Alabama   •   Arkansas   •   Florida   •   Georgia   •   Kentucky   •   Louisiana   •   Mississippi   •   Oklahoma   •   Tennessee   •   Texas
New Policy Vote
June 17, 2014 02:00PM
VOID



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/19/2014 08:14AM by cox3.
Re: New Policy Vote
June 18, 2014 11:18AM
What is new? 2.13 has been the rule since 01/09/2013.
Re: New Policy Vote
June 18, 2014 12:57PM
Okay. I thought that sponsor exemptions were no longer allowed but I could not find anything about it. The SNPC Guidelines thread still states that a player may obtain a sponsorship exemption if the sponsor donates $1,500+ cash to the event. Are you saying that is not correct information? I will try to look to find where this was voted upon in meeting minutes.

We have an individual wanting to gain a sponsorship exemption for the 2014 SNPC is the reason why this issue has arose.

Thanks for the clarification.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Casey Cox
"If you aint first, you're last." -- Ricky Bobby's daddy

2007-2008 SN Amateur Player of the Year
SN advanced single season points record holder - 466 (2007-2008)
SN advanced single season wins record holder - 16 (2007-2008)
SN advanced single season score record holder - 53.40 (2007-2008)
Re: New Policy Vote
June 18, 2014 03:15PM
The board did vote to eliminate sponsor exemptions entirely sometime after the Brad Hammock fiasco (SNPC 2011?) and before the effective date of the current no-exemption rule (2.13 effective 01/09/2013). I believe the guideline you are referring to preceded all the above events. If you don't say "no" to sponsor exemptions or change 2.13 you are opening a big can of worms.
Re: New Policy Vote
June 18, 2014 04:45PM
Discjazz Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The board did vote to eliminate sponsor exemptions
> entirely sometime after the Brad Hammock fiasco
> (SNPC 2011?) and before the effective date of the
> current no-exemption rule (2.13 effective
> 01/09/2013). I believe the guideline you are
> referring to preceded all the above events. If
> you don't say "no" to sponsor exemptions or change
> 2.13 you are opening a big can of worms.

All six of us on the board are opposed to sponsor exemptions anyway. We are just trying to abide by the rules the way they are currently written. Do you happen to know where I could find the rule change to not allow any sponsor exemptions?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Casey Cox
"If you aint first, you're last." -- Ricky Bobby's daddy

2007-2008 SN Amateur Player of the Year
SN advanced single season points record holder - 466 (2007-2008)
SN advanced single season wins record holder - 16 (2007-2008)
SN advanced single season score record holder - 53.40 (2007-2008)
Re: New Policy Vote
June 19, 2014 02:22AM
Page 3
11/30/2011
Re: New Policy Vote
June 19, 2014 08:15AM
Thank you, Kevin. I thought that change was made. I just couldn't find evidence of it. Plus the SNPC Guidelines thread was never edited.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Casey Cox
"If you aint first, you're last." -- Ricky Bobby's daddy

2007-2008 SN Amateur Player of the Year
SN advanced single season points record holder - 466 (2007-2008)
SN advanced single season wins record holder - 16 (2007-2008)
SN advanced single season score record holder - 53.40 (2007-2008)
Re: New Policy Vote
June 19, 2014 10:28AM
I'm going to reiterate a point. No one should have had to waste their time looking any further than to rule 2.13 to determine that there is no sponsor exemption to the championships. Remember the old Prego spaghetti sauce commercial phrase; "it's in there".

I'm doing this to show my respect and appreciation for Casey and his time investment in this series. Casey has become a great asset. The 2013 rules were written with the hope that no one would again have to dig through minutes to find what the rules are. It is supposed to be the unified source. There are very few, if any, examples of the 2013 rules creating a new rule application. They were just intended, for the most part, to be a proper codification of the latest rule applications that had previously been intended, plus a few things previously entirely unaddressed.

When the 2013 rules were adopted I suggested that the board declare them a replacement of the 2005 Handbook because the board was claiming lack of capacity to simply remove the old Handbook from the site. That did not happen as far as I know. Until now the replacement has been taken as an assumption according to my observation. It is a necessary feature that newer rules trump older rules, else no rule application could ever be changed. However I still think it would be better and it might help avoid further confusion if the board voted to make that simple declaration.

It may be that the championship guidelines were not re-written for the same reason the old Handbook has not been completely removed from this site. If so it would also be wise to declare that all rules and guidelines in conflict with the 2013 rules are no longer valid. It would be a simple declaration in the minutes then added to the official rules thread in this section of the site.

All newer rules conflicting with the text of the 2013 rules should be accomplished by editing with the possible need to add an effective date of the change depending on what it is. In this way, no one should again (hopefully) have to go looking through minutes for rules.

Big thanks to Casey for taking such great care for our series.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/19/2014 10:32AM by Discjazz.
Re: New Policy Vote
June 19, 2014 10:52AM
I too (also through observation) was under the assumption that new handbook took precedence over everything. Is there even an outdated copy of the handbook remaining on this website, Kevin? I thought that each copy posted on each different board was the same copy. Is this not accurate? We can vote to make whatever declaration needs to be made. What exactly is it that we need to declare? Simply that the current handbook supersedes everything else?

