THE COST AND VALUE OF STANDARDIZING OBSERVERS.
joad...@ec.rr.com
stanrdardized "observer fee" for tournaments and td's that put forth
the effort to provide qualified observers at any old tourny.
I have been saying for quite some time that this facilitation should
be standardized and an often impressed when i see td's soliciting
observers for their tournies. a little less impressed, though, when i
ask what the "per game wage" is for providing that service and i never
get a response.
i was actually asked if i wanted to voluteer my time and effort to
help observe games at college easterns this year. Its an interesting
propisition but i cant help but wonder how it is that someone would
expect me just to give, for the benefit of the players, this
prividlidged service when they arent willing to give(pay) themselves
for that service.
Personally i think that this is a huge problem with the whole concept
of observing. and specifically that problem is ACCOUNTABILITY.
simply put.....pay someone to do somthing and they will likely take
more pride, do a better job and be able to be held more accountable.
I've also proposed (a la vollyball) where players on byes act as
observers in what i liked to call "cross division observer pools" (or
CDOP's). but that idea was often met with the selfish mentality of "i
need to rest during my bye", or "i like to catch up with old friends
durring my bye", or "i need to eat during my bye" or "i just dont feel
ike making that contribution during my bye"........which are all
justifiable. but when the whole structure of observing is based on
voluteerism how or why would you expect other people that arent even
participating in that event to sacrifice their time and effort when
you yourselves arent willing to. quite egotistical imo.
so i guess my question is......would teams (specifically college
easterns teams) be willing to pay an extra $150 to $200 per event (or
$25 per game) to have the service of qualified observers manage each
and every game at a particular tourny?
and i know all you people are bright and are more than capable of
doing the math yourselves but...... the way i figure it is.......that
expense would come out to about an average of ten bucks per player,
per tourny. Is this too much money for you people to handle to
provide ultimate with this long overdue standardized service???
If so......you ARE a bunch of cheap ass bastards!!!
ultimat...@gmail.com
but, for what it's worth, I'm against a "standardized 'observer fee.'"
2) Your paragraph arguing that pay (to refs/observers) will lead to
accountability is specious at best.
3) I do think your proposed "a la volleyball" structure of having
players on byes act as refs/observers is interesting, an idea worth
pursing. That said, you are speaking out of both sides of your mouth:
you call the excuses on provides for foregoing this plan "egotistical"
and "selfish" and "justifiable." These three aren't mutually
exclusive, but, if they do simultaneously occur, they are hard to
assail.
4) I'm no longer in college and not on the East Coast, so I abstain
from comment on that particular question.
5) I'd ask, "can't you see that asking people to consider a 'long
overdue standardized service' isn't likely to go over well when, in
the same sentence, you label those who disagree with said proposal
'cheap ass bastards' is NOT an effective way of arguing your stance?"
but I know the answer is, "of course you can't/don't see that, and
even if you could/would, you wouldn't give a shit."
-- sam wood
MTBH, among others
never post sober
p.s. Count me as another who finds your grammar and spelling as
detractors from your message.
Colin
> so i guess my question is......would teams (specifically college
> easterns teams) be willing to pay an extra $150 to $200 per event (or
> $25 per game) to have the service of qualified observers manage each
> and every game at a particular tourny?
One of the UPA surveys asked a similar question (How much would you
pay?). What do you mean by "qualified"?
faddy
let's get a baseline here.
MRB
Well, although you are a major asshole who can't be bothered to
volunteer to observe at a tournament that is staffed by volunteers, I
will answer anyway.
I'll assume a 16 team format; this is 24 games on day 1; say 16 total
games on day 2. That's 40 total games. Let's be liberal and say it's
50 games over the weekend. Each game is 1.5-2 hours long; that's
75-100 hours over the weekend; even at the paltry sum of $10/hr,
that's an extra $1,000 to the bottom line. That's $62.50 per team;
which would generally be an increase in at least 25% over current
costs. This is a huge increase in costs for a service that NO ONE
FUCKING WANTS YOU RETARD. Honestly dude, go eat shit and die.
joad...@ec.rr.com
so you (by "you" i mean the actual participants in tournaments) DONT
want the costs but YOU"LE gladly take the value/benefits???? and you
want ME to eat shit and die??? and obviously the cost goes up in this
situation but you are getting the service of some twenty odd people
that are all mostlikely working professionals in real life that would
other wise (if time spent that weekend was in a working capacity)
would probably make on average $25 per hour......X 20 observers each
working 10 hour days X 2(days) comes out to around $1600 of man/woman
hours that was GIVIN to these players. So one question, what did all
these players do to earn the right to recieve (or think they should
recieve) this benefit free of charge???
so when ya break it down to a per person expense, the cost is
minimal. personally i would think that is a very worthy expense.
but, at the same time, i could see how, collectively, that is a
significant expense that td's shouldnt EXPECT players to want to up.
but at the same time, two full days of voluteering isnt somthing to
shake a stick at either and td's AND players shouldnt expect people to
give of themselves to provide that service free of charge. thats all
i'm sayin.
joad...@ec.rr.com
> how much would you CHARGE?
>
> let's get a baseline here.
like i said in my post......each team should pay $25 per game. I'm
thinking about a tos set up in which each observer would make $25 per
game for a two hour round (which is probably a huge pay cut for most
of these would be voluteers). AND if the td's have the where with all
to get those cheap little intramural scoreboards at the end of each
endzone they could get said observers to multitask and work the
scoreboards too......and enhance the game for players and would be
spectators even more.
joad...@ec.rr.com
uhmm, must be data that they havent made public.
qualified......means observers that are good at what they do.
personally i'd seek out and solicit the call savy type of players to
perform these tasks. So having the right person to determine quality
level would be key.
joad...@ec.rr.com
> 1) It'd be nigh impossible to get a (sic) "general consescus" via RSD,
> but, for what it's worth, I'm against a "standardized 'observer fee.'"
but i'll assume you have no problem with them being provided free of
charge?
--------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 2) Your paragraph arguing that pay (to refs/observers) will lead to
> accountability is specious at best.
is it anything like the upa's argument that if they were to make short
(15 question) surveys manditory for ALL upa members to fill out
durring (re)registration that they would make a mokery of the survey
and answer the questions in a joking/non serious manner?
cause that one of the reasons peri k put forth to me as to why they
wouldnt streamline their needs and wants assestment process to get a
higher percentage of membership feedback with all the current hot
issues floating arount ultimate.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 3) I do think your proposed "a la volleyball" structure of having
> players on byes act as refs/observers is interesting, an idea worth
> pursing.
i agree completely......in fact THAT is probably a route that should
be taken by td's prior to getting people uninvolved with the event to
voluteer that service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
That said, you are speaking out of both sides of your mouth:
> you call the excuses on provides for foregoing this plan "egotistical"
> and "selfish" and "justifiable."
well, justifiable if they dont really want to make that contribution
and do without the service alltogether........but selfish and
egotistical if they DO want that service without an added expense and
still arent willing to contribute their own time (during byes) to
provide that service........you know, since, collectively, THEY are
the ones benefiting from it.
I think that most people would be willing to take a 50% paycut to
spend a weekend to observe, but that relitively few would do it for
free. And if you increase the pool of potential observers you got to
figure that the quality level will increase, right? I know that i
would be a very qualified observer but it aint no way in hell i'm
gonna go do that shit for free.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
These three aren't mutually
> exclusive, but, if they do simultaneously occur, they are hard to
> assail.
do you get what i'm sayin now?
----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 4) I'm no longer in college and not on the East Coast, so I abstain
> from comment on that particular question.
i'm hardly in college either and i'm the one that asked the
question......but surley you have an opinion???
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 5) I'd ask, "can't you see that asking people to consider a 'long
> overdue standardized service' isn't likely to go over well when, in
> the same sentence, you label those who disagree with said proposal
> 'cheap ass bastards' is NOT an effective way of arguing your stance?"
eh, thats just my way. back in my day it was called peer preasure. i
guess i just forget that most of you are from the "me" generation and
you are all too sensitive to take a little ribbing. my bad.
------------------------------------------------------------
> but I know the answer is, "of course you can't/don't see that, and
> even if you could/would, you wouldn't give a shit."
good assumption!
-------------------------------------------------------------
>
> -- sam wood
> MTBH, among others
> never post sober
>
> p.s. Count me as another who finds your grammar and spelling as
> detractors from your message.
and count me as another that finds your sports rule enforcement and
game management process as detractors from your sports entertainment
potential and progression. ultimate IS the toad of sports. uhmm, that
sounds like a ggod title for a thread.
Peterson
The Seamen should at least be priniting up some 2009 Easterns Observer
long sleeve toad dyes to help lure in some observers. I'm pretty sure
if they would think out of the box a bit with their pay/swag they
could get some observers.
Peterson
Baer
issue!
I think a clear problem that underlies this debate is the fact that
there is not an abundance of qualified observers, and that "frugal"
would be a nice word to describe most Ultimate players.
How can we get more volunteers to step up (and be available) as
observers? IMO, it's more than just making the training available,
it's also about changing a part of the Ultimate culture where many
folks don't want to do more than just play their games and drink beer.
