One-question survey on Observer Roles
Peri Kurshan
we've prepared a one-question survey about the role of the Observer in
competition, and what, if any, guiding principle should direct changes
to that role.
please check out my recent blog post on the issue for more
information: http://upa-board.blogspot.com
or follow this link directly to answer the survey question:
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=bTMumRnj4IZ2DZadUqsh7Q_3d_3d
Thanks,
-peri
mvuong
So if we don't check off the box, does that count as endorsing the
opposite of the statement?
Joshua
survey questions are tough... but for Q6, you can check multiple boxes
and I think there are too many choices...
Everybody's a critique, I'm sure it involved input from a lot of
people... it will certainly provide some guidance
Baer
I'm not sure what you will be able to glean from this.
IMO, the options in the question are not very well worded. It might
have been more appropriate to have a separate question for each of the
options.
Does anyone else find it odd, that you are allowed to make multiple
choices, but almost every options says "Observers should only" do
this?
The question has six choices for limiting what Observers are able to
do but only one option that gives the possibility of expanding their
roles.
ulticritic
word!!!! there should be like 3 choices.......FOR, NEUTRAL OR
AGAINST. Personally i can do with out any of the spirit zealots
"guiding principals". Theres nothing sacred about ultimate.....or
sports in general for that matter......so any guiding principals of
how rules should be enforced should be soley based on whats mundane
and practical......and we all know it aint potg (practicality of the
game) that has stunted the "roles" progression and evolution. Its
that whole "spirit" thing that really seems to be throwing a monkey
wrench into the program.
ulticritic
> Good that you guys are reaching out to address this issue again,
again???? this is the first time ive EVER herd of them reaching out
to us for our oppinion on the role refs should take.......that wasnt
attatched to an hour and a half long survey anyways
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
but
> I'm not sure what you will be able to glean from this.
its not what they "will be able to glean"......its waht they "hope to
glean"......which is concrete support for the "guiding principal" that
THEY ALREADY subscribe to, flourish and promote to be justified
through this survey. I mean, do you really think they WANT this
info? my guess is that they are gettin presured into making such
moves, and in order to appear objective, they are throwing the
membership a bone as they would MUCH rather continue to blindly
represent us with this speculative "guiding principal" garbage while
pushing their own spirit centric agenda. Dont be fooled baer
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> IMO, the options in the question are not very well worded. It might
> have been more appropriate to have a separate question for each of the
> options.
they do have a history of asking loaded questions in which they are
fishing for specific answers. simplifying the answers to supportive,
neutral or unsupportive would prove to provide the best inital data.
Once general concesuses are reached THEN it would be prudent to
retrieve more detailed data.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Does anyone else find it odd, that you are allowed to make multiple
> choices, but almost every options says "Observers should only" do
> this?
i'd call it "telling", not odd. In fact, that line of questioning
from the upa has gotten pretty normal at this point......so really its
anything but odd........and its what i've, personally, come to expect
from them. now if by "odd' you mean "fucked up"......then i would
have to agree with you whole heartedly.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> The question has six choices for limiting what Observers are able to
> do but only one option that gives the possibility of expanding their
> roles.
and this surprises you?????????? you ARE aware that the upa
administration has historically been all about preverving the "player
control" aspect of rule enforcement within the sport.......arent you?
This is why its really just a matter of getting all those stale ole
spirit zealots THE FUCK OUTA those administrative positions and simply
replace them with more progressive and SANE thinking people. It WILL
happen all on it own organically......eventually.......BUT we could
MAKE it happen a lot sooner if we ACT........which essentially means
not puttin up with their archaic and agenda drivin bullshit
CBrowning
but extremely dissapointed in how they are being addressed. I found
the wording of the questions very confusing. I also don't see how you
can check more than one box, when every single selection started
"Observers should ONLY."
I also have to agree that I don't like that the UPA is / has based its
decisions on an overall idea of what an observer should be. It seems
like they had decided some time ago that an observer does not have an
active role, and forced all rules to meet that definition. As a
result, they stopped looking at whether or not active calls best met
the needs of the game. Instead, they were trying to decide if active
calls best met their ideas of what an observer should be. I feel like
the principals that should guide rules are ideas like flow of the
game, fairness of play, accurate rulings, sportsmanship, and even what
will make the experience the most enjoyable. If you have to redefine
your overarching principal every so many years, what's the point of
having an overarching principal?
ulticritic
> I was excited when I saw the UPA was addressing some of these issues,
> but extremely dissapointed in how they are being addressed. I found
> the wording of the questions very confusing. I also don't see how you
> can check more than one box, when every single selection started
> "Observers should ONLY."
but isnt this really just "par for the course" for them?
