New England Division will no longer sanction Charitable Events

[Emfuser]

Seriously, actions have consequences. Sometimes the consequences are dumb, illogical, or easy to avoid. Just because potential consequences are one of those things doesn't mean that they're not potential consequences.

I may be alarmist in my concerns about potential consequences. That's totally on the table. I really hope I am, in fact. But please either suggest a way that I could argue that something bad might happen based on things we do today without committing a fallacy (in your world), or argue that actions don't actually have consequences.

The answer is quite simple, actually. You need to have some sort of substantial basis for the belief other than just your imagination or a sample group of one. One can sit endlessly and attack postulated scenarios, but that accomplishes nothing.

[noodle]

this thread's argument is melting my brain

[epeemike81]

this thread's argument is melting my brain

Which one? there are multiple brain meltingly terrible arguments in this thread...

-m

[MyrddinsPrecint]

The answer is quite simple, actually. You need to have some sort of substantial basis for the belief other than just your imagination or a sample group of one. One can sit endlessly and attack postulated scenarios, but that accomplishes nothing.

So, you try to attack me based on logical structure, and fail. It turns out that if my structure had been wrong, that's all you need for a half decent counterargument.

On the other hand, after you fail in that regard, saying "it turns out your assumptions are dumb! hah!" isn't.... really... a counterargument.

Sorry, try again?

Really, it shouldn't be too hard. I'm too emotional on this particular issue to believe that I'm being thorough or logical. I want to be happier with this event than I am, I really do. I just haven't been convinced yet.

[Emfuser]

So, you try to attack me based on logical structure, and fail. It turns out that if my structure had been wrong, that's all you need for a half decent counterargument.

On the other hand, after you fail in that regard, saying "it turns out your assumptions are dumb! hah!" isn't.... really... a counterargument.

Sorry, try again?

Really, it shouldn't be too hard. I'm too emotional on this particular issue to believe that I'm being thorough or logical. I want to be happier with this event than I am, I really do. I just haven't been convinced yet.

Your logic is just a scare tactic. "We can't do this or something bad (but unlikely or undefined) might happen" doesn't amount to much of an argument at all. I may have my fallacy detector off-calibration due to too much coffee and too little sleep, but I can still see a ping on the radar, even if it's fuzzy. However, like I said prior, that's not even the real topic at hand, it's a distractor. Potential consequence for which there are no substantial evidence to support them don't mean anything.

While you may have a vested interest in all of what's going on, I certainly do not. I'm just here for the hell of it to engage in some light debate and feeling out what another division elsewhere does. I find that there is a lot of beating around the bush and usage of distracting topics throughout the course of the thread to detour from the more straightforward, but perhaps less popular or less palatable reasons why charitable events in your division are being denied sanctioning. My primary interest is not to argue on the behalf of Mr. Tarascio, but to encourage the division to be more straightforward in explaining why it made the decision.

[mtarascio]

I believe that the fencing community as a whole benefits by sanctioning competitions that are 100% dedicated to charity.

For a moment, lets forget about classification increases as this is not the reason I wanted sanctioning in the first place.

We are all interested in having our sport grow. Fencing does not get enough media exposure. By conducting charitable events, we are able to get more exposure which is good for all of us.

Also, as the demographics of recreational/competitive fencing evolve and change, so have the opportunities for fencing to grow and to contribute to society in this positive manner and example.

[oso97]

I believe that the fencing community as a whole benefits by sanctioning competitions that are 100% dedicated to charity.

As a follow up to the commentary about the need for a uniform sanctioning policy across the country, let me address this exact point.

One of the premier tournaments in the Southwest Section is held in the Ark-La-Miss Division each year, and benefits the Rose Condon Memorial Scholarship Fund. Ratings are earned.

Shortly after Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans, the clubs of the North Texas Division got together to hold a benefit tournament to provide money to help clubs rebuild. Similar tournaments were held in Ark-La-Miss, South Texas and Gulf Coast Divisions. Ratings were earned.

This year, two clubs in North Texas are getting together to hold a combined RYC and SSCC event. The proceeds will benefit the Wang Scholarship Fund. Ratings will be earned.

Couple of years ago, a "Fence for the Cure" event was held in Shreveport, Louisiana. Had the results of the event warranted, ratings would have been earned.

So, its not impossible to have a charity event in which ratings are earned. Just impossible in New England.

[MyrddinsPrecint]

Your logic is just a scare tactic. "We can't do this or something bad (but unlikely or undefined) might happen" doesn't amount to much of an argument at all. I may have my fallacy detector off-calibration due to too much coffee and too little sleep, but I can still see a ping on the radar, even if it's fuzzy. However, like I said prior, that's not even the real topic at hand, it's a distractor. Potential consequence for which there are no substantial evidence to support them don't mean anything.