For the record, I would love to be an observer, but I don't travel to
a lot of tourneys and am not really available to do so. The idea of
players on byes who are already there and/or paying people to be there
has merit.
joad...@ec.rr.com
> volunteer to observe at a tournament that is staffed by volunteers, I
> will answer anyway.
how do you figure they are staffed by volunteers? the host team is
and should be running the event? so if they are the ones reaping the
financial and the "not-having-to-travel" benefits of the event then
they are hardly voluteers. I mean, what kind of chumps cant run their
own tourny without needing a staff of voluteers to run it for em. all
you need is teams and fields and the rest is a cakewalk. i could, to
this day, run an ultimate tourny in my sleep.
Shit, I am the one that established that(college easterns) event and
taught all my successors how to properly run it. so when it comes to
contributing i've already gone WAY above and beyond what 99% of people
that ever play this sport have (including those that equally benifited
from the funds raised from college easterns events that DIDNT equally
contribute......going all the way back to 88"........you know who you
are). Shit, i should be gettin a fuckin royalty check every year for
providing this established and foolproof fundraiser. same goes for
others that created and established top level tournies around the
country at their schools. wheres the fuckin gratitude! must be more
of that "me" generation mentality.
joad...@ec.rr.com
>
> The Seamen should at least be priniting up some 2009 Easterns Observer
> long sleeve toad dyes to help lure in some observers. I'm pretty sure
> if they would think out of the box a bit with their pay/swag they
> could get some observers.
>
> Peterson
see now that is hardly an incentive for me as, better (and more cost
efficient) than that, they could and should just get some striped refs
shirts (along with scoreboards) from the intrural dept, FREE OF
CHARGE, to use for observer unies and pass that savings on to the
observers in the form of CASH MONEY. as the saying goes, money talks
and bullshit walks. and as they also say, 'SHOW ME THE MONEY".
i guess i'm just a "big picture" kind of person when it comes to most
of the issues related to ultimate. I mean eventually observers and
observers wages are gonna have to become standardized. so why delay
the inevitable. just do it. if teams dont want to attend the event
because the are too cheap to pay for the privilidge to play with
upgraded game management and rule enforcement facilitated services
then fuck em. let em go play in some suck tourny in which they have
to micromanage all that shit themselves. Now THAT, would be "thinking
outside the box". And look where that philosophy, "just do it", got
nike???? not a bad mantra to live by.
joad...@ec.rr.com
> Wow. No one needs to eat shit and no one needs to die because of this
> issue!
>
> I think a clear problem that underlies this debate is the fact that
> there is not an abundance of qualified observers, and that "frugal"
> would be a nice word to describe most Ultimate players.
frugal???? isnt that just a nice way of sayin "cheap"? as for the
level of "qualification" of the present observer pool......wouldnt you
say that if there was fair and equitable compensation that the pool
would undoubtedly grow and in turn the less qualified ones could and
would be weeded out? I mean how do you expect to get the more
qualified ones to commit without insentive? no better incentive than
money from what i know. so with the current "volunteer" mentality
ultimate cant seem to get past the "chicken and the egg" stage of the
development of the observer facilitation. Yet another sapect of the
sport that could do well by looking at and copying what "other sports"
do.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> How can we get more volunteers to step up (and be available) as
> observers?
PAY THEM A STANDARD WAGE. NOTHIN MORE, NOTHING LESS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
IMO, it's more than just making the training available,
> it's also about changing a part of the Ultimate culture where many
> folks don't want to do more than just play their games and drink beer.
well they could continue to do just that........if they werent so
"frugal". Also, youve got to agree that with them becoming
standardized their quality levels will do nothing but improve ,as will
the system itself, compared to there general current stagnation
(quality wise) due to the fact that they get minimal opportunities for
"on the job" training.......as we all know, experience is the best
teacher.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
> For the record, I would love to be an observer, but I don't travel to
> a lot of tourneys and am not really available to do so. The idea of
> players on byes who are already there and/or paying people to be there
> has merit.
of course it does. this is why vollyball has standardized this into
their tournament arbatration process system. they aint a bunch of
dumb heads.
Colin
Data may not be public, but whatever the data was, it prompted the
following action, which is posted on the UPA website:
"Tactic: Increase the number and quality of Observers across the
country. More training clinics will be held. Certification procedures
will be revamped to provide a tiered system of certification based on
objective criteria. Observer compensation system will be implemented."
In terms of qualified observers, I think someone else pointed out that
there's an issue with difficulty in getting enough qualified observers
for local events. If you have unqualified people observe, it hurts
the whole system.
I think of the payment in the amounts you've mentioned as a token of
appreciation more than an incentive to observe. Questionable whether
you can get teams to pay enough to actually attract observers who
would otherwise not come. Maybe your survey will help give a sense of
this. If I were unwilling to volunteer to observe at a tournament, it
would probably take a lot of money to overcome whatever my reason was
for not volunteering.
faddy
i get about 10k to staff a tourney as stated above. maybe my
calculator is on the fritz...
faddy
>
> i get about 10k to staff a tourney as stated above. maybe my
>
assuming 50 teams, thats an extra $200 per.
I'm not saying it ain't worth it, it is what it is.
joad...@ec.rr.com
>
> Data may not be public, but whatever the data was, it prompted the
> following action, which is posted on the UPA website:
>
> "Tactic: Increase the number and quality of Observers across the
> country. More training clinics will be held. Certification procedures
> will be revamped to provide a tiered system of certification based on
> objective criteria. Observer compensation system will be implemented."
that sounds like a step towards a standardized payrate to me but
seeing how the upa is so reactionary with so many other issues and
dynamics pertaining to ulti, what makes independent td's think they
wont have to carve the trail and set the standard with this issue as
well?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> In terms of qualified observers, I think someone else pointed out that
> there's an issue with difficulty in getting enough qualified observers
> for local events.
ahhh, bullshit. even in our dinky little town im sure there could be
20 qualified observers rounded up with minimal effort that would do a
fine job.......IF, that is, they were fairly compensated. voluteers
would provide substantially less quality without a doubt. i mean,
whats my motivation if i'm not gettin paid? if i blow a call and get
bitched out by some college punk do you think i'm gonna volunteer
again. but if i'm getting paid then there is a sense of
accountability and the payer has a right to demand a higher quality of
service......as the saying goes, "what do you expect for nuthin".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have unqualified people observe, it hurts
> the whole system.
and if you rely on voluteers to fill those roles it hurts the whole
system. probably why the "whole system" is hurting so. and i am
equating its general nonexistance as being synonomous with "hurting".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I think of the payment in the amounts you've mentioned as a token of
> appreciation more than an incentive to observe.
so giving somone $250 (for working 10 games) for a weekends worth of
work is just as much of a "token of appreciation" as giving them
nothing? How much would one have to get paid for their time and
efforts (for working 10 games) to be financially justified?
----------------------------------------------------------------
Questionable whether
> you can get teams to pay enough to actually attract observers who
> would otherwise not come.
only one way to find out! but , personally i know of one "would be
observer" that sure as fuck aint gonna come out without being promised
at least $25 for a two hour game. which again translates to about a
buck and a half per player for a two man crew. Is that too rich for
your blood?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe your survey will help give a sense of
> this.
it already did......and the average # was around $25 per observer, per
game.
---------------------------------------------------------------
If I were unwilling to volunteer to observe at a tournament, it
> would probably take a lot of money to overcome whatever my reason was
> for not volunteering.
Well, for me, that magic number is $25 per game. what is it for you?
MrP...@gmail.com
any other. You pay what you need to get what you need. If you want
more than you need, you pay more than you need.
Do you "need" observers? I'm sure you think everyone does, but
perhaps not everyone thinks that everyone does.
Do we "need" a standardized fee? Probably not, the observer needs are
going to vary tournament by tournament. Some (hats tourneys, party
tourneys) probably don't need or want observers at all. Others
(nationals) want a crew for every game. Perhaps a good starting point
for an average mid-season tournament is to have observers for the
championship bracket, either starting at semis or quarters. If you
start at semis, you need two crews, and only one if you've got the
room in your format to stagger the semi games one after the other. If
you start at quarters, you need four crews, and only two if you
stagger quarters. I guess you run into the same class warrior
bullshit you always do where only 4 or 8 teams in the bracket of 16
get an observed game (and only 2 get the maximum number of observed
games), but 1) everybody's got a chance if they win their games, 2) if
you're only paying for 1-4 crews for 2-3 games each, it's not too
pricey and 3) who the fuck wants observed consolation games anyhow?
Do you have observers for pool games? Probably not worth it. Many
pool games aren't close, I'd think that most teams wouldn't want to
pay for observers for those games. If you're a TD and the teams for
your tourney want it and want to pay for it, go for it, but I don't
see that happening often.
Are college kids cheap? Yeah, and they damn well better be. Many
have college loans, meaning that their net worth is negative. They
might have access to parental funds, but parents can and should demand
better uses for their $$$ than observers for some 1-16 game on
Saturday. What $$$ they do have should be going to shitty food and
quality beer, this is the American way.
Finally, observers are in quite low supply, meaning that you're in the
steep part of a demand-supply-price curve (i.e., cost is going to be
very demand-sensitive). If Frisbee Town USA is hosting a tournament,
how many qualified observers live in Frisbee Town USA that aren't 1)
playing in the tourney, 2) coaching a team that's playing in the
tourney, or 3) an alumnus of a team that's playing in the tourney (if
we care about conflict of interest). Of those, a few might be willing
to volunteer their time - the cost of the first 1-2 crews could be
free. Why pay for something that can and will be freely donated?
