The USFA may ruin something good. But why?

[Craig]

Sounds like this is the problem. Even Eric doesn't know why there is a problem, just that there is one.

Again, does anyone know what the problem is?

Said problem is most likely something that shouldn't be open discussion on a message board but worked out by the parties.

[dekko]

Said problem is most likely something that shouldn't be open discussion on a message board but worked out by the parties.

All due respect Craig, if it's the fact it's because he is not a member of the USFA then it affects much more and many more people, divisions, clubs, etc, than Eric Dew. If Eric Dew never again sniffs the sport of fencing or anything related to it, don't care.

I don't care why he's not a member. I don't care if he's never a member again, I do care if the problem here is because he currently is not a member.

The reason for the problem COULD be bigger than Eric if it's because he is not a member of the USFA. I do hope it's something else and not the fact he's not a member. But until I see it or hear it, I still want to know.

[achilleus]

All due respect Craig, if it's the fact it's because he is not a member of the USFA then it affects much more and many more people, divisions, clubs, etc, than Eric Dew. If Eric Dew never again sniffs the sport of fencing or anything related to it, don't care.

I don't care why he's not a member. I don't care if he's never a member again, I do care if the problem here is because he currently is not a member.

The reason for the problem COULD be bigger than Eric if it's because he is not a member of the USFA. I do hope it's something else and not the fact he's not a member. But until I see it or hear it, I still want to know.

If this is your concern, then have no fear. EDEW's suspension, which he talks about in another thread, IIRC, precludes him from participating, in any way, in official USFA sanctioned events or offices. No reffing, no holding elected position, no fencing, no BC, etc...

This is usually the case when a fencer is suspended. This is very different from a person, not a member of the USFA who is involved in the organization of tournaments...

And it's only a year, and he is still able to operate his fencing club. So, don't get your hopes up, he's still sniffing fencing, and will be able to return (if he wishes) to the USFA's good graces.

[counterattack]

I'm not in the Bay Area. I'm not privy to the conversations that the USFA powers that be have had over the BC, and I've heard many complaints firsthand from friends in the area. So, IMO, that is vocal criticism, and given the points made, from level headed people, seemed valid. The criticisms, while valid are/were in no way insurmountable for the BC to continue.

I guess I am in the same camp as Veeco. I fence here, I talk to people, I keep my ears open, and I don't come up with anything. I asked several people (including some of the very involved people whose names are some of the relelvant papers) and got nothing, really. If these people where the ones who led the charge then they did an about face when asked about it. So I still have heard nothing to answer my earlier questions:

Why don't you like the Bay Cup?
Who do you think is suffering from the current arrangement?
How could things be improved?
If you take the power from Eric, who do you propose to give it to and why are they any better?

Achilleus admits he knows some people's answers to some of these questions, but I see he is reluctant to post them (since he isn't a Bay Area fencer, then I very much respect his decision to not say). Craig agrees that a public forum is not the place to post about it, this I don't agree with. It is a problem that faces the fencing public, so I don't understand why a fencing public forum is not the place. I think the problem really stems from too much talking in private and too little talking in public.

[achilleus]

I guess I am in the same camp as Veeco. I fence here, I talk to people, I keep my ears open, and I don't come up with anything. I asked several people (including some of the very involved people whose names are some of the relelvant papers) and got nothing, really. If these people where the ones who led the charge then they did an about face when asked about it. So I still have heard nothing to answer my earlier questions:

Why don't you like the Bay Cup?
Who do you think is suffering from the current arrangement?
How could things be improved?
If you take the power from Eric, who do you propose to give it to and why are they any better?

Achilleus admits he knows some people's answers to some of these questions, but I see he is reluctant to post them (since he isn't a Bay Area fencer, then I very much respect his decision to not say). Craig agrees that a public forum is not the place to post about it, this I don't agree with. It is a problem that faces the fencing public, so I don't understand why a fencing public forum is not the place. I think the problem really stems from too much talking in private and too little talking in public.

I, personally, don't feel this the forum to air sectional politics and won't add to any such discussion. Craig, as stated above, doesn't feel this way either. Considering that this is Craig's board, and at least one post has already been deleted from this thread, you aren't likely to find the answers you're looking for here.

[misha]

The reason for the problem COULD be bigger than Eric if it's because he is not a member of the USFA. I do hope it's something else and not the fact he's not a member. But until I see it or hear it, I still want to know.

you may want to start here: Minutes of USFA Board

page 3, section C-1


.

[Feltan]

...The USFA ... is not trying to screw over Eric, the divisions near San Francisco, the fencers in that area, or fencers in general.

You are clearly correct. After all, they could have forced them to wear Lexan masks as penance.

