For everyone planning to attend a tourney in North Carolina

[oiuyt]

Too hilarious.

Could this be part of the problem? :cool2:

No. Reviewing the FRED listings, my results in the epee and foil events are (correctly) listed, I'm (correctly) not listed in the sabre results. I don't show up on any other NC results.

One correction to my previous post, there were THREE A's (not including myself) even after I chose not to fence. It was still a B2 competition.

-B

[Padawan]

No, that is not the problem. Actually only one event was A rated since we started them this season. The rest were B and below. The A rated only was last month and the results are on askfred.

[Mr Epee]

No. Reviewing the FRED listings, my results in the epee and foil events are (correctly) listed, I'm (correctly) not listed in the sabre results. I don't show up on any other NC results.

-B

I had already looked at it, but still thought it was amusing.

If I was working to have an event resanctioned, I would be pretty damn sure to fact check the ratings of an event BEFORE posting about the subject.

Makes sense to me... maybe not everyone.

[Conscience]

The reasons regarding unsanctioning of events were given at the Divisional meeting for North Carolina. I think NC is a prideful state and they are embarrassed by all of this and therefore have not given out a lot of details so as not to publicly embarass those involved.

Is it hard to get a Division officer at an event in NC? That is all you have to do to be resanctioned.

NC has always been a friendly state to me.

~C

[oiuyt]

Is it hard to get a Division officer at an event in NC? That is all you have to do to be resanctioned.

If they're all a couple of hours away and/or otherwise busy it could very easily be difficult for clubs that don't have a member officer.

Most recent list of officers on the division website is from 2003-2004 and doesn't include locations or club affiliations, so it's hard to judge from here what potential difficulties there might be.

-B

[Padawan]

I think that it is funny that only a NC division officer is allowed to be there to sanction the event. I would wonder why other division officers from other divisions could "ensure" usfa rules were followed properly. As for the other officers. They belong to other clubs located outside our neck of the woods. Some of their fencers have been to the tournaments we have hosted. I find it funny that an officer for a not-for-profit organization can unsanction tournaments for other for-profit organizations but re-sanction a tournament at his clubs for-profit organization. Follow that logic if you can, can you say conflict of interest?

[tbryan]

Most recent list of officers on the division website is from 2003-2004

FWIW, that's the current officer list. It's the year that's out-of-date.

and doesn't include locations or club affiliations, so it's hard to judge from here what potential difficulties there might be.

Looks like AAFC, RFC, DFC, and Midsouth. That's Fayetteville, Raleigh, Greensboro, and Southern Pines/Pinehurst, respectively. There's an officer within a 2 hour drive of most clubs in the state ("most" by by fencer population if not by club). I think that the issue for organizers is going to be guaranteeing an officer's attendence at an event this late in the season.

If this policy is in force next season, I imagine that the NC schedule is going to have a lot of unsanctioned events or drastically fewer tournaments. The latter might actually serve the division well. We've had a "problem" with many small events and almost no large events in the division. Perhaps this issue will have the side effect of creating fewer events that are better attended next season.

[Padawan]

Well, if is in force next season our employment contracts for our instructors are going to have to change drastically.

[Conscience]

If I were an officer I would not want that job of "policing" events.

"I find it funny that an officer for a not-for-profit organization can unsanction tournaments for other for-profit organizations but re-sanction a tournament at his clubs for-profit organization. Follow that logic if you can, can you say conflict of interest?"

I don't get what you are saying. You must have lost sanctioning of your event(s) and can't get an officer to attend? That doesn't seem fair. Why won't they attend your event?

[tbryan]

Well, if is in force next season

Yeah, no clue.

Gerhard's message said "effective immediately," but it didn't hint at any cut-off date. I just assumed that he would have said "until the end of the season" if the officers were sure that it was just a temporary measure. The message gave me the impression that this policy would be in effect for a while. Perhaps there will be more information from the board later this season or as the new board takes over in August.

[Padawan]

If I were an officer I would not want that job of "policing" events.

"I find it funny that an officer for a not-for-profit organization can unsanction tournaments for other for-profit organizations but re-sanction a tournament at his clubs for-profit organization. Follow that logic if you can, can you say conflict of interest?"