Altruism? From Toad? I don't think so.
As the number of crews goes up, so does the cost. If you need 3 crews
and the 5th and 6th observers in town would rather not go, you'll have
to pay them (and probably the first two crews too, just to be fair).
If Frisbee Town USA is like most towns, they'll run out of qualified
observers in the town before they run out of games that need crews
(assuming that they're bent on having observers for pool and
consolation games). At that point you're looking at travel expenses,
which means things get really expensive, either for the observers
(who'd be at a net loss even if you pay them $25/game once they
arrive), or for the tourney, which would end up paying way more than
$25 a game.
So yeah, be smart about it. Buy what you need, not what you want. Be
creative in reducing demand (i.e., stagger your semis if possible so
you only need one crew for 3 games). After that, pay what you have to
pay. If $10/game gets you the crew(s) you need, pay $10 a game. If
it takes $25, pay that, and if you get 'em free, well, bully for you.
~p
joad...@ec.rr.com
>
the way i figure its a simple equasion of $50 per game(for a tos)
times X number of games. in mrb's equation of 40 games that figure
would equate to $2000......divided by 16 teams equals $125 per
team........which is twice the amount ($62.50) mrb was would not even
be willing to pay (hence the "cheap bastard" comment).
BUT, if, as mrb says, that increase in payment is such a huge increase
for a service that NOONE FUCKIN WANTS then who would be stupid enough
to volunteer their own personal time towards that service that they
(the would be observers) would, in no way shape or form, personally
benefit from.
Isnt it kind of a slap in the face to want, expect or even ask people
to contibute to somthing for YOUR sake that YOU arent even willing to
contribute to YOURSELF? thats all i'm sayin.
Daag Alemayehu
> detractors from your message.
Oh really?
Exhibit A:
> an idea worth
> pursing.
Exhibit B:
> you call the excuses on provides for foregoing this plan
Exhibit C:
> "can't you see that asking people to consider a 'long
> overdue standardized service' isn't likely to go over well when, in
> the same sentence, you label those who disagree with said proposal
> 'cheap ass bastards' is NOT an effective way of arguing your stance?"
I think it's bad enough when message board and newsgroup users use bad
grammar or bad spelling as an argument for why someone's otherwise
valid points should be ignored/cast aside, but I think it's especially
fucking stupid when the person who casts that stone types up a post
full of spelling errors, questionable grammar, and convoluted sentence
structure.
And so that I'm not a hypocrite and I'm not wasting RSD space by doing
nothing but pointing out spelling/grammar errors:
> 2) Your paragraph arguing that pay (to refs/observers) will lead to
> accountability is specious at best.
I'm guessing this means you also disagree with the maxims of "You get
what you pay for" and "There's no such thing as a free lunch." Forget
about ultimate and look at other parts of everyday life. It's nice to
get free things, and sometimes a free thing will be just a good as
what you'd get if you paid for that same thing. But I think that more
often than not, you're gonna have to shell out some dollars if you
want to ensure that you're getting quality. This goes double for when
we're talking about a service rendered by an individual that otherwise
has no accountability to anyone but themselves.
faddy
joint in the other. there is the RUB.
fishklan41
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I would totally observe for some swag.
>Kegl
joad...@ec.rr.com
> Hrmph. Toad, you're a business man. Observers are a resource like
> any other. You pay what you need to get what you need. If you want
> more than you need, you pay more than you need.
whatever. that sounds like a bunch of gibberish to me. i go by the
old supply and demand concept personally.
--------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Do you "need" observers? I'm sure you think everyone does, but
> perhaps not everyone thinks that everyone does.
according to the upa's data most favor not only observers, but also
ugrading(whatever that means) them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Do we "need" a standardized fee?
if you want to upgrade the system, yes. It all goes back to the
concept of, "you get what you pay for". and let me just interject
here and ask......why do your posts have to be so long and drawn out?
------------------------------------------------------------------
Probably not, the observer needs are
> going to vary tournament by tournament. Some (hats tourneys, party
> tourneys) probably don't need or want observers at all. Others
> (nationals) want a crew for every game. Perhaps a good starting point
> for an average mid-season tournament is to have observers for the
> championship bracket, either starting at semis or quarters. If you
> start at semis, you need two crews, and only one if you've got the
> room in your format to stagger the semi games one after the other. If
> you start at quarters, you need four crews, and only two if you
> stagger quarters. I guess you run into the same class warrior
> bullshit you always do where only 4 or 8 teams in the bracket of 16
> get an observed game (and only 2 get the maximum number of observed
> games), but 1) everybody's got a chance if they win their games, 2) if
> you're only paying for 1-4 crews for 2-3 games each, it's not too
> pricey and 3) who the fuck wants observed consolation games anyhow?
well the problem that you run into with that is "whos paying for these
observers" and is it fair for that expense (that obviously only a
limited # of teams will benefit from) to be absorbed by the entire
tourny budget? which seemed to be a big downfall with c1.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Do you have observers for pool games? Probably not worth it. Many
> pool games aren't close, I'd think that most teams wouldn't want to
> pay for observers for those games.
well that is part of the minimalist mentality that is stunting the
quality level of observers in general and the progression of the
system and sport. i know that every organized little league "official
game" has officials (refs, umps, etc). why is it that adult ultimate
players cant keep up with 6 year olds in this respect?
------------------------------------------------------------------
If you're a TD and the teams for
> your tourney want it and want to pay for it, go for it, but I don't
> see that happening often.
well then those teams shouldnt be surprised when the dont see the
quality of observers or the sport progressing.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Are college kids cheap? Yeah, and they damn well better be.
hence their resorting to stealing from one another?
--------------------------------------------------------------
Many
> have college loans, meaning that their net worth is negative. They
> might have access to parental funds, but parents can and should demand
> better uses for their $$$ than observers for some 1-16 game on
> Saturday.
like a 6 pack of beer (the approx cost of the per player weekend
observer fee)? and if money is the issue for some (you know there more
than quite a few spoiled ultimate college kids out there) then they
can choose to observe during their bye and pocket a quick $25, right?
------------------------------------------------------------
What $$$ they do have should be going to shitty food and
> quality beer, this is the American way.
hardly. the american way (when it comes to sports) is to have
refs......unless the game is just some sort of "pick up".(HA)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Finally, observers are in quite low supply,
maybe in your suck town they are but not here in wilmington. theres a
slew of us.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
meaning that you're in the
> steep part of a demand-supply-price curve (i.e., cost is going to be
> very demand-sensitive). If Frisbee Town USA is hosting a tournament,
> how many qualified observers live in Frisbee Town USA that aren't 1)
> playing in the tourney,
alot if its a college event.
-----------------------------------------------------------
2) coaching a team that's playing in the
> tourney,
non factor. and we didnt have coaches back in my day (or observers).
so one would think that niether is really that more important than the
other.
-------------------------------------------------------------
or 3) an alumnus of a team that's playing in the tourney (if
> we care about conflict of interest).
HA, thats a good one as the alumni that come out to wilmingtons local
events are more into the social aspect than watching the actual
comp.......oh wait, you are talking about a partiality factor, right?
which is somehow a non issue when its the players themselves
"controling" rule enforcement?????
------------------------------------------------------------
Of those, a few might be willing
> to volunteer their time - the cost of the first 1-2 crews could be
> free. Why pay for something that can and will be freely donated?
you mean like pussy? even with pussy, though, you end up payin one way
or another.
but to answer your question, for a better and more standardized
product/service. this is kind of the nature of "work". people "work"
for a "wage" because otherwise they would be doing other things that
they would prefer to do that were in no way associated with the
initial task thats in need of doing. i'm pretty sure this is what
seperates us from animals.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Altruism? From Toad? I don't think so.
alrtuism???? i dont know how you get altruism out of this. what i'm
talking about is capitolism!
--------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> As the number of crews goes up, so does the cost.
and so does the quality of the experience. there has to be a reason
refs are paid in all other sports from the pee wee's to the bigs,
right? it all goes back to "gettin what you pay for".
--------------------------------------------------------------------
If you need 3 crews
> and the 5th and 6th observers in town would rather not go, you'll have
> to pay them (and probably the first two crews too, just to be fair).
> If Frisbee Town USA is like most towns, they'll run out of qualified
> observers in the town before they run out of games that need crews
> (assuming that they're bent on having observers for pool and
> consolation games). At that point you're looking at travel expenses,
> which means things get really expensive, either for the observers
> (who'd be at a net loss even if you pay them $25/game once they
> arrive), or for the tourney, which would end up paying way more than
> $25 a game.
tell that to the upa. so in the future the communities that get the
bids to host upa events will likely be the ones that can supply the
most (and most qualified) pool of observers. seems like good
incentive to establish and standardize local observer programs to
me.....aside from the countless others
---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> So yeah, be smart about it. Buy what you need, not what you want. Be
> creative in reducing demand (i.e., stagger your semis if possible so
> you only need one crew for 3 games). After that, pay what you have to
> pay. If $10/game gets you the crew(s) you need, pay $10 a game. If
> it takes $25, pay that, and if you get 'em free, well, bully for you.
bully for you????? seriously punto???? man, you are one queer
fucker.....and one with very low standards for the quality level and
progression rate of this sport. but hey, tell me somthin i dont know.