Regards,
Feltan

[DieterS]

To the readers and contributors to this thread,

A lot of people that I know contributed to make the Bay Cup a terrific success and a model for other metropolitan areas in the US. I also contributed modestly to the project early on. But nobody had as clear vision, as strong a commitment, and worked as tirelessly as Eric Dew. I also remember the efforts made to interest the USFA in publicizing and proliferating this model--supported by the divisions involved--to raise the interest and quality of fencing in the U.S.

The Bay Cup has given a huge boost to fencing in the San Francisco Bay Area, and the fencing community and divisions involved in the Bay Cup owe you a big debt of gratitude, Eric. You were successful in proving your vision for local fencing despite the challenges of working with a highly diverse and independent group of people. I'm sure that it occasionally was about as much fun as herding cats. It's easy for people to make big plans or to criticize. It's quite another thing to successfully carry out a plan.

You may have gotten whacked by the USFA--richly deserved for all I know--but in my own business dealings with you, Eric, I was always impressed with how meticulous you were in being honest financially.

In light of the debacle of the Professional Fencing League, I can understand why the USFA should be concerned about financial accountability, especially as an organization grows larger. Nevertheless, this is still a free country and the USFA cannot legally exclude anyone from starting and running their own fencing business. While it would be interesting to determine who owns the rights to the Bay Cup name, that's not where *I* would want to go. In my opinion, for the time and organizational services you provided, it's ridiculous that you should receive less compensation than a director at a USFA tournament.

I think that it would be both appropriate and smart for the divisions that have benefitted from your hard work all these years to first establish the Bay Cup as a legal entity, and then to offer to compensate you as the administrator of the Bay Cup. Such an arrangement would benefit everyone.

Dieter

[counterattack]

I, personally, don't feel this the forum to air sectional politics and won't add to any such discussion. Craig, as stated above, doesn't feel this way either. Considering that this is Craig's board, and at least one post has already been deleted from this thread, you aren't likely to find the answers you're looking for here.

I understand you don't want to post. That is fine.

As for Craig, I took his comment as a personal opinion and not a request to end the discussion, or even a request for others who might know something to not post. I am sure Craig will feel free to disillusion me if I am wrong.

I suppose if I felt there were a local forum where all would become known and discussed before any big changes or decisions were made, I would agree that that would be the right forum. But I don't know of any such forum (I mean forum more generally than a web forum). Until the next divisional elections, no one is going to be asking for my input, so I feel I have to be aggressive about trying to find info and make my voice heard. If I could even get a straight answer about who exactly had the issues, I could talk to them outside the forum. But there is such a vacuum of straight talk that I can't even do that.

[edew]

I understand you don't want to post. That is fine.

As for Craig, I took his comment as a personal opinion and not a request to end the discussion, or even a request for others who might know something to not post. I am sure Craig will feel free to disillusion me if I am wrong.

I suppose if I felt there were a local forum where all would become known and discussed before any big changes or decisions were made, I would agree that that would be the right forum. But I don't know of any such forum (I mean forum more generally than a web forum). Until the next divisional elections, no one is going to be asking for my input, so I feel I have to be aggressive about trying to find info and make my voice heard. If I could even get a straight answer about who exactly had the issues, I could talk to them outside the forum. But there is such a vacuum of straight talk that I can't even do that.

Email me, edew@firstplacefencing.com. I'll give you some heads up.

[dekko]

If this is your concern, then have no fear. EDEW's suspension, which he talks about in another thread, IIRC, precludes him from participating, in any way, in official USFA sanctioned events or offices. No reffing, no holding elected position, no fencing, no BC, etc...

This is usually the case when a fencer is suspended. This is very different from a person, not a member of the USFA who is involved in the organization of tournaments...

And it's only a year, and he is still able to operate his fencing club. So, don't get your hopes up, he's still sniffing fencing, and will be able to return (if he wishes) to the USFA's good graces.

It's a slippery slope, he's not a 'member in good standing', not unlike countless volunteers, parents, etc, that help countless clubs around the country with events, tounrnaments and others. Again, don't care why Eric isn't a member and don't care if he's ever allowed back. IF, he is having these problems because he is not a 'member is good standing' of the USFA, like many others who help with events granted they weren't suspended for some reason, then the reason for the problem should be clarified. If it's part of his suspension, then clarify. If it's money problems, then clarify. If it's 'he's not a member and shouldn't be involved', then big problem. Again, this affects many more clubs, divisions, sections, etc around the country.

[counterattack]

So I still have heard nothing to answer my earlier questions:

1)Why don't you like the Bay Cup?
2)Who do you think is suffering from the current arrangement?
3)How could things be improved?
4)If you take the power from Eric, who do you propose to give it to and why are they any better?

So after much poking around, I have found some of these answers.