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> I also have to agree that I don't like that the UPA is / has based its
> decisions on an overall idea of what an observer should be. It seems
> like they had decided some time ago that an observer does not have an
> active role, and forced all rules to meet that definition.
not ONLY the rules but also the definition of the sport itself, policy
and, MOST IMPORTANTLY, this percieved "guiding principal" that peri
speaks of.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a
> result, they stopped looking at whether or not active calls best met
> the needs of the game.
not only stopped but activly campaigned AGAINST their(active callERS)
incorportation.......or even the simple utterance of the r-word for
that matter(which ironically best descibes their actual current
passive role). It was a sytematic effort to thwrt their (refs)
INclusion. why would a SPORT ever do such a thing? its religilous i
tells ya.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Instead, they were trying to decide if active
> calls best met their ideas of what an observer should be. I feel like
> the principals that should guide rules are ideas like flow of the
> game, fairness of play, accurate rulings, sportsmanship, and even what
> will make the experience the most enjoyable.
giddy fuckin up!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
---------------------------------------------------
If you have to redefine
> your overarching principal every so many years, what's the point of
> having an overarching principal?
ego
McB
Yeah, this is a really poorly designed (or intentionally biased)
question.
Heinousboy
Translating "No guilding principles" from UPA speak to English means
"keep an open mind" or "keep your options open."
So answer seven really reads
The UPA should keep an open mind about the role of observers and their
role should be allowed to change over time so the UPA can always keep
their options open for new posibilities which will enhance the
experience for players and fans of the sport of ultimate..
ulticritic
> Translating "No guilding principles" from UPA speak to English means
> "keep an open mind" or "keep your options open."
>
> So answer seven really reads
>
> The UPA should keep an open mind about the role of observers and their
> role should be allowed to change over time so the UPA can always keep
> their options open for new posibilities which will enhance the
> experience for players and fans of the sport of ultimate..
only the word "allowed" should be replaced with
"encouraged".........AND said change should be actually initiated and
facilitated by upa administrators(dont they claim to be the national
governing body of the sport?).....not independants like the uoa
Loppi
"Does anyone else find it odd, that you are allowed to make multiple
choices, but almost every options says "Observers should only" do
this?
The question has six choices for limiting what Observers are able to
do but only one option that gives the possibility of expanding their
roles."
These are the two main points I noticed upon reading the survey, which
I found downright confusing. After some thought and rereading the
survey I decided to vote for the option of removing the guidng
principle for Observers thus making it easier to change their roles
over time as deemed beneficial to the sport.
Heres my thoughts.
Once the board establishes a guiding principle based on member
feedback/suppourt/endorsement(typically a survey...may or may not be
"loaded" biased whatever) they constrain themselves to acting within
the guidelines of that principle lest they be percieved as acting
without member suppourt. I think it is good that the UPA is so careful
to "cover their ass" in terms of only making major changes after
seeking feedback and suppourt from its members. Sure ulticritic is
right that they can (and do) bias their surveys but it might be harder
than you think to create an unbiased survey. The benefit I see to
using member suppourted principles to govern the UPA's decision making
is that it allows the elected board to enact changes or programs
without having to clear everything past the members so long as they
believe their decisions support the guiding principles that the
members have endorsed. In my limited experience the UPA is typically
good about demonstrating what changes they make and what principles
those changes are operating within. More often then not they still
make sure to seek member feedback and support before making "major"
changes.
So if I'm suppourting the UPA's use of guiding principles why did I
vote to remove the Observer's guiding principles? Beause the
principles limit Observers to a passive and minimal role. I think
that at the competitive level where observers are used they should be
empowered somewhat and able to "officiate" the game in a larger role
and more actively. how much more? Not drastically for my taste but
thats more complex and cotentious than I'll get into. However, I don't
think empowering Observers at high level competition would lessen the
importance and prevalence of sportsmanship and good spirit at lower
competitive levels where games are not observed.
As several people have pointed out this survey would be a lot easier
to answer and more informative if it offered the opportunity to agree
or disagree with each option, and I think the examples could be
improved to clarify which calls are being addressed in each option.
Especially option 4 dealing with calls that "slow down the game" and
striking a balance. I really don't know what calls that is about.