Colin
> On Dec 30, 1:24 pm, Colin <colinmcint...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > In terms of qualified observers, I think someone else pointed out that
> > there's an issue with difficulty in getting enough qualified observers
> > for local events.
>
> ahhh, bullshit. even in our dinky little town im sure there could be
> 20 qualified observers rounded up with minimal effort that would do a
> fine job.......IF, that is, they were fairly compensated. voluteers
> would provide substantially less quality without a doubt. i mean,
> whats my motivation if i'm not gettin paid? if i blow a call and get
> bitched out by some college punk do you think i'm gonna volunteer
> again. but if i'm getting paid then there is a sense of
> accountability and the payer has a right to demand a higher quality of
> service......as the saying goes, "what do you expect for nuthin".
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, if I'm spending my time to go out and observe, I'm going to do
my very best. If I go out and give it a half effort, then I'm not
benefiting anyone and it's a waste of my time. My sense of
accountability comes from placing myself in the players' shoes and
knowing that an observer doing a bad job is worse than no observer at
all. The money is completely irrelevant for me. The reason I am
there is to provide a service for the players, the tournament and the
sport. And the benefit that I receive is having other observers do
the same for me at other tournaments. But maybe I'm the exception.
What does your survey say?
> > I think of the payment in the amounts you've mentioned as a token of
> > appreciation more than an incentive to observe.
>
> so giving somone $250 (for working 10 games) for a weekends worth of
> work is just as much of a "token of appreciation" as giving them
> nothing? How much would one have to get paid for their time and
> efforts (for working 10 games) to be financially justified?
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
No. Giving them nothing is giving them nothing. Giving them a token
of your appreciation is giving them a token of your appreciation.
Some tokens are bigger than others. How much one needs to be paid
varies person-to-person. For me, I'd be willing to observe for free
if I were available. So if I'm unavailable, you have to pay me enough
to convince me to cancel other plans, which may be a lot.
> Questionable whether
>
> > you can get teams to pay enough to actually attract observers who
> > would otherwise not come.
>
> only one way to find out! but , personally i know of one "would be
> observer" that sure as fuck aint gonna come out without being promised
> at least $25 for a two hour game. which again translates to about a
> buck and a half per player for a two man crew. Is that too rich for
> your blood?
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't know. How good of an observer are you? Do you know the 11th
edition inside and out? If not, I'd pay a buck and a half not to have
you observe each of my games. Have you observed a lot of games? But
I would be unwilling to pay anybody anything without some assurance of
their qualifications.
> If I were unwilling to volunteer to observe at a tournament, it
>
> > would probably take a lot of money to overcome whatever my reason was
> > for not volunteering.
>
> Well, for me, that magic number is $25 per game. what is it for you?
Depends on my reason for not volunteering in the first place. My
price would easily exceed $25 per game, depending on the weekend. And
my price wouldn't be based on the number of games I had to work, but
rather the time I had to commit to being at the tournament instead of
doing whatever else I was planning to do. Chances are that I am
either available, regardless of price, or totally unavailable, except
at an extremely high price.
Colin
A service that nobody wants? I definitely want the service of good
observers working many games I play in. And I'm aware of tons of
other players who would want good observers working their games.
Maybe not every game, but a lot of them.
It is a big cost. I disagree with Toad's claim that a good observer
will do a bad job if volunteering, but a good job if paid. Therefore,
I question whether payment of relatively modest wages is necessary. I
don't think the value/cost ratio is high enough to justify it in many
cases. But it varies a lot depending on personnel and it's at least
worth discussion. What are you thinking?
joad...@ec.rr.com
> the only way I'm observing for FREE is with a beer in one hand and a
> joint in the other. there is the RUB.
so we must conclude that faddy has no intentions what so ever to be an
observer at college easterns. back in the day maybe....
joad...@ec.rr.com
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
well i'll be thinking about ya when i'm on my couch watching "the
dance"........especially if the weather this year will be anything
like it was last year.
joad...@ec.rr.com
how is ten bucks per player for an entire tourny a "big cost". the
"big cost" is in not having em out there to begin with. and just
think of all the money youve saved to dat by cheapin out in the past.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
I disagree with Toad's claim that a good observer
> will do a bad job if volunteering, but a good job if paid.
i didnt say bad.....i said they wouldnt be as good. do you really
think the refs that officiate hs sports would be as good if they were
just random voluteers with minimal training that were just plucked out
of the stands pre game????? .......and so rarely used that they never
got all that good at it to begin with??? if so, you are one ate up
mf!
---------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore,
> I question whether payment of relatively modest wages is necessary.
its called "accountability", dumbass. in reality, they should maybe
be paid more, but ya got to start somewhere.
--------------------------------------------------------------
I
> don't think the value/cost ratio is high enough to justify it in many
> cases. But it varies a lot depending on personnel and it's at least
> worth discussion. What are you thinking?
that you are a dumbass that cant see the big picture or have ANY
understanding how shit in the "real world of sports" works!!!!
faddy
yes, maybe, but the RUB would still apply.
I WILL be observing, just not reffing.
joad...@ec.rr.com
-----
>
> Well, if I'm spending my time to go out and observe, I'm going to do
> my very best. If I go out and give it a half effort, then I'm not
> benefiting anyone and it's a waste of my time.
but why shouldnt the players that benefit feel a sense of retribution
to you for performing that service?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
My sense of
> accountability comes from placing myself in the players' shoes and
> knowing that an observer doing a bad job is worse than no observer at
> all.
but dosent that concept of "placing ones slef in anothers shoes" work
both ways? i mean, the players are benefiting, shouldnt you benefit
somhow as well?
------------------------------------------------------------
The money is completely irrelevant for me. The reason I am
> there is to provide a service for the players, the tournament and the
> sport.
ahhh, now there is the altruist that punto was looking for. myself,
i'm a pure american capitolist. nuthin wrong with that, is there?
-------------------------------------------------------------
And the benefit that I receive is having other observers do
> the same for me at other tournaments.
well i never played on one game in which there were observers
provided, much less provided for free. so the only pay back for me
would be cash money!
------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> No. Giving them nothing is giving them nothing. Giving them a token
> of your appreciation is giving them a token of your appreciation.
what are you sugesting???? a 4 dollar tourny disc and a 2 dollar
sandwich?
----------------------------------------------------------
> Some tokens are bigger than others. How much one needs to be paid
> varies person-to-person.
so does that mean you give/pay people based on what they want......or
do ya just make it fair and equitable and standardize the payrate?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For me, I'd be willing to observe for free
> if I were available.
well, you are a suckaaa then.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
So if I'm unavailable, you have to pay me enough
> to convince me to cancel other plans, which may be a lot.
and you dont think the arbatrary-ness of attaining observers in such a
way wont make them, and the whole system, inconsistant at best and
just plain bad at worst?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I don't know. How good of an observer are you?
the best i tells ya.....even though ive never "observed" a game. I
have however reffed quite a few (of which i was great at that too)
and, lets face it, observing is a walk in the park compared to
actively reffing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you know the 11th
> edition inside and out?
no but i could probably re read them in 30 minutes. I do have great
judgement and impecable field mechanics though.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
If not, I'd pay a buck and a half not to have
> you observe each of my games.
well pay up chump, cause i anit observin shit.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Have you observed a lot of games? But
> I would be unwilling to pay anybody anything without some assurance of
> their qualifications.
i'm overqualified, trust that.
------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Depends on my reason for not volunteering in the first place. My
> price would easily exceed $25 per game, depending on the weekend. And
> my price wouldn't be based on the number of games I had to work, but
> rather the time I had to commit to being at the tournament instead of
> doing whatever else I was planning to do. Chances are that I am
> either available, regardless of price, or totally unavailable, except
> at an extremely high price.
see now that all a bunch of arbatrary bullshit that will never help
the observer system get roots and improve in any progressive or
consistant manner. cant you see colin, YOU are part of the problem!
joad...@ec.rr.com
who would have to supply the beer and weed is what i'm wondering?
rub????
MrP...@gmail.com
> Exhibit C:
>
> > "can't you see that asking people to consider a 'long
> > overdue standardized service' isn't likely to go over well when, in
> > the same sentence, you label those who disagree with said proposal
> > 'cheap ass bastards' is NOT an effective way of arguing your stance?"
>
> I think it's bad enough when message board and newsgroup users use bad
> grammar or bad spelling as an argument for why someone's otherwise
> valid points should be ignored/cast aside, but I think it's especially
> fucking stupid when the person who casts that stone types up a post
> full of spelling errors, questionable grammar, and convoluted sentence
> structure.
To be fair, I think that the OP was (in this instance) criticizing
Toad for his unfriendly demeanor, not for his illiterate
presentation. The quibble was content-based.
Still, we're beating a dead horse. It should be a given that Toad
will convince fewer people when he uses does his whole grade-school
literacy, frat boy content thing. He'd rather do it his way for his
(and some others') entertainment than constrain himself to civilized
behavior in order to win more converts. That's his call, and surely
he can expect to get mocked for his decision, why wouldn't he?
~p
MrP...@gmail.com
> On Dec 30, 2:07 pm, "MrPi...@gmail.com" <MrPi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hrmph. Toad, you're a business man. Observers are a resource like
> > any other. You pay what you need to get what you need. If you want
> > more than you need, you pay more than you need.