Thank you for the compliment. It is nice to have people such as yourself in which to refer when questions arise. Thank you for your large contribution in creating and maintaining the basic policies of the series.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Casey Cox
"If you aint first, you're last." -- Ricky Bobby's daddy

2007-2008 SN Amateur Player of the Year
SN advanced single season points record holder - 466 (2007-2008)
SN advanced single season wins record holder - 16 (2007-2008)
SN advanced single season score record holder - 53.40 (2007-2008)
Re: New Policy Vote
June 19, 2014 04:41PM
"outdated copy of the handbook remaining on this website"
I would have to compare the various versions of the 2013 rules and all of the subsequent board decisions to answer that question completely. The answer is "yes" in at least one obvious way. The old 2005 Handbook is still on this site. I believe it would have been deleted by now if anyone knew how. If you know how by all means have the board vote on that and delete it.

It's too much work to compare all the versions of the 2013 rules on this site. The only reason Eric put the 2013 rules in several sections was to maximize initial publication. If making a change to our 2013 rules in the "SN Board of Directors" section (which is what I treat as the official version) automatically changes the versions in the other sections of this site then that's great but that is a feature of this web site I am not aware of. Absent that feature, it would in my opinion be better to delete the other versions, if the board has or intends to change any rules, just so the change doesn't have to be repeated and the workload of making changes will be reduced.

I know you guys have changed our seasons. The rules are obviously outdated on that. You even made an interim season if I recall correctly. Maybe it's not even worth fixing the rules to reflect the new seasons until the interim season has passed. I have not considered all the ramifications of season changes to the rules but it's possible they matter or do not.

I do not recall any other rule-conflicting board decisions since the 2013 rules were adopted but obviously I think all rules should be edited into the "SN Board of Directors" version of the 2013 rules. If they conflict with that rule book they should be inapplicable. This leads me to your other question.

"What exactly is it that we need to declare?"
There is more than one way to do it but I'll make this proposal. Publish a minute that states the board's vote on the following language to be added to the rule book.

"Section 8.0: Rules Applicability
These rules shall apply to all SNDG series matters occurring and decisions made after the effective date of each such rule provision and to the exclusion of all other conflicting rules, guidelines and decisions. The effective date of all provisions shall be January 09, 2013 unless a later date is provided as part of such rule provision. No provision or application of these rules as they existed on January 09, 2013 may be changed without provision of an effective date after the date of the change."

If the board votes for it then actually insert it in to the rules as section 8.

Notice this leaves open the possibility that the board may make enforceable decisions merely published in minutes or some other way as long as they are not inconsistent with the published rules. Of course if they are decisions that go beyond a particular unique factual scenario (likely to re-occur) and are actually important to the series it is probably best to make a rule change/addition covering the situation.
Re: New Policy Vote
June 19, 2014 05:11PM
Oh yea I also forgot to bring up again that our incorporation of the PDGA rules is outdated. It’s because they re-structured and changed rules since 01/09/2013.
Re: New Policy Vote
June 19, 2014 07:53PM
I see now what you were referring to in regards to the 2005 edition. It is on the actual website. I was talking about strictly the forum. It has been so many years since I looked at information presented on the actual website that I forget that it actually exists. Unfortunately the forum is all we have to manage for the time being. I do agree with you that the other two copies should be erased and only the copy on this board should exist so that edits do not need to be made three times over. I will go delete the other two threads right now.

I realized the season change language but I was just going to do as you suggested and wait until this interim season ended before updating it. Furthermore, barring something unforeseen, we will be rolling out a new website under full SN control with the start of the 2015 season so perhaps a top to bottom examination of the handbook might be in order before publishing it on the new website and off of the forum.

I don't necessarily understand what you are saying exactly in regards to the PDGA rules. I understand that our rules are essentially to follow PDGA rules in instances where SN rules do not apply but I assumed that this just meant that as their rules changed, our rules changed.

Lastly, I will bring up the language that you laid out to be approved by the board and added to the handbook.

Thanks so much for your help.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Casey Cox
"If you aint first, you're last." -- Ricky Bobby's daddy

2007-2008 SN Amateur Player of the Year
SN advanced single season points record holder - 466 (2007-2008)
SN advanced single season wins record holder - 16 (2007-2008)
SN advanced single season score record holder - 53.40 (2007-2008)
Re: New Policy Vote
June 20, 2014 07:53AM
Regarding our PDGA rule incorporation being outdated, look at our 6.9.2. "The PDGA Rules of Disc Golf (801 Conduct of Players, 802 Equipment, 803 Rules of Play, and 804 Tournament Procedure)..."

The problem is that for example PDGA 801 is no longer entitled Conduct of Players.
[www.pdga.com]
All those titles are wrong now. Our 6.9 is simply not a precise expression of the general rule we meant to have as you expressed, that our actual on-the-course play is at least mostly the same as a PDGA event.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login

Online Users

Guests: 18
Record Number of Users: 19 on January 14, 2013
Record Number of Guests: 244 on February 20, 2013