1) Nobody "doesn't like" the Bay Cup. There are some high-level philosophical differences about what they Bay Cup should be, and then the attendant mid-level disagreements about how things should be organized that have their roots in the high level disagreements. There is a lack of formal structure since so much was done ad hoc and as needed with Eric being the final arbiter. Without Eric, it means that the orginzation can't make decisions and satisfy the fencers that they were justified.

2) Lots of people suffer, but only a little bit. Some people's concerns with structure and goals are not addressed (e.g. how many events, how far scattered, which events). Everyone also suffers from the instability of an ad hoc system in a time, like right now, when there is a wrench in the plans.

3) Things can be improved by the divisions actually putting into writing an official description of what the Bay Cup is, what it wants, and what its rules are. The chairs of the three divisions are already at work on this. Also, it seems to me that the divisions themselves need to update their by-laws to reflect the existence of the Bay Cup and make some provision for its interdivisional nature. This has to be done carefully to make sure that USFA and sectional laws are also not broken. I think the USFA should look carefully at its bylaws also to make sure their aren't unnecessary restrictions on interdivisional and (not for the Bay Cup, but it can easily be imagined in the Northeast) inter-sectional circuits. Things can also be improved by people very carefully rereading their messages before they send them to make sure they are not being insulting or petty. Simply signing a letter "warm regards" doesn't take the sting off of personal insults, and people are plenty smart enough to see the subtle digs that creep into e-mail when you are angry.

4) There are pros and cons to a benevolent dictatorship like the Bay Cup has had. Though it is entirely possible to mess up the system by putting it into writing and putting it to committee, it seems to me that an attempt should be made to get a basic set of rules in effect that people can refer to and anyone can read to know how things should go and what to do when they aren't going as they should. We do have some very commited and intelligent people in the Bay, and as long as everybody stays calm, stays open to compromise, and keeps their eye on the shared goal of strengthening fencing in the Bay, I think this turmoil may turn out for the best.

Also, some of the claims about the USFA's involvement seem to have been overstated. Other than saying there might be problems with the way the fees were run (a fee to enter the series each season, plus a per event fee), and saying that Eric couldn't participate in any way, even through a proxy, the USFA doesn't really seem to have said much.

This brings up the last point which is that communication in the Bay seems to be done through an e-mail list. The system fails a little in getting info out. Some people aren't copied on everything, and some things that should probably have wider circulation than a list with 20 or so members never seem to get out, or get out through the grapevine with the corruption of info that is inherent to that method.


Just for reference, here is a list of some complaints I heard:

1) Too many events (constant tourney prep keeps fencers from focusing on long term goals)
2) Too few events (no women's Vet category and also 4-6 events might be better increased to 7+)
3) Events held by clubs that can't run them properly (often with the claim that they know they can't handle them, but they want the money the events raise).
4) Events running too late.
5) Events run improperly (USFA rules ignored).
6) Certain clubs being excluded from influence while others dominate
7) No standard for ref quality (i.e. some clubs don't hire good refs because they want to save money)
8) No choices for a division other than "sign up for the Bay Cup schedule" or "go it alone and ignore the Bay Cup".

[edew]

[...]
Just for reference, here is a list of some complaints I heard:

1) Too many events (constant tourney prep keeps fencers from focusing on long term goals)
2) Too few events (no women's Vet category and also 4-6 events might be better increased to 7+)
3) Events held by clubs that can't run them properly (often with the claim that they know they can't handle them, but they want the money the events raise).
4) Events running too late.
5) Events run improperly (USFA rules ignored).
6) Certain clubs being excluded from influence while others dominate
7) No standard for ref quality (i.e. some clubs don't hire good refs because they want to save money)
8) No choices for a division other than "sign up for the Bay Cup schedule" or "go it alone and ignore the Bay Cup".

C-attack, yes, these are the primary complaints. Let me address them:

1. It's simple: don't go to all of them, don't go to too many of them. Pick and choose the events you wish to attend.

2. At the first season of the Bay Cup, about 7 years ago, the proposal to have six events in each category was met by complaints that there aren't enough. "We should have a competition every other weekend." When calmer heads (me, in particular) explained that there aren't enough referees and venues to go around to offer that many events in one category, reason won out and we stuck with the 6 events (and now, 5 in the junior event categories).

3. We don't have standards for event locations. We certainly desire having correct-length strips with enough run-off space on both ends. Only a few clubs can meet this requirement (mine included). Also, a number of clubs claim to have 8 strips (or whatever) when in reality, they have 5 or 4 at best. The crowded conditions at such clubs when we have events that expect to use 8 strips made everyone unhappy (and I received a number of complaints after such events). To address this latter issue, we split more events this season by skill categories to limit the number of fencers in each event, thereby making the events more manageable at more clubs. It's much better this past Saturday at the Fall Fest Epee to have 28 fencers rather than 49 or so fencers like last season. The fencers get better competition and the event finished at a decent time (the sun was still up when the event more-or-less finished, and the gold medal bout wasn't moved into the dance studio with 35' long strips).