>
> whatever. that sounds like a bunch of gibberish to me. i go by the
> old supply and demand concept personally.
WTF are you talking about? They're connected - you don't demand
something that you don't need or want. All things being equal, you'll
pay more for something you need than something you want. That's what
demand IS.
> if you want to upgrade the system, yes. It all goes back to the
> concept of, "you get what you pay for". and let me just interject
> here and ask......why do your posts have to be so long and drawn out?
Thoroughness without editing for conciseness. I think I pointed you
at Mark Twain's wisdom once in order to explain this sort of thing,
but you hadn't heard of him. I guess we can just leave it as "you
wouldn't understand."
> well the problem that you run into with that is "whos paying for these
> observers" and is it fair for that expense (that obviously only a
> limited # of teams will benefit from) to be absorbed by the entire
> tourny budget? which seemed to be a big downfall with c1.
Obviously, and that's why I mentioned it. If you've got 2 crews, each
handling a two quarter games, a semi game, and a final (with four
observers), that's 4 games each for 4 people, or 16 games. Pay them
$25 a game, and you're charging each of 16 TEAMs $25 a piece, or a
little more than a dollar per player. Yeah, only half get an
observer, and yeah the bottom half might bitch about their dollar
going to someone else's fun, but I doubt they'd quibble over an amount
that small. Only one way to find out, I guess.
> > Do you have observers for pool games? Probably not worth it. Many
> > pool games aren't close, I'd think that most teams wouldn't want to
> > pay for observers for those games.
>
> well that is part of the minimalist mentality that is stunting the
> quality level of observers in general and the progression of the
> system and sport.
80/20 rule, dude, spend your $$$ where it makes the most sense. When
you have NCAA levels of funding, you can waste NCAA levels of money.
> > Are college kids cheap? Yeah, and they damn well better be.
>
> hence their resorting to stealing from one another?
There's a difference between being frugal and being a criminal. Some
losers can't tell the difference, and that sucks, but it's a separate
issue.
> > have college loans, meaning that their net worth is negative. They
> > might have access to parental funds, but parents can and should demand
> > better uses for their $$$ than observers for some 1-16 game on
> > Saturday.
>
> like a 6 pack of beer (the approx cost of the per player weekend
> observer fee)?
I guess you can ask them what they'd rather have: observers for pool
games or more beer. I think though that when college kids are
involved, the last thing anyone would want to do when selling
something is point out how much beer could be had instead of
purchasing that thing. =)
> 2) coaching a team that's playing in the
>
> > tourney,
>
> non factor. and we didnt have coaches back in my day (or observers).
> so one would think that niether is really that more important than the
> other.
How on earth does that make sense? When I was in college, I didn't
own a house, and I didn't own a helicopter. I guess that means that
both are equally important to me now?
> or 3) an alumnus of a team that's playing in the tourney (if
>
> > we care about conflict of interest).
>
> HA, thats a good one as the alumni that come out to wilmingtons local
> events are more into the social aspect than watching the actual
> comp.......oh wait, you are talking about a partiality factor, right?
> which is somehow a non issue when its the players themselves
> "controling" rule enforcement?????
Well, yeah, if you're wanting to pay $$$ for an impartial observer,
you'd want them to be impartial, right? Otherwise why are you paying
for observers at all? Players can ref themselves for free, and do it
at tournaments across the country, all year round...
> but to answer your question, for a better and more standardized
> product/service. this is kind of the nature of "work". people "work"
> for a "wage" because otherwise they would be doing other things that
> they would prefer to do that were in no way associated with the
> initial task thats in need of doing. i'm pretty sure this is what
> seperates us from animals.
For some of us, there are even more things separating us than that.
How do you explain the existence of charities? What is volunteer
observing if not charity?
> > Altruism? From Toad? I don't think so.
>
> alrtuism???? i dont know how you get altruism out of this. what i'm
> talking about is capitolism!
Not exactly. If you've got a crew observers that's willing to work
for free, or for $10 a game, and you instead pay them $25 a game,
you're paying above what the capitalists call "market rate." Altruism
is one reason to do this. Yours seems to be more along the lines of a
quality thing, where you feel that you'll get better observing in the
long run by paying $25 a game, even if the short run situation is that
there are only so many qualified observers out there and you'll be
getting the same quality no matter how much you over pay. So your
premium over market rate is defended as a sort of R&D thing, which you
expect the individual players to fund. You make the case to the
players by telling them they're cheap ass bastards, and that they'd
otherwise waste the money on beer. The players are thinking "well,
yeah, we are broke," and "dude, did he say BEER!" Hopefully you're
here for your own entertainment and not to get results, cuz...
damn....
> > As the number of crews goes up, so does the cost.
>
> and so does the quality of the experience. there has to be a reason
> refs are paid in all other sports from the pee wee's to the bigs,
> right? it all goes back to "gettin what you pay for".
AYSO is "reffed" by unpaid parents, right? Who get like 4 hours of
training which mostly consists of CYA crap about not molestering
children. The "reffing" consists mainly of fetching the ball and
pointing the "players" in the right direction when they get confused.
Perhaps there's also an "owee" management process.
> > So yeah, be smart about it. Buy what you need, not what you want. Be
> > creative in reducing demand (i.e., stagger your semis if possible so
> > you only need one crew for 3 games). After that, pay what you have to
> > pay. If $10/game gets you the crew(s) you need, pay $10 a game. If
> > it takes $25, pay that, and if you get 'em free, well, bully for you.
>
> bully for you????? seriously punto????
Not feelin' "bully?" Teddy Roosevelt was down with the term, and he
was more of a hard-nosed fucker than you...
> fucker.....and one with very low standards for the quality level and
> progression rate of this sport. but hey, tell me somthin i dont know.
What? You're talking to yourself, surely you can't tell yourself
anything but that which you think you know?
~p
MrP...@gmail.com
> I disagree with Toad's claim that a good observer
>
> > will do a bad job if volunteering, but a good job if paid.
>
> i didnt say bad.....i said they wouldnt be as good. do you really
> think the refs that officiate hs sports would be as good if they were
> just random voluteers with minimal training that were just plucked out
> of the stands pre game????? .......and so rarely used that they never
> got all that good at it to begin with??? if so, you are one ate up
> mf!
You're conflating cost with selection. If I want a TV and Best Buy
has it for $500 but Fry's has it for $400, it's still the same fucking
TV. If you picked random fans from the stands and paid them $100 a
game, they'd still suck. If some town has like 3 tourneys a year and
observers are working 5 games a weekend for $25 each, you're giving
them $375 a year, in return for which they've got to keep up with
their training and rules changes. Sure it helps, but you're not going
to motivate some super class of observers with that kind of money.
> Therefore,
>
> > I question whether payment of relatively modest wages is necessary.
>
> its called "accountability", dumbass. in reality, they should maybe
> be paid more, but ya got to start somewhere.
No, wages are wages. Accountability is accountability. Lawyers can
work pro bono, so long as they're bar certified. Doctors can treat
you for free as long as they're licensed to practice. The UPA has a
process for verifying that someone is a decent observer.
Accountability would be the UPA de-certifying your ass if you fuck up
too much. If you weren't certified, you couldn't work for any price.
Sure if you get a wage for observing games you'll have that to lose
too, but no one's observing for the $$$ - it's not regular enough work
to have that be your only motivation. Something else is motivating
folks to show up for clinics, and that'll be there no matter what the
paycheck is.
~p
MrP...@gmail.com
> On Dec 30, 3:20 pm, Colin <colinmcint...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The money is completely irrelevant for me. The reason I am
>
> > there is to provide a service for the players, the tournament and the
> > sport.
>
> ahhh, now there is the altruist that punto was looking for. myself,
> i'm a pure american capitolist. nuthin wrong with that, is there?
How do you figure? You want players to pay more than market rates in
order to benefit the sport by attracting some sort of mythical super-
observer. What's your argument? The players "owe" something to those
who are observing them, and need to pay more in order to develop their
sport. Sounds like altruism to me, otherwise why wouldn't the players
pay market rates for the service? Assuming that the UPA is certifying
observers anyway, how are the ones that are getting paid more going to
be any more certified than the ones who are getting paid less?
> well i never played on one game in which there were observers
> provided, much less provided for free. so the only pay back for me
> would be cash money!
You don't play period, and you wouldn't observe either. Even if you
did, are you saying your time is only worth $25 an hour (actually less
considering that you'd need to be there for longer than the exact
duration of the games you were observing). You and I (and pretty much
anyone else with ambition and a college education) could find much
more regular work than that, making more than that, and without the
requirement of going to training sessions and getting yelled at by
players and fans. $25 is nice to push a marginal observer over from
"leisure" to "observe," but it's a drop in the motivation bucket, so
to speak.
> > No. Giving them nothing is giving them nothing. Giving them a token
> > of your appreciation is giving them a token of your appreciation.
>
> what are you sugesting???? a 4 dollar tourny disc and a 2 dollar
> sandwich?
Whatever they ask for and you can afford, I guess. That's how markets
work, and there's more than one way to pay someone than with $$$.
> For me, I'd be willing to observe for free
>
> > if I were available.
>
> well, you are a suckaaa then.
