Show all posts by user

Re: Meeting Minutes 05-15-13 - Yesterday

If a TD does not publish in advance their payout intentions, the SN has no way of knowing what payout will be. The TD will get the SN sanctioning advertising benefit, and there is nothing we can do about that short of devising a TD punishment system. Personally I think that would be an overreaction at this time. All the SN needs to do on this issue is scrutinize results, something needed regar

by Discjazz - SN Board of Directors

Re: Meeting Minutes 05-15-13 - Yesterday

The proposed rule changes really add nothing in my opinion. Nothing wrong with them either, it's just that all they really say is "yes all these rules apply". If you read Bluff's statement carefully you will see that he is correct, and it's no big deal. Of course "an am can take any kind of finishing award they damm well please in any SN doubles event they enter". Not

by Discjazz - SN Board of Directors

Re: Meeting Minutes 05-15-13 - 2 days ago

All cash events: This proposal raised some interesting issues for me. The main one so far is the oddity that a player could have any number of SN points and be classified as Amateur but still not qualify for the SNAC. Pro points never qualify for the SNAC. This relates to the proposal of an all-cash-SNQ-Doubles event in that it means there is no SNC benefit to sanctioning a cash division

by Discjazz - SN Board of Directors

Re: Please check Your stats and make sure everything is correct. - 8 days ago

Looks to me like the Am Women have been separated only once in history, the 2003-2004 season. That one season of separate results seems to disprove my theory of lack of web site capacity. There were 85 Int. and 24 advanced, without checking for duplications. However the theory that the handbook has not been updated appears disproven by the facts that there were no written rules until 2005 an

by Discjazz - General Discussion

Re: Please check Your stats and make sure everything is correct. - 8 days ago

KeyChains1 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > niklpenny Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Jennifer Cline's points are listed as advanced > > women, when she plays am women > > > Unfortunately they are one and the same :-/ ... > they do not get separated out !! Must be a web site c

by Discjazz - General Discussion

Re: Divisions, Baggers, Championships, & more - 21 days ago

Yep, it's been proven time and again. Wide open is the SN. Whether your pet issue is bagging, ratings, rules, accounting, a new web site, whatever, all it takes is one person to make it happen. Yes you might need to TD, BOD, build a consensus or do some work, but there is no excuse. No need to dog volunteers in the SN, just roll up your sleeves and have it your way. Bluff Magee Wrote: -

by Discjazz - General Discussion

Re: Pro players - payout by check - 4 weeks ago

If you're selling out days before the event I think you can afford the risk that paying with checks will turn some off.

by Discjazz - General Discussion

Re: Pro players - payout by check - 4 weeks ago

Reverse the situation. Do you take checks for sign up? If you do you'll probably get burned every now and then but mostly be ok. If you don't take checks for sign up you shouldn't expect to pay out that way either. Checks have become about the most iffy payment method due to bad banking laws that allow the robber barons to run amuck. Some banks charge a fee to cash their own checks. That's

by Discjazz - General Discussion

Re: Can we get a NEW UP DATED WEBSITE ALREADY? - 5 weeks ago

Event results that separate award amounts for finish, ancillary and prizes in lieu. Automated calculation of a player's classification as of set date and pdf certification of same. Reverse chronological list of a player's event results, pdf printable. A known player classification list (pdf) for TD's.

by Discjazz - General Discussion

Re: Can we get a NEW UP DATED WEBSITE ALREADY? - 5 weeks ago

Yep, it's just like the ratings issue. Either it is worth a dollar, "the one" will step up and do it for free or it ain't happening. If you really care be "the one" or put the ball in the BOD's court by requesting a specific vote. The current BOD has a demonstrated willingness to vote on nearly anything proposed, but who wants to take the heat.

by Discjazz - General Discussion

Re: Can we get a NEW UP DATED WEBSITE ALREADY? - 5 weeks ago

So let's be specific. What exactly do we need our 7 real people BOD to vote on to get someone or some committee to build it functional? Kernan the Barbarian built ratings without a dollar or a vote.

by Discjazz - General Discussion

Re: Can we get a NEW UP DATED WEBSITE ALREADY? - 5 weeks ago

The problem is not just that this site is technically inadequate. It's also that it does not belong to the SN. The more fundamental problem is that the SN doesn't actually even exist at all, making ownership of anything by it dubious at best. Whether we continue to ignore that or not, the next step is to set aside some money and request bids. I just think it is unrealistic to expect our vol

by Discjazz - General Discussion

Re: Can we all just get along? - 6 weeks ago

You LA guys just love some coup d'etat don't you.