{snip}

My primary interest is not to argue on the behalf of Mr. Tarascio, but to encourage the division to be more straightforward in explaining why it made the decision.

I think I've made it clear that I'm open to discussion of my points. When you want to suggest that a specific thing that I've said is factually incorrect, or so unlikely as to be past the point, I'll be happy to pay attention. Until then, your argument is the equivalent of pointing, laughing, and telling me I'm wrong.

It's unlikely that I could be straightforward in explaining why I made the decision, as I wasn't even there, never mind responsible for the decision. The person who posts here who was both of those things has been straightforward, on a number of occasions, in this thread. Or did you just not feel like reading it? In any case, if that's your primary interest, you've succeeded, your job is done. And if you don't feel it's been done sufficiently, you should explain why.

It's clear you disagree with the decision, but it certainly has been made clearly, openly, and motives have been discussed.

I believe that the fencing community as a whole benefits by sanctioning competitions that are 100% dedicated to charity.

For a moment, lets forget about classification increases as this is not the reason I wanted sanctioning in the first place.

We are all interested in having our sport grow. Fencing does not get enough media exposure. By conducting charitable events, we are able to get more exposure which is good for all of us.

Also, as the demographics of recreational/competitive fencing evolve and change, so have the opportunities for fencing to grow and to contribute to society in this positive manner and example.

I believe that the fencing community as a whole benefits by having competitions that are dedicated to charity, and benefits from having people who want to help charities.

You still haven't answered some of our most pressing questions-

Is this a charity event that happens to include fencing, or a fencing event that happens to involve a charity?

What, other than classification increase you swear you don't care much about, is important to you about being a "sanctioned" event??





I think the word "sanction" is a bit like "feminism" at this point---- we might want to look into changing the word we use, because the word we've got is overloaded with meaning, and people are getting all upset about stuff that really isn't there.

[seak]

But the only difference between an unsanctioned event and a sanctioned event is ratings, and in NE the division taking on the risk. The larger community does not even care. Now if they weren't putting it on their calendar that would be an issue, or encouraging people not to go etc.

[noodle]

What, other than classification increase you swear you don't care much about, is important to you about being a "sanctioned" event??

when all your money goes to a charity, a rating instead of a prize is a good substitute.

[Emfuser]

I think I've made it clear that I'm open to discussion of my points. When you want to suggest that a specific thing that I've said is factually incorrect, or so unlikely as to be past the point, I'll be happy to pay attention. Until then, your argument is the equivalent of pointing, laughing, and telling me I'm wrong.

You state reasons of not sanctioning for fear of fraud. Has this ever happened in your division? Do you have any instances anywhere of a club in a division structured similarly to NE using a charitable event as a front to hold a tournament and not pay the division, taking all the money themselves instead? That's the sort of substance you need for your argument to bear any legitimacy.

It's unlikely that I could be straightforward in explaining why I made the decision, as I wasn't even there, never mind responsible for the decision. The person who posts here who was both of those things has been straightforward, on a number of occasions, in this thread. Or did you just not feel like reading it? In any case, if that's your primary interest, you've succeeded, your job is done. And if you don't feel it's been done sufficiently, you should explain why.

It's clear you disagree with the decision, but it certainly has been made clearly, openly, and motives have been discussed.

See post 60. I found the mention of what are likely the only real motives to be wishy-washy and oblique.

[fdad]

What part of "the New England Division won't sanction Charity Events" are people not understanding?

I do not understand how "Charity Events" are defined for the purpose of this rule. Is it any tournament organized by a tax exempt organization? Any tournament not charging entry fees? Any tournament not organized by a club?

What is to prevent FABC from paying $40, finding 10 members, and registering itself as a club? Does the NEUSFA believe it is endorsing a club and its ownership (and what they do with thier money) by sanctioning tournaments at that club?

I believe that you will find the two posts below have reasons that are FAR from specific to this tournament. In fact, the major reasons we don't want to sanction these events have nothing to do with these events and everything to do with the precedent set and the fact that it would put the board in position of choosing which charities are worthy and which are not.

You will also find that the posts below address your question about a normal sanctioned event in conjunction with solicitations of donations. Reading the thread: it helps with understanding it.

Thanks for trying to help me read. I still don't think I have your level of skill yet though.

Your message that "addresses" my questions ...

This, in fact, was a key argument against sanctioning charitable events in the first discussion. It would also, btw, create a situation where certain clubs get preferential treatment. For example, Boston Fencing Club is a 501c non-profit. RIFAC is not. What's to stop BFC from declaring all sanctioned events they host "charity" events and not having to pay the division sanctioning? RIFAC, not being a "charity" doesn't have that option.
Speaking only for myself, not the rest of the EC, I would have absolutely no problem sanctioning this event as a standard division event with the standard fee structure associated with it.