I don't get what you are saying. You must have lost sanctioning of your event(s) and can't get an officer to attend? That doesn't seem fair. Why won't they attend your event?

Good question, I would like to see their reply.

[Conscience]

Good question, I would like to see their reply.

What did they say when you asked them to attend?

[RebelFencer]

I think that it is funny that only a NC division officer is allowed to be there to sanction the event. I would wonder why other division officers from other divisions could "ensure" usfa rules were followed properly. As for the other officers. They belong to other clubs located outside our neck of the woods. Some of their fencers have been to the tournaments we have hosted. I find it funny that an officer for a not-for-profit organization can unsanction tournaments for other for-profit organizations but re-sanction a tournament at his clubs for-profit organization. Follow that logic if you can, can you say conflict of interest?

If it's a problem, what's standing in your way of running for office?

[bigdawg2121]

Actually the MSFC is currently really operating near Greensboro after some job changes I believe. Which is essentially Fayetteville, Greensboro, Greensboro, Raleigh and also puts most of the officers within what, maybe 20-30 min of the Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill Triangle area? I also don't find it too hard to imagine that the 3 hr drive on such short notice might not feasible for them on this short of a notice. (Sorry I'm sure how far the drive is for Guerhard, but could still very well be busy.) A few of the tournaments do seem to have been resanctioned, it seems they're trying to do what they can. Unfortunately for the one this weekend it's going to be hard to convince a pool of people to get in a car to go to an unofficial tournament. (Also I hear the mall is a little slippery and I'm still kind of nursing something. What's the truth to that since you appear to be monitoring the thread?)

If this policy remains next year I suppose it could possibly lead to larger tournaments...or just people not fencing. There would probably be a need to distribute tournaments such that the majority occur in the Triangle and Charlotte with fewer events allowed at smaller clubs (like APP, CFFA to some extent, that club that Beowulfman is in...), which could seriously hurt the development of some of those clubs. Either that or there would be more unsanctioned events but who really wants to go to those, especially regularly?

[Mr Epee]

It is common practice for Divisions to require an elected officer to be present at sanctioned events. Don't feel too persecuted.

Surely you can see the problem with having unsupervised events that are not validated by anyone except the host club who has a significant stake in the event and it's reputation.

[RebelFencer]

The mall actually isn't too slippery. If you don't have enough padding it might be a bit rough, but I've fenced on much more slippery gym floors.

[Padawan]

Our schools are a for profit company. It may be considered a conflict of interest if we say got all of our instructors elected to office. So, in order to avoid a "pissing" contest we have decided not to have anyone from our organization run for a USFA office. However, if it becomes USFA policy to have a division office present at "sanctioned" events we will have to either:

1. Have one of our people run for office (getting elected should be easy with over 120 members).
2. Hold our tournaments without the sanctioning of the the USFA (in NC).

We really have better things to do with our time, like recruit people into the sport of fencing, train people to be competitive fencers, put fencing on television to make it a more mainstream sport. Granted these are our priorities, I don't know what other peoples priorities are.

[tbryan]

The mall actually isn't too slippery. If you don't have enough padding it might be a bit rough, but I've fenced on much more slippery gym floors.

I was worried less about slippery than the impact on my feet and joints. What do you think? In terms of impact/hardness, was the mall floor better, worse, or about the same as the floor in Birmingham at Sectionals?

Yeah, I'm spoiled by fencing on the raised strips in Raleigh and Chapel Hill.

[RebelFencer]

1. Have one of our people run for office (getting elected should be easy with over 120 members).

Hopefully they have family memberships, because you have to be at least 18 to vote.

EDIT::Also, it appears that without the USFA sanctioning it is going to be hard to attract any high level competitors to the tournament, which seems like it may interfere with a few of your "goals."

[Padawan]

It is common practice for Divisions to require an elected officer to be present at sanctioned events. Don't feel too persecuted.

Surely you can see the problem with having unsupervised events that are not validated by anyone except the host club who has a significant stake in the event and it's reputation.

Yeah, but what I don't understand is, if a division officer is there from another division is that not supervised? I would like to believe that the officers from SC and TN are not thought of as "lesser officers".