by Discjazz - General Discussion

Re: Can we all just get along? - 6 weeks ago

I nominate the above named five to be on the next BOD.

by Discjazz - General Discussion

Re: Discraft Discs - 6 weeks ago

I'm mostly confirming what others have said above. The Nuke SS is likely the best distance driver choice for beginners because it's a newer model. People like to get the supposed newest, latest and greatest. It is super fast and not so overstable that a beginner or weenie arm like me can't stand it up. The Avenger SS (ESP only - not Flex) is also a good choice and maybe more controllable but

by Discjazz - General Discussion

Re: Ratings Fee...would you pay? - 7 weeks ago

Dear John: Everyone else is part of the problem. Keith Bodin Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > A wise man once said if you are not part of the > salutation, you are part of the problem!

by Discjazz - General Discussion

Re: Ratings Fee...would you pay? - 7 weeks ago

contrast Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > How do we know if anyone would be forced to move > up if we don't have a rating range for each > division yet? We wouldn't be able to go by what > range the PDGA has for each division since they > don't have the same number of divisions. Exactly. That is why it makes no sense (to me) to say a rati

by Discjazz - General Discussion

Re: Ratings Fee...would you pay? - 7 weeks ago

I agree that a better web site would be worth more than ratings (by a lot). I do understand, but disagree with, the opinion that ratings are not worth a dollar. What I do not understand is the opinion that ratings are worth a dollar only with ratings classification when there are no players who would be forced up by ratings classification. That is a logic leap I'm just not getting.

by Discjazz - General Discussion

Re: Ratings Fee...would you pay? - 7 weeks ago

Flash back to my ratings Imaginary Interview of head. Re: Questions April 22, 2012 02:13PM <;

by Discjazz - General Discussion

Re: Ratings Fee...would you pay? - 7 weeks ago

dustin morris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You are an exception Mr. Jazz. Thank you. I've been noticing that my whole life, for better and worse. I think the DG age distinction is like most generalizations about people. It may be statistically significant but the real reasons are numerous details a big chore to catalog. It's the low value of a dol

by Discjazz - General Discussion

Re: Ratings Fee...would you pay? - 7 weeks ago

Playing on baskets for ~16 years and objects (including baskets) for ~37 years.

by Discjazz - General Discussion

Re: Ratings Fee...would you pay? - 7 weeks ago

Yes. Age 53. Offered to do them for a dollar 3 years ago. Don't think ratings should be used for mandatory division placement until they are published for at least a year and only then if widely accepted as a good measure of skill. TD's rule.

by Discjazz - General Discussion

Re: Meeting 3/20/13 - 8 weeks ago

He deleted one of my posts too but I thought it was a good decision and executed responsibly. If others think he has abused the privilege then I understand the complaint and reason for raising the issue. However, that he "is who he is ....on the computer" does not alone (to me) mean the authority should not have been or should not continue to be extended to him. It appears delegation

by Discjazz - SN Board of Directors

Re: Meeting 3/20/13 - 8 weeks ago

I take that as a "yes".

by Discjazz - SN Board of Directors

Re: Meeting 3/20/13 - 8 weeks ago

Is this part of Bluff's coup d'etat or is that still in play? Bluff Magee December 29, 2011 <;

by Discjazz - SN Board of Directors

Re: Rules Question: Mulligan Sanctioning - 2 months ago

Thanks John. I understand the board favors charity Mulligan use to some degree. My question is how the rules express and apply that favor. What does a TD need to do to use Mulligan sales for a charity in a SN event? I can't tell whether event specific advance approval by the board is required or if they are just automatically approved. Also, which rules are we supposed to glean the answer fr

by Discjazz - SN Board of Directors

Re: RULES QUESTION - 2 months ago

Note those bonus style points on Bluff's scorecard please.

by Discjazz - General Discussion

Re: RULES QUESTION - 2 months ago

Just another fable rule

by Discjazz - General Discussion

Re: SN Rules - Thoughts and opinions - New/Old rules - 2 months ago

I don't see any good reason to get into what a player's intent is. An objective standard based on actions makes a much better rule. I don't see any good reason to DQ for missed holes on the front end of an event. We don't need our playing rules to be that different from the PDGA just to have our own classification rules. Having a 3 person rule for classification purposes is a justifiable

by Discjazz - General Discussion

Re: SN Rules - Thoughts and opinions - New/Old rules - 2 months ago

Question 1 - Option A This is the way I think the current rule was intended to apply. An adequate way to clarify the language would be to insert the words "actually playing and" in between "without" and "finishing" in the first line of rule 1.3.3. It would read "Competition in a tournament without actually playing and finishing all holes and rounds offered...

by Discjazz - General Discussion