Fundraising in the same location and in conjunction would bother me not a bit.

I would, frankly, still have issues with a made up category like "30+ women's foil" granting ratings, but that's above my pay grade (and I'm told the USFA signed off on it).

My problem in understanding how this addresses my question is ... I asked what the ruling in NEUSFA meeting minutes "the Division’s vote not to sanction charitable events " meant with respect to various interpretations of charitable events. The term charitable events is not explained. Your response is expressly "Speaking only for myself, not the rest of the EC", and is not reflected in the ruling or the meeting minutes.

[MyrddinsPrecint]

when all your money goes to a charity, a rating instead of a prize is a good substitute.

Most events like this in the area don't tend to have prizes anyway, and medals could be donated if that was the issue. But he's claimed that ratings aren't the important part of sanctioning. It doesn't seem to be the ref support, the assumption of risk, of advertising either, as they have refs, swore the division wouldn't have any risk, and the division is still helping to publicize the event.

If ratings aren't the important part, what is????

You state reasons of not sanctioning for fear of fraud. Has this ever happened in your division? Do you have any instances anywhere of a club in a division structured similarly to NE using a charitable event as a front to hold a tournament and not pay the division, taking all the money themselves instead? That's the sort of substance you need for your argument to bear any legitimacy.

Mismanagement of money happens regularly in charities across the country. Mismanagement of money happens in fencing, when a club goes under, when the National Office fails to pay refs in a timely manner...

There are a few divisions that have large problems deciding schedules, and everyone goes home unhappy, and then things get posted about it on fencing.net. See New Jersey.

It seems that when we combine the politicization of scheduling-- a well known phenomenon-- with another well known phenomenon-- how easy it is to mismanage money even when there are the best of intentions-- there is risk. Part of my job this summer was the management of risk within a major corporation, and part of the discussion about the national office has been about management of risk.

But you want to suggest that unless the New England Division itself has had an instance of charity related fraud, worries that it might happen aren't valid. Um, what? I haven't died yet, but I'm pretty sure that it's something that I should be concerned about before I attempt to jump off a bridge.

I do come at this from a risk management perspective. I do want to stop a potential problem before it becomes one. By your preference, we would only stop a problem after it was actually a problem. I... think that's silly.

See post 60. I found the mention of what are likely the only real motives to be wishy-washy and oblique.

Check post #63, the one in response to post 60. Make a new point, or concede it. Or ignore it. I don't really care. It was a while ago, there's been some additional information since then.

[oiuyt]

At the risk of being pulled in (and brain-meltage)...

You state reasons of not sanctioning for fear of fraud. Has this ever happened in your division?

No one has suggested fraud. You have misread those statements and been corrected a couple of times.

The question is where to draw the line on which completely-legitimate charities may hold events outside of the standard structure which NE Division has chosen to use for organizing and sanctioning events in their territory.

The division EC has chosen to draw the line such that none are allowed. This is not to prevent fake charities from sneaking in. It's to avoid having to make case-by-case rulings with the expected significant disagreements and inconsistencies that would be nearly inevitable without a standard that can be equitably applied to all such applications.

Boston Fencing Club is a charity. They are recognized as such by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the Federal Government. If charity events were generally allowed, their holding such an event to their own benefit would not be fraudulent.

What is to prevent FABC from paying $40, finding 10 members, and registering itself as a club? Does the NEUSFA believe it is endorsing a club and its ownership (and what they do with thier money) by sanctioning tournaments at that club?

New England Division uses a structure which is uncommon elsewhere. ALL events within the division are run by the division. Clubs don't run events on their own. FABC could become a club. Or, more to the point, New England Fencing Alliance, which conducts FABC, is a US Fencing club. Presumably they have at least 10 members. In New England Division that alone is not sufficient to run any event as a sanctioned tournament.

In some divisions all events are run by clubs. In some divisions there are both club-run and division-run events. In New England division all events are division-run.

If you are familiar with a division using the hybrid approach, just imagine the same thing, but with all of the dozens of events throughout the division being run the way the few division-run events are. That's what NE Div does.

There are people who very much dislike the tournament structure in New England Division. There are good reasons why they do things the way they do. There are good reasons why people think it shouldn't be done that way or should be done another way. It is, however, the way the division has done things, quite successfully, for quite some time. And it's the way the division (and its membership) have decided fits their situation the best.

-B

[fdad]

Seems like a reasonable approach would have been to rule that having the division run all sanctioned tournaments at a standard fee would have been a sensible way to accomplish what was intended. I don't think the division sanctioning an event run by any organization should be considered an endorsement of that organization. Prior fraud by a club, or any other organization would be one of many possible reasons not to sanction an event.