Wait, you want to pay him $25/game, when he's willing to do it for
free. Who's the sucker here?
> Do you know the 11th
>
> > edition inside and out?
>
> no but i could probably re read them in 30 minutes. I do have great
> judgement and impecable field mechanics though.
Is that what makes an observer?
Yeah, that and a UPA certification.
~p
MrP...@gmail.com
> who would have to supply the beer and weed is what i'm wondering?
There are, presumably, markets for those. Most of us pay what the
vendors ask. You might standardize your fees, paying twice the rate
for a dime bag as I do, but in hopes of developing your dealer's
business in such a fashion as would produce superior weed in the
future.
Let me know how that goes.
And pass the munchies.
~p
joad...@ec.rr.com
>
> How do you figure? You want players to pay more than market rates in
> order to benefit the sport by attracting some sort of mythical super-
> observer. What's your argument?
market rates to arbatrate any adult league competition is probably
much more than $25 per game. but thats just a guess. i'm sure you
have some facts on the matter.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The players "owe" something to those
> who are observing them, and need to pay more in order to develop their
> sport. Sounds like altruism to me, otherwise why wouldn't the players
> pay market rates for the service?
because they/you are cheap mutha fuckin bastards.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assuming that the UPA is certifying
> observers anyway, how are the ones that are getting paid more going to
> be any more certified than the ones who are getting paid less?
from what i hear from someone near the top is that the upa just trys
to push people thru their certification process and arent as concerned
with proper development. I'd bet if you were to get certified thru a
clinic offered by mike g you'de learn more than from going thru the
upa.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> You don't play period, and you wouldn't observe either. Even if you
> did, are you saying your time is only worth $25 an hour (actually less
> considering that you'd need to be there for longer than the exact
> duration of the games you were observing).
yep, thats all its worth. i can be bought for $25 an hour.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
You and I (and pretty much
> anyone else with ambition and a college education) could find much
> more regular work than that, making more than that, and without the
> requirement of going to training sessions and getting yelled at by
> players and fans.
eh, thats worth $25 an hour to me.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
$25 is nice to push a marginal observer over from
> "leisure" to "observe," but it's a drop in the motivation bucket, so
> to speak.
enough motivation for me. if only those that played werent so cheap
just think what a great deal they'd be getting.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Whatever they ask for and you can afford, I guess. That's how markets
> work, and there's more than one way to pay someone than with $$$.
well i ask for $25 (and thats per game not hour you dumbfuck). surely
they should be able to afford that.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Wait, you want to pay him $25/game, when he's willing to do it for
> free. Who's the sucker here?
i dont want to pay him jack. i aint the one payin in the first place
ya stupe. but by him doin it for free he's fuckin up my gig of makin
$25. ya see, people have already become programed to accept this
voluteerism thing as the standard and thats why the whole system is in
the crapper. and by bein in the crapper i mean nonexistant. same
thing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Is that what makes an observer?
> Yeah, that and a UPA certification.
shit! are you kiddin me. i've heard horor story after horor story of
the fucked up observers that have been set loose by the upa. upa
certification????? what a joke!
joad...@ec.rr.com
GEEK!!!
Colin
> On Dec 30, 3:20 pm, Colin <colinmcint...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Well, if I'm spending my time to go out and observe, I'm going to do
> > my very best. If I go out and give it a half effort, then I'm not
> > benefiting anyone and it's a waste of my time.
>
> but why shouldnt the players that benefit feel a sense of retribution
> to you for performing that service?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't get it. What would the retribution be? Pay me less next
time? Not pay me at all next time? Make me give the money back? How
does any of this affect me, if I was willing to observe for free in
the first place?
> My sense of
>
> > accountability comes from placing myself in the players' shoes and
> > knowing that an observer doing a bad job is worse than no observer at
> > all.
>
> but dosent that concept of "placing ones slef in anothers shoes" work
> both ways? i mean, the players are benefiting, shouldnt you benefit
> somhow as well?
------------------------------------------------------------
Yes. I benefit by getting observed by other observers in games that I
play in. It's a great system.
> And the benefit that I receive is having other observers do
> the same for me at other tournaments.
>
> well i never played on one game in which there were observers
> provided, much less provided for free. so the only pay back for me
> would be cash money!
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok. So cash money is the way to recruit observers who don't have
experience playing under observers and haven't played competitive
ultimate under the current rules? That is to say, it's not all about
you here. There are plenty of players/observers who could benefit
under the arrangement I described.
> > No. Giving them nothing is giving them nothing. Giving them a token
> > of your appreciation is giving them a token of your appreciation.
>
> what are you sugesting???? a 4 dollar tourny disc and a 2 dollar
> sandwich?
----------------------------------------------------------
Sandwich, disc, money, whatever. I already said I'd do it for free.
> > Some tokens are bigger than others. How much one needs to be paid
> > varies person-to-person.
>
> so does that mean you give/pay people based on what they want......or
> do ya just make it fair and equitable and standardize the payrate?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No. It means offering payment at a standard rate will not be
sufficient to attract some observers. And it would be foolish to
throw money around without determining that there was a large pool of
potential observers who would be attracted by the money.
> > So if I'm unavailable, you have to pay me enough
> > to convince me to cancel other plans, which may be a lot.
>
> and you dont think the arbatrary-ness of attaining observers in such a
> way wont make them, and the whole system, inconsistant at best and
> just plain bad at worst?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not saying that's what the system should be. I'm just saying
that's why your system would not work for me. It's not all about me,
but I'm confident that plenty of observers are in a similar boat.
> > Depends on my reason for not volunteering in the first place. My
> > price would easily exceed $25 per game, depending on the weekend. And
> > my price wouldn't be based on the number of games I had to work, but
> > rather the time I had to commit to being at the tournament instead of
> > doing whatever else I was planning to do. Chances are that I am
> > either available, regardless of price, or totally unavailable, except
> > at an extremely high price.
>
> see now that all a bunch of arbatrary bullshit that will never help
> the observer system get roots and improve in any progressive or
> consistant manner. cant you see colin, YOU are part of the problem!
Ok. Tell me what you want me to do to not be part of the problem and
explain how that resolves the problem without creating a new one.
Colin
> On Dec 30, 3:25 pm, Colin <colinmcint...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I disagree with Toad's claim that a good observer
> will do a bad job if volunteering, but a good job if paid.
>
> i didnt say bad.....i said they wouldnt be as good.
Fine. I disagree with that, too, and for the same reasons.
MRB
I am going to respond as Toad. There is a 45% chance he is responding
as I speak, so lets see if what I say (fictitiously) and he says
earnestly match up;
> You're conflating cost with selection. If I want a TV and Best Buy
> has it for $500 but Fry's has it for $400
U R dum. I kant beleeve u play a sport or goto collej. u must be gay
and perform homersexual sex for free u r so dum. I bet u want people
to giv u things for free and think that by volunteering u can change
the wordl.
> Accountability would be the UPA de-certifying your ass if you fuck up
> too much. If you weren't certified, you couldn't work for any price.
THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT I M SAYIN. YOU PAY DEH FEE AND GET DEH SERVISS.
> their training and rules changes. Sure it helps, but you're not going
> to motivate some super class of observers with that kind of money.
Now that's what I M talkin ;bout!!!!!!! Super-class observers. With
that kind of money I bet you could get dancing girls to; if we pay
them enough we can have pretty observers.
- Cheers.
MrP...@gmail.com
MrP...@gmail.com
> market rates to arbatrate any adult league competition is probably
> much more than $25 per game. but thats just a guess. i'm sure you
> have some facts on the matter.
I think we paid the ump $10 when we played club softball, I think that
was per team, so he got $20? That sounds about right.
> Assuming that the UPA is certifying
>
> > observers anyway, how are the ones that are getting paid more going to
> > be any more certified than the ones who are getting paid less?
>
> from what i hear from someone near the top is that the upa just trys
> to push people thru their certification process and arent as concerned
> with proper development. I'd bet if you were to get certified thru a
> clinic offered by mike g you'de learn more than from going thru the
> upa.
You hear a lot of things dude... On this point though, I tend to
agree - a UPA certification doesn't mean as much as I think we'd want
it to mean. Still, certification is a good idea, and until somebody
more credible than the UPA steps up, it's UPA certification that
people will be looking at. Part of the trouble seems to be the youth
of the program and the fact that the system is in flux. There are no
"vets" to pass down knowledge since no one's been doing it for that
long, and even if they had been, what they would've been doing
would've been something different anyhow.
I think everyone is right to expect that there will be improvement in
this area, and there already has been year-over-year improvement, so
that's a good sign. Surely not fast enough for you, but nothing could
be - you're a critic, which means you'll always find something to
criticize.
> yep, thats all its worth. i can be bought for $25 an hour.
But you post to RSD for free. Why is that? If you were observing
instead at least you'd get some fresh air and exercise.
> > Wait, you want to pay him $25/game, when he's willing to do it for
> > free. Who's the sucker here?
>
> i dont want to pay him jack. i aint the one payin in the first place
> ya stupe.
Oh, quit being dense, dude. You want to pay observers $25. Colin
wants to observe. If it helps you wrap your little head around the
situation, can we say "you would like to see observers paid $25, but
some, like Colin, would be willing to do it for free." You're
suggesting that others pay him $25, that still makes you the sucker,
not the others, since no one has taken you up on it.