It seems that Ulticritic among others whom I'm about to call "spirit-
hating reformists" feel like their view of ultimate is the obvious
correct and best view and that everyone who plays ultimate and is a
member of the UPA should suppourt their reforms lest they be labeled
"spirit-zealots" and deemed guilty of holding ultimate back from
reaching its rightful place alongside "mainstream" team sports.
The UPA has a very, VERY tough job in governing this sport that has
such a wide range of members ranging from the most relaxed,
recreational, "spirit-loving hippies" who seem to prioritize the
historically friendly community-laden and high-spirited atmosphere at
ultimate events to the most uptight, competitive, "spirit-hating
reformists" who want to move ultimate towards a sport that seems more
official/legitimate to the mainstream and who seem to prioritize
performance and bottom-line (score? ranking?) And of course everyone
inbetween. I commend their efforts to try and best serve their diverse
constituency in a mostly democratic and reasonable manner.
who was it said something like a good compromise leaves neither party
happy?
Joshua
this post reminds me of the survey
ulticritic
> hating reformists"
spirit hating reformists???? eh, not bad. I'm not offended. but
technically, it sounds like i'm someone that reforms spirit
haters.......where as i would consider myself more of one that is
trying to reform spirit lovers. And its not that i hate spirit....or
sportsmanship, its more that i just want to de-emphisize
it.....especially if that means adding refs.......which i'm pretty
sure would signify a de-emphisizeation of "spirit" to most ultimate
players and ALL spirit zealots, no?
---------------------------------------------------------
feel like their view of ultimate is the obvious
> correct and best view and that everyone who plays ultimate and is a
> member of the UPA should suppourt their reforms
well, it IS the fashion in which all other sports enforce rules and
manage competition.........so its not like its just some "made up"
idea........like sotg.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
lest they be labeled
> "spirit-zealots" and deemed guilty of holding ultimate back from
> reaching its rightful place alongside "mainstream" team sports.
its not that they get labeled that as much as they ARE that. The
hardcore spirit zealots are proud of their zealotry and dont refute
the "lable"........just like those "queers" that were "here"(meaning
"out of the closet" i guess). Its the half stepping fence dwellers
that find offense in the term......especially when its directed at
them.
>
> The UPA has a very, VERY tough job in governing this sport that has
> such a wide range of members ranging from the most relaxed,
> recreational, "spirit-loving hippies" who seem to prioritize the
> historically friendly community-laden and high-spirited atmosphere at
> ultimate events to the most uptight, competitive, "spirit-hating
> reformists" who want to move ultimate towards a sport that seems more
> official/legitimate to the mainstream and who seem to prioritize
> performance and bottom-line (score? ranking?) And of course everyone
> inbetween. I commend their efforts to try and best serve their diverse
> constituency in a mostly democratic and reasonable manner.
but thats the point loppi, when representing such a diverse group it
is imperitive that they dont show bias to one particular group or
another. In this particular situation the bias is as clear as the
nose on your face.......and while they should be comended for FINNALLY
reaching out to the membership the delivery of the line of questioning
was overtly bias towards preserving ultimates passive role.
And it baffels me to this day how they could interpret data which
states that 50% of those surveyed were actually supportive of ref
experimentation YET the admin feels that this is no reason to even
persue some experimentation in that field.
>
> who was it said something like a good compromise leaves neither party
> happy?
a fence dweller
jermleeds
> its not that they get labeled that as much as they ARE that. The
> hardcore spirit zealots are proud of their zealotry and dont refute
So let me see if I got this:
The folks you label 'spirit zealots' are proud of their zealotry
(let's call that 'opinions'), and not merely happy with playing a
sport they love under an officiation model they enjoy? Really? They
have to have this meta-satisfaction in holding the opinions they hold?
I think:
a. you project (as usual) and
b. that this is pretty easily refuted: "Anyone reading this like self
officiation but doesn't care whether other people know this about
them?" One person answers yes to that, and your assertion falls
apart.
> the "lable"........just like those "queers" that were "here"(meaning
> "out of the closet" i guess). Its the half stepping fence dwellers
> that find offense in the term......especially when its directed at
> them.