[mtarascio]

The link to the New England Fencing Alliance Making Strides Against Breast Cancer page is:

http://main.acsevents.org/site/TR/Ma...team_id=313918

This will show how much money has been donated and received by the American Cancer Society to date.

Last year we gave out goody bags that included a photo of all of the competitors prior to them leaving the venue. We also supplied breakfast, bottled water, gatorade and pizza. Oh, yes we also do give out medals to the top 8 places and certificates to everyone else.

Last year some of us paid for this out of pocket.

None of this came from the entry fees last year, as checks were made out directly to the American Cancer Society.

This year, we chose not to have any entry fees. We would like to see those competing make a donation to the Making Strides Against Breast Cancer/ACS. But a donation is voluntary.

In addition, some people who have joined in this thread feel that the only difference in sanctioned or non-sanctioned events is the possibility of earning a classification. I do believe that fencers participating in these competitions should be allowed to increase their classification if they earn it. Last year, in our first competition we had 1B, 3C's and 2E's with a total of 18 fencers competing. This was a C1 event and 3 fencers did earn E classifications. We were told in advance from the National USFA that this was correct.

I believe it is in the best interest of the NEUSFA to sanction Charitable Events. These two tournaments will not be sanctioned. That's a done deal.

I hope to change the thinking of some members of the NEUSFA EC so in the future Charitable Events will be considered for sanctioning.

[oiuyt]

In addition, some people who have joined in this thread feel that the only difference in sanctioned or non-sanctioned events is the possibility of earning a classification.

The way you've phrased this opens the possibility that you disagree with such people.

What, if any, differences do you see between sanctioned and non-sanctioned events other than the ability to award new or updated classifications?

Which, if any, of those are significant contributing factors to you/NEFA seeking sanctioning for the FABC events (or similar events in the future)?

-B

[Emfuser]

But you want to suggest that unless the New England Division itself has had an instance of charity related fraud, worries that it might happen aren't valid. Um, what? I haven't died yet, but I'm pretty sure that it's something that I should be concerned about before I attempt to jump off a bridge.

I do come at this from a risk management perspective. I do want to stop a potential problem before it becomes one. By your preference, we would only stop a problem after it was actually a problem. I... think that's silly.

No, I want to see that there is substantial basis to validate the legitimacy of the risk as a reason to prohibit sanctioning of these events. Just because you can imagine it can happen does not make it probable that it will. So why not show us that your concern has some sort of basis in reality? It doesn't have to be NE. Has this ever happened anywhere in the fencing world? Were the circumstances at all similar?

You could just as well suggest not sanctioning any tournaments at all for the fear that an insane person might appear and start shooting up the place. After all, those types of shootings have occurred, right? Do you see the parallel with your argument? There's an element of validity missing.

Check post #63, the one in response to post 60. Make a new point, or concede it. Or ignore it. I don't really care. It was a while ago, there's been some additional information since then.

63 did not address the portion of 60 to which I alluded.

[mtarascio]

The way you've phrased this opens the possibility that you disagree with such people.

What, if any, differences do you see between sanctioned and non-sanctioned events other than the ability to award new or updated classifications?

Which, if any, of those are significant contributing factors to you/NEFA seeking sanctioning for the FABC events (or similar events in the future)?

-B

First, if you read my post you would see that I do disagree.

One major difference would be that a competitor in a non-sanctioned event would not need to be a member of the USFA. I do not believe this is good for the USFA.

In addition, last year I listed the New England Division, USFA as the lead sponsor of the events with the media that included radio and newspaper articles.

I am not attempting to have the 2008 FABC events sanctioned. I attempted to do so but the NEUSFA EC made their decision and I'll live by that decision.

I believe it does fencing a lot of good by having Charitable Events. I would hope that other clubs in the NEUSFA would think so and conduct some. Hopefully, Charitable Events will be able to be considered for sanctioning in the future.

[noodle]

Most events like this in the area don't tend to have prizes anyway, and medals could be donated if that was the issue. But he's claimed that ratings aren't the important part of sanctioning. It doesn't seem to be the ref support, the assumption of risk, of advertising either, as they have refs, swore the division wouldn't have any risk, and the division is still helping to publicize the event.

If ratings aren't the important part, what is????

the words "usfa sanctioned", which implies and provides a lot of things.

just because you can't point to one issue and say "this is important so being sanctioned is important" doesn't mean that the aggregation of smaller issues doesn't bring import to the situation as a whole.

i think a better question to ask yourself is, why is it important for ANY event to be sanctioned? i think that you'll find that almost the exact same arguments against sanctioning a charity event can be used to argue against sanctioning any event.