> but by him doin it for free he's fuckin up my gig of makin
> $25.
Not exactly. Basic econ: price is set by the marginal player. So you
take all the observers in town, order them by the wage they'd require
before observing. If you need 10 and 5 are willing to do it for free
but the other 5 will only do it for $25, you've got to pay everybody
$25. The question then: how many observers are like Colin, and how
many are like you? The second question is: how many do you need? The
less you need, the less they'll cost, both in aggregate, and
individually.
> > Is that what makes an observer?
> > Yeah, that and a UPA certification.
>
> shit! are you kiddin me. i've heard horor story after horor story of
> the fucked up observers that have been set loose by the upa. upa
> certification????? what a joke!
And your alternative is? You and Mike G? Anybody else "qualified" in
your world?
~p
ager...@yahoo.com
> > long sleeve toad dyes to help lure in some observers.
> I would totally observe for some swag.
----me too!
joad...@ec.rr.com
> Ok. Tell me what you want me to do to not be part of the problem and
support pay rate standardization so that teams will get used to and
understand that this is an added expense that they will have to get
used to payin(because as you said, you are the exception). this way,
more and more people will take the effort to become active observers
and the whole idea of HAVING observers at more tournaments will become
commonplace and the sport will progress out of its silly "player
controled"/pick up style of game management process.
> explain how that resolves the problem without creating a new one.
well the only new one it would create would be that players are gonna
have to up an extra ten bucks per player, per event. How this is that
big of a problem i have no clue. what other problems would you see
coming out of the idea that most tournies are facilitating theire
tournies with observers in each and every game, the observer pools
spreading and growing tenfold and the quality of observing in general
(due to that management system being used waaaay more, possibly even
in summer league settings) drastically improving? these are
progressive solutions, not problems.
joad...@ec.rr.com
so you think the qulaity level of observers would be better?
that more observers would be attracted to observing?
and that the idea of the observer system becoming a standard feature
at random tournies will occur faster?
IF the current volunteer standard is kept in place???????? (as opposed
to offering bigger and bettere incentives for people to undertake the
task of observing? I 'm pretty sure that most of the college kids
that officiate college intramural sports get paid (how much i have no
clue) BUT, by your logic, they(college im programs) would be smart not
to pay em and run their systems on strictly a volunteer bases?????
joad...@ec.rr.com
what can i say, i'm conected
-----------------------------------------------------------
... On this point though, I tend to
> agree - a UPA certification doesn't mean as much as I think we'd want
> it to mean. Still, certification is a good idea, and until somebody
> more credible than the UPA steps up, it's UPA certification that
> people will be looking at. Part of the trouble seems to be the youth
> of the program and the fact that the system is in flux. There are no
> "vets" to pass down knowledge since no one's been doing it for that
> long, and even if they had been, what they would've been doing
> would've been something different anyhow.
dont forget about the rareity that they are even used (pointing at
their limited time for "on the job" training)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I think everyone is right to expect that there will be improvement in
> this area,
even when there are little to no standards, poeple have been programed
to believe this is a free service and (as said above) there is little
to no opportunity for on the job training??????
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>and there already has been year-over-year improvement,
not from what i read on rsd (or saw for myself on the recent webcast).
----------------------------------------------------------
so
> that's a good sign. Surely not fast enough for you, but nothing could
> be - you're a critic, which means you'll always find something to
> criticize.
i doubt i'm the only one thats critical of this snails pace movement.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> But you post to RSD for free. Why is that?
because i can do it from the comfort of my own home.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
If you were observing
> instead at least you'd get some fresh air and exercise.
eh, i could get that otherways on my own time schedule.
----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > i dont want to pay him jack. i aint the one payin in the first place
> > ya stupe.
>
> Oh, quit being dense, dude. You want to pay observers $25. Colin
> wants to observe. If it helps you wrap your little head around the
> situation, can we say "you would like to see observers paid $25, but
> some, like Colin, would be willing to do it for free." You're
> suggesting that others pay him $25, that still makes you the sucker,
> not the others, since no one has taken you up on it.
NO, it just makes the system stagnent and archaic. if i'm not the one
payin or not gettin paid, how does that make me the sucker?
Colin
No. You said that a given observer would do a better job if paid than
if he volunteered. And I disagree with that. Why would a very modest
wage cause an observer to do the job differently, when he was already
going to do it as a volunteer? How does that money create
accountability? Why would that observer volunteer, if he weren't
going to do as good a job as he could?
Now, your stronger point is that offering compensation to observers
might attract more observers, which in turn would allow us to be more
selective. That might be true, if it's the lack of compensation that
is keeping the pool of available observers small. But if the pool of
available observers is small because potential observers are playing
or are otherwise too busy, then the pay will have little effect (and
paying ALL the observers to attract only a few more would be a
waste).
I remember the UPA survey collected some data on this before. They
had a whole observer section of the survey. But I don't remember ever
answering a question like "How much would we have to pay you to get
you to observe a tournament instead of playing in it?" or "How much
would we have to pay you to get you to skip out on a family obligation
and observe?" or "How much would we have to pay you to get you to
reschedule a trip you'd been planning and observe instead?" This
would be valuable data to have. Worth dropping a line to whatever
strategic planning committee is in charge of this stuff.
faddy
the other day on espn for the beach tennis tourney?
beach tennis?? never had even heard of it before, yet it's gettin'
airtime.
seems to me the only reason ultimate isn't getting airtime IS the
system
by which the game is played. and yes, i would like to see it on the
air.
enemycom...@gmail.com
when you're done IM-ing with your frisbee friends can we go out and
toss the ball around for awhile?
thanks.
toad's son
Baer
I'm home sick so thought I'd write something...
I think that the debate about the number, quality, and potential
payment of observers is closely tied to the other things that we
always talk about: the culture of the sport and the mainstream
exposure/recognition of the sport.
It is reflected in the culture of the sport in that each and every
Ultimate organization, from the UPA down to our local leagues, is
dependent on volunteers to help keep the gears moving. Observers would
be no different, and as "frugal" (yes, Toad that means cheap!) as many
in the Ultimate community are, the idea of paying more for observers
will always encounter obvious resistance.
To compare to other recreational sports, softball leagues, soccer
leagues, little league baseball, etc all include extra fees for umps
and refs in their league fees. Of course, the participants (and their
parents) are willing to pay these fees because each of these sports
are recognized, accepted, and popular. To get to a point where
observers were standardized (and paid) in Ultimate, the sport needs to
become bigger, much bigger than it already is. This takes us back to
the UPA's mission and strategic planning, and the arguments that go
with those topics, so we are running around in circles here...
There are no quick, easy answers.
Despite this conundrum, however, it still makes sense to have
observers (eventually refs) at the highest levels of competition. At
other levels, I guess you gotta take what you can get, and keep
working for the betterment of the sport.
joad...@ec.rr.com
now if i knew you guys would be officiating i, for one, would be more
likely to come watch. but maybe, rather than the td's offering you
schwag, observing should work on a gratuity system, like waiting
tables or bartending........where the teams tip the observers based on
how goood the do??????
joad...@ec.rr.com
>
> No. You said that a given observer would do a better job if paid than
> if he volunteered. And I disagree with that. Why would a very modest
> wage cause an observer to do the job differently, when he was already
> going to do it as a volunteer? How does that money create
> accountability? Why would that observer volunteer, if he weren't
> going to do as good a job as he could?
maybe because that isnt really his kind of thing and he felt
obligated?? i dont know. could be a variety of reasons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Now, your stronger point is that offering compensation to observers
> might attract more observers, which in turn would allow us to be more
> selective. That might be true, if it's the lack of compensation that
> is keeping the pool of available observers small. But if the pool of
> available observers is small because potential observers are playing
> or are otherwise too busy, then the pay will have little effect (and
> paying ALL the observers to attract only a few more would be a
> waste).
well, it might be worth a shot. you'll(no one) will never know till
you try!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I remember the UPA survey collected some data on this before. They
> had a whole observer section of the survey. But I don't remember ever
> answering a question like "How much would we have to pay you to get
> you to observe a tournament instead of playing in it?" or "How much
> would we have to pay you to get you to skip out on a family obligation
> and observe?" or "How much would we have to pay you to get you to
> reschedule a trip you'd been planning and observe instead?" This
> would be valuable data to have. Worth dropping a line to whatever
> strategic planning committee is in charge of this stuff.- Hide quoted text -
ya know some people officiate sports for a living colin. why should
it be any dirrerent for ultimate? whats so inconcievable about older
active players making some extra money at local or even traveling to
regional college tournies. I think mike g makes some preety good coin
reffin hs b-ball. why isnt his time as valuable officiating ultimate
as it is basketball?
joad...@ec.rr.com
> I'm sure this response will get lost in the length of this thread, but
> I'm home sick so thought I'd write something...
>
> I think that the debate about the number, quality, and potential
> payment of observers is closely tied to the other things that we
> always talk about: the culture of the sport and the mainstream
> exposure/recognition of the sport.
