results for the last championships (the first since the new rules were adopted). Under the rules I do not think Novice results can be combined with Rec unless the Novice qualifications are as restrictive as those provided for Rec (no higher division FA acceptors). However, if the TD does restrict his Novice division to players who have not accepted a FA in a higher division, I see no reason why the BOD would not or should not combine and qualify. I just don't know that they did or will in the future. The simple answer for the TD is to call it Rec, exclude those who have accepted a higher division FA and anyone else the TD wants to exclude based on past performance just like any other division.

I agree that there should be one rule and go by it. But it's not the beginng player's fault. It's mine as a board member for there not being a cut and dry rule. If you will look at tournament results over the last 2 seasons there tons of players who played Rec/novice more than once. wheather it's right or it's wrong, every player should be afforded that luxary until the rule has more clarity. By rule, you as a TD can do either. But if I was that guy who just started playing and was forced to play up a division, I probably wouldn't be back.

I agree that a force up from Rec might mean some players won't come back. That's why I don't think we should change the rule to "play it once". I also think a TD might have a valid reason to force a move up from Rec, and that's why the rules allow the TD to decide. I disagree that the new rules are not "cut and dry" on this issue. They are crystal clear that only a TD can force a move up from any division and only based on past performance. The mud is the old 2005 rules that do not apply but are still published via link from the home page of this site and the never written fable rules some folks still believe in.

I have always felt that it is up to the individual to decide when they need to move up! Sometimes I think there should be a Senoir Grand Master Novice division for me to play in!

The only thing that has been in conflict with that over the years was the "unwritten" rule that you only play Novice once!

I have only DQ'd a Player once for signing up as an Amateur Master when they had cashed the previous month as an Advanced Master!

Disqualifying players is just not an enjoyable thing no matter the reason!

Dg Guy - Disc GOlf Plaques & Awards
662-660-0339

Know what you throw. . .
. . . throw what you know!

In trying to verify Discjazz's post I see that according to the 2012 Handbook, if I read it correctly, the Novice division is not even a valid division any longer in the SNDG. I assume it's been melded into "recreational", right? This conversation is actually mute at this point ... if the new 2012 SNDG Handbook has been fully accepted.

Due to tradition, unwritten rules, whatever one wants to call it, it is surprising that the Novice division was not included in the updated rules. It's obviously still referred to and thought of as a valid division ..., otherwise, it would not still be offered, debated, and discussed.

Overall, the old rule was quite simple to enforce. Now TD's have to "track" almost every division to insure players are representing their skill levels. Quite a task on top of all other TD responsibilities.

The BOD has adopted the first 3 sections of the 2012 rules only as far as I know. I don't see any new burdens on the TD to discover invalid sign ups. The burden is on the player(s) and the risk is DQ or loss to a bagger not called out. It is practically impossible for a TD to use this site to verify every player's classification, but again that is a publication issue not a rule clarity issue. Classification facts are not published in a good enough format for that, especially for re-classification. Of course re-classification does not apply to Rec anyway so that is a little off topic. My guess is that the BOD did not intend to leave out the Novice division, just rename it to Rec to be like the PDGA, but like I said before I do not know if history is proving that or not. What I do know is that the SN TD can call it Rec and the players are supposed to know they can't play it if they have accepted a higher division FA. If the TD adds any other qualifications (like "play it once") he deserves the tracking obligations that go with it.