Really? Someone with a nuanced, well-considered, moderate opinion
about self-officiation would have a problem with a label that
misrepresents their position as one endpoint of the spectrum? Ya
think?
ulticritic
> On Oct 29, 2:44 pm, ulticritic <ulticri...@live.com> wrote:
>
> > its not that they get labeled that as much as they ARE that. The
> > hardcore spirit zealots are proud of their zealotry and dont refute
>
> So let me see if I got this:
>
> The folks you label 'spirit zealots' are proud of their zealotry
no, just the hard core ones that are in opposition to even observers
in ulti. Its you flim flammers that are in fact ashamed of that label
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> (let's call that 'opinions'), and not merely happy with playing a
> sport they love under an officiation model they enjoy? Really? They
> have to have this meta-satisfaction in holding the opinions they hold?
well, there are all kinds BUT some of the spirit zealots fly the
spirit flag with a little more (or should i say "a lot" more)
vigor......so its all relative.
------------------------------------------------------
> I think:
>
> a. you project (as usual) and
> b. that this is pretty easily refuted: "Anyone reading this like self
> officiation but doesn't care whether other people know this about
> them?" One person answers yes to that, and your assertion falls
> apart.
well, its kinda like how mike g tells people that hes going to
"officiate" ultimate rather than "observer" it because the term
"observing" sounds goofy? I think liking self officiation is kinda
like fuckin a fat chick or ridin a moped.......might be fun to do, but
you dont want to get caught ont top of one.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > the "lable"........just like those "queers" that were "here"(meaning
> > "out of the closet" i guess). Its the half stepping fence dwellers
> > that find offense in the term......especially when its directed at
> > them.
>
> Really?
yes.............really!
-----------------------------------------
Someone with a nuanced, well-considered, moderate opinion
> about self-officiation would have a problem with a label that
> misrepresents their position as one endpoint of the spectrum?
any well considered moderate opinionated person wouldnt have a problem
with refs in a sport.........and anybody that IS against refs in a
sport (even if its by being FOR observers in a sport) should fully
expect to get a "kooky" label........which in no way shape or form
would be misrepresentative.........of the kooky-ness of it all that is
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ya
> think?
nope........I KNOW!!!!!!!!!
ulticritic
> On Oct 29, 6:21 pm, jermleeds <jermle...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 29, 2:44 pm, ulticritic <ulticri...@live.com> wrote:
>
> > > its not that they get labeled that as much as they ARE that. The
> > > hardcore spirit zealots are proud of their zealotry and dont refute
>
> > So let me see if I got this:
>
> > The folks you label 'spirit zealots' are proud of their zealotry
>
> no, just the hard core ones that are in opposition to even observers
> in ulti. Its you flim flammers that are in fact ashamed of that label
Bobus
> with refs in a sport.........and anybody that IS against refs in a
> sport (even if its by being FOR observers in a sport) should fully
> expect to get a "kooky" label........which in no way shape or form
> would be misrepresentative.........of the kooky-ness of it all that is
I would bet most people understand your argument for refs, but simply
have a preference for self-officiation (along with observers at the
higher levels), with many of them having already experienced full-
blown 3rd party arbitration in other sports as a basis for their
"nuanced, well-considered, moderate" opinion.
But there's only one person who spends all day barking incessantly and
single-mindedly about their view on the topic, without listening to
anyone else's opinion, even when those other people are twice as smart
as they are and can actually spell...
So, remind us, who's the zealot again? Yeah that's what I thought...
Heinousboy
Sounds like you are.
ulticritic
>
> I would bet most people understand your argument for refs, but simply
> have a preference for self-officiation
dont mistake "preference' with "tolerance". Its not like they have
any other options though eh? as far as being able to play ultimate in
any other form other than self officiated
---------------------------------------------------------------------
(along with observers at the
> higher levels), with many of them having already experienced full-
> blown 3rd party arbitration in other sports as a basis for their
> "nuanced, well-considered, moderate" opinion.
eh, they are all sheep......and theyll go where ever they are lead.
tell me this.....when ultimate has refs at most every level (like all
other sports) will peoples' preference for that be nuanced, well
considered and moderate? what the fuck does it mean to be "nuanced"
anyways.........nor why it would be anything anybody would want to be
"considered"
-------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> But there's only one person who spends all day barking incessantly and
> single-mindedly about their view on the topic, without listening to
> anyone else's opinion, even when those other people are twice as smart
> as they are and can actually spell...
i dont necessarily think that remembering the order and sequence of
letters in words equates to "smartness"......and definitely not
"street", or "business" smartness.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> So, remind us, who's the zealot again? Yeah that's what I thought...
i never said i wasnt a zealot. i'm a total ref zealot if their ever
was one. whats your point?
Bobus
> was one. whats your point?
That you're the only zealot out here.
Bobus
>
> Sounds like you are.
Zing! Sweet burn!
ulticritic
pffft, hardly