>
> It is reflected in the culture of the sport in that each and every
> Ultimate organization, from the UPA down to our local leagues, is
> dependent on volunteers to help keep the gears moving.
but there are also many instances in which people are getting paid.
i'd also think that most tournies turn a profit of some sort.....and
maybe pay the td a nice little stipance. discraft makes money off
discs, all the ulti gear suppliers have to turn a profit, there are
quite a few paid staff positions with in the ups, no? tournament
could not happen without money.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Observers would
> be no different, and as "frugal" (yes, Toad that means cheap!) as many
> in the Ultimate community are, the idea of paying more for observers
> will always encounter obvious resistance.
how do you know? how does anybody know? Maybe the payscale should
just start a little lower that what i'm talkin about so teams arent
initially overwhelemed. they might find it to be more than a fair
price and the observers would eventually become more equitably
compensated.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> To compare to other recreational sports, softball leagues, soccer
> leagues, little league baseball, etc all include extra fees for umps
> and refs in their league fees. Of course, the participants (and their
> parents) are willing to pay these fees because each of these sports
> are recognized, accepted, and popular.
what that has to do with anything i cant understand but i must say, it
sounds like you are kinda slamming ulti for not being "recognized,
accepted or popular"? i thought the upa had studies suggesting
otherwise???
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To get to a point where
> observers were standardized (and paid) in Ultimate, the sport needs to
> become bigger, much bigger than it already is.
why? whats size got to do with it? the bigger it gets the bigger the
demand for more officials gets? So in that respect its all relative.
also, if you wait for it to get too much bigger it might have the
reverse effect than what you project and become even more overwhelming
of an udertaking than it is now.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This takes us back to
> the UPA's mission and strategic planning, and the arguments that go
> with those topics, so we are running around in circles here...
yea, better just quit discussing ti altogether. thats obviously the
best way to resolve the issue.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> There are no quick, easy answers.
how about the age old concept of trial and error?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Despite this conundrum, however, it still makes sense to have
> observers (eventually refs) at the highest levels of competition. At
> other levels, I guess you gotta take what you can get, and keep
> working for the betterment of the sport.
take what you can get? thats weak. i go by the make it how i want
philosophy.
admcco...@gmail.com
> On Dec 30, 3:25 pm, Colin <colinmcint...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> how is ten bucks per player for an entire tourny a "big cost". the
> "big cost" is in not having em out there to begin with. and just
> think of all the money youve saved to dat by cheapin out in the past.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I disagree with Toad's claim that a good observer
>
> > will do a bad job if volunteering, but a good job if paid.
>
> think the refs that officiate hs sports would be as good if they were
> just random voluteers with minimal training that were just plucked out
> of the stands pre game????? .......and so rarely used that they never
> got all that good at it to begin with??? if so, you are one ate up
> mf!
>
> Therefore,
>
> > I question whether payment of relatively modest wages is necessary.
>
> its called "accountability", dumbass. in reality, they should maybe
> be paid more, but ya got to start somewhere.
>
> I
>
> > don't think the value/cost ratio is high enough to justify it in many
> > cases. But it varies a lot depending on personnel and it's at least
> > worth discussion. What are you thinking?
>
> that you are a dumbass that cant see the big picture or have ANY
> understanding how shit in the "real world of sports" works!!!!
Just a point about the hs refs. As a former IHSA official (Illinois
High School Sports), I can say the entirety of our training was
reading a 20 page manual, taking an open book quiz, and paying dues.
That's about as minimal as you can get for officiating. And I know
your numbers are based on the idea of two observers per game, but
there's a reason that 4 are currently used in most tournaments.
Watching the lines and the players in order to make good rulings would
be tough for many officials. Again going back to wrestling,
important matches were reffed by two officials, and there were only
two guys in the match. Even then, these guys didn't get paid $25 per
match. They probably made $25-$50 for the entire tournament which
could go for two days. So maybe Ultimate players are cheap bastards,
but asking $25 per game makes me think you're basically a selfish
bastard. Either way, quality observers can be acquired for less money
if HS sports can get officials for less.a
ager...@yahoo.com
> tables or bartending........where the teams tip the observers based on
> how goood the do??????
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
---uhmmm...probably can't have officials in any sport working for the
highest tippers.....
joad...@ec.rr.com
>
> Just a point about the hs refs. As a former IHSA official (Illinois
> High School Sports), I can say the entirety of our training was
> reading a 20 page manual, taking an open book quiz, and paying dues.
> That's about as minimal as you can get for officiating.
what sport did you officiate and how much did you make per game (and
per hour)?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And I know
> your numbers are based on the idea of two observers per game, but
> there's a reason that 4 are currently used in most tournaments.
I would totally agree that 4 would work better and 6 would work best.
but ive also herd (from mike g) that a game can be suffeciently
managed with 2(tos). and if people cant ante up enough cash to fairly
compensate 2 how in the hell would they be able to afford 4?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Watching the lines and the players in order to make good rulings would
> be tough for many officials.
well i guess the ones that couldnt handle it wouldnt ge "tipped" to
well
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again going back to wrestling,
> important matches were reffed by two officials, and there were only
> two guys in the match. Even then, these guys didn't get paid $25 per
> match.
how much did they get then? i think mike told me he gets $75 per game
for b-ball. mike???
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They probably made $25-$50 for the entire tournament which
> could go for two days.
probably? so then you dont know for sure then, right? let us know
when you find out how much the "do" make.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So maybe Ultimate players are cheap bastards,
> but asking $25 per game makes me think you're basically a selfish
> bastard.
i'm a selfish bastard for want in to make a measly $12.50 per
hour???? when i can earn, on average, $50 an hour, working in the
trade of my profession? What per hour wage would you require of me
for you to not consider me selfish?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Either way, quality observers can be acquired for less money
how much less ($12.50 an hour is barley minimum wage, right?)? i
mean, what do you think a fair wage would be?.........for both sides?
-------------------------------------------------------------
> if HS sports can get officials for less.
well i dont think they can get officials in ANY hs sport for less than
$12.50 per hour.........and i disagree that more (or enough) quality
officials will EVER be attracted to officiating ultimate without SOME
kind of pay-rate standard. Maybe settin the standard at around the
same range intramural officials are paid would be appropriate??? And
i still cant figure out what makes the players believe that this is a
facilitation that they are that deserving of to where that large of a
number of voluteers would feel obligated to just sacrifice/dontate
their personal time for the sake of a bunch of out of town people they
dont even know.
joad...@ec.rr.com
you mean as in an official being persuaded to make calls that benefit
the teams that he knows will tip good? thats a good point. yet
another reason for accross the board standardization. there has to be
a way of awarding the officials that are better though. Maybe
allowing them to work the semi's and finals in which the payrate was
higher???? I would think thats how it works with other sports? any
insights on that aspect of officiating mike?
joad...@ec.rr.com
shut up and get me a beer!
Baer
>
> but there are also many instances in which people are getting paid.
> i'd also think that most tournies turn a profit of some sort.....and
> maybe pay the td a nice little stipance. discraft makes money off
> discs, all the ulti gear suppliers have to turn a profit, there are
> quite a few paid staff positions with in the ups, no? tournament
> could not happen without money.
Good points.
> > be no different, and as "frugal" (yes, Toad that means cheap!) as many
> > in the Ultimate community are, the idea of paying more for observers
> > will always encounter obvious resistance.
>
> how do you know? how does anybody know?
Based on the responses these dieas have gotten on RSD, and the
resistance we have already seen when suggestions are made toward
legitimizing the sport and/or giving observers/refs more influence.
> Maybe the payscale should
> just start a little lower that what i'm talkin about so teams arent
> initially overwhelemed. they might find it to be more than a fair
> price and the observers would eventually become more equitably
> compensated.
I can see that.
> what that has to do with anything i cant understand but i must say, it
> sounds like you are kinda slamming ulti for not being "recognized,
> accepted or popular"?
Exactly. Lots of work to do with this game!
> yea, better just quit discussing ti altogether. thats obviously the
> best way to resolve the issue.
That's not what I'm suggesting, of course.
> how about the age old concept of trial and error?
Yep!
joad...@ec.rr.com
.
>
> > how do you know? how does anybody know?
>
> Based on the responses these dieas have gotten on RSD, and the
> resistance we have already seen when suggestions are made toward
> legitimizing the sport and/or giving observers/refs more influence.
and your gonna let that hold you back? like i said.......weak!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > Maybe the payscale should
> > just start a little lower that what i'm talkin about so teams arent
> > initially overwhelemed. they might find it to be more than a fair
> > price and the observers would eventually become more equitably
> > compensated.
>
> I can see that.
well now that you see it, do it! or at least support it. shit, you
are the founder of the upra right? how do you expect to get to the
point of refs if you dont support and champion the standardization of
observers?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > what that has to do with anything i cant understand but i must say, it
> > sounds like you are kinda slamming ulti for not being "recognized,
> > accepted or popular"?
>
> Exactly. Lots of work to do with this game!
but that dosent mean you should just throw in the hat and accept the
standard excuses as to why, even in its present state, the sport cant
progress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > yea, better just quit discussing ti altogether. thats obviously the
> > best way to resolve the issue.
>
> That's not what I'm suggesting, of course.
kinda seemed that way to me.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > how about the age old concept of trial and error?
>
> Yep!
well........................we're wainting. whens your next scheduled
pick up/ practice game? and when is the next tourny you will be
td'ing? or league you will be organizing? If we cant expect someone
of your stance and position to spearhead a grass roots movement in
your area, then who can we expect to initiate such change?