4. Events run late because clubs that can't handle large events choose them. #3's solution does help alleviate this problem as well.

5. I have written up a referee guideline, a fencer/spectator/coach guideline, and a tournament organization guideline. All three are available on the Bay Cup website and have previously been posted here for proofreading. I also distributed hardcopies of these guidelines at the Bay Cup scheduling meeting. The main problems are:

* Bout committee not being transparent with how the seeding process was done. Prior to the start of the competition, the host organizer is required to appoint several fencers or coaches and referees as members of the bout committee. The committee members will look over the seeding of the event to make sure that there's no obvious mistakes. Once they sign off on the initial seeding into the pools, then it's ready to go. Rarely do the host club do this. After the pools are completed, the bout committee personnel who tabulates the results from the pools must post the seeding list with name, V/B, TS, TR, IND listed to show how come fencer X is seeded above fencer Y. This must be done because obviously, clerical error may occur, especially since many such events are done by hand (and even if it's done on a spread sheet or event a software app dedicated to fencing results, such as fencing time or Xseed or whatever, GIGO still applies). There is absolutely no reason to be evasive at this step (it's a required step anyway, so it's not going to take anymore time).

* referees not knowing the rules. Covering target in foil are dismissed or ignored. Stepping off the side of the strip is not noticed. Referees not keeping score on some written or tracking system. On Saturday, one of my fencers lost a bout because his fifth touch was counted as his fourth by the referee. The referee did not keep score on a sheet of paper or otherwise. And the insult to injury was that he was holding on to the score sheet in a clipboard and had a pencil in his hand.

* scoring machines (or the scoring display) must be placed in the middle of the strip, with the strip between the machine and the referee. Some clubs have made efforts to achieve compliance to this USFA rule. At Stanford on Sunday, this rule was not under compliance. As it were, one of my fencers was screwed out of a parry-riposte, and another fencer (fencing against my fencer) was screwed out of a ONE LIGHT TOUCH. (One light, the referee gave it to my fencer. The subsequent action was one-light for my fencer, the referee gave it to the other fencer, but my fencer protested and so he got this touch, but he also got the previous touch which was not for him.) To many parry-ripostes where the referee can't see the lights at the end of the strip for verification.

6. A number of the smaller clubs are happy not to add their two cents in, because they're doing fine and enjoy the opportunity to fence in such a good environment. I would say the actual complaint is that there are some clubs who overly complain, and complain without merit.

7. I think the issue with refs is more of quantity than quality. This is certainly a weak point with the Bay Cup and must be properly addressed. A more important issue is hiring referees from outside the club. In the several events held at my club in previous seasons, I have always hired at least one, if not the majority of referees from outside my club. (Well, it's also that I don't have too many people who can adequately referee.) The fairly good pay for referees should help bring possible fencers into the refereeing cadre. But more importantly, host clubs must make a special effort to hire referees who are not from within the club.

8. I don't see the need for a choice. Why offer a losing proposition for a choice? The Bay Cup clearly offers a better program. Divisions have never been able to offer a good fencing program. And it's less work for the division. Division officers are volunteers who are usually asked to run for office and have little interest in doing more than the minimum. Here it is, a complete fencing program that's virtually turn-key. Why even consider an alternative?

[achilleus]

Why even consider an alternative?

This attitude, regardless of the personal issues and politics, is just wrong.

[edew]

Why is it wrong? After evaluating alternatives, why consider them after seeing that alternatives are far more inferior? And I'm not saying this because I'm very instrumental in the development of the Bay Cup. I'm saying this in general. Suppose you need a product to do X. You consider various items that can do X. You find item Y that does it so much better than any other item. It's not necessarily perfect, but among the alternatives, it does the job much better. After using Y for some period of time, why go back and re-evaluate among Y and the lot of poorer alternatives that you've already previously evaluated? Is there a moral obligation to revisit bad ideas hoping that they might get better?

Sounds like saying, "hmm, even though Natural Selection is such a good theory to explain evolution, let's look at some alternatives to see if they might work now...lessee...creationism, well,..."

[DanInMI]

Did Craig delete the thread in which Eric discussed his suspension? I have used the search function and have not been able to find it. I haven't been on here in a while and i guess I totally missed that.

[oiuyt]

Did Craig delete the thread in which Eric discussed his suspension? I have used the search function and have not been able to find it. I haven't been on here in a while and i guess I totally missed that.

As linked to earlier in THIS thread:
http://www.fencing.net/forums/fencin...on/t19347.html (Post #24).

It was a brief mention rather than an extended discussion, not surprised Search failed to yield results. Nor that you missed it originally, whether or not you've been reading regularly.

-B