Any USFA Officials in this Forum?

[Regret d'Vie]

I've only been a member a few days and therefore haven't read much, but I've seen a number of posts that quote from the USFA or FIE web sites without having come across any posts from USFA officials.

Are any forum members USFA officials? If so, who? It would be nice to be able to get an official word on USFA positions and stances concerning a number of subjects.

If no USFA official regularly posts, is there any evidence that this board is at least monitored by the USFA in order to keep its finger on the pulse of the fencing community?

Just curious.

[Craig]

Well, what questions would you have for fencing officials? I am not one, but I can always call them and get the official positions on a number of subjects if they are not known from position papers in the US Fencing magazine and web site.

One thing that may or may not have been due to this site: A couple of years ago I posted an april fools joke message about rules changes ratified by a special FIE congress and it made it out as "legit" news to a few divisional/sectional mailing lists before some people pointed out the joke on the message boards. A couple of weeks after that the USFencing web site had a pretty stern message about it being the source of any offical fencing news. Coincidence or a reaction to those who took the bait, hook and all?

Cheers,
Craig

[lochinvar]

Perhaps if the USFA was a little more timely and forthcoming with information, we wouldn't be quite so ready to believe anything we hear...

[DHCJr]

I know of two who have been responding. Not on a regular basis, but always with great knowledge George Kolombatovich is on the Refereeing Commission of the FIE and a number of USFA committee.

Then there is Eric Dew, who is on the USFA Youth Committee and I am sure everyone notices does post a few (million) times.

As it says above 'Discussion Board'. Craig has never tried to imply this is an official site. What he has done is given a place where ideas can be shared.

There are many times where someone has asked for help in one form or another. If the USFA National Office had to answer all those questions, they wouldn't be able to get anything else done.

There are many individuals here who have worked for divisions, sections, national and international with more than a quarter of a century each.

Yes, sometimes mis-information gets out, but usually someone corrects the mistakes. But there are mistakes every where. Someone should tell about the Star Trek fiasco the USFA had with the 'Official' USFA rule book.

[Craig]

Did someone get in trouble with Paramount or was it that Spock went too far in the DEs?

[DHCJr]

It was the former. They never got permission to use the characters and actors from the Star Trek Universe.

There were a lot of discussion on how they ranked when it made it into the rule book. Most I talked to agreed with the Final selection. It proved that it was an intellectual sport with Spock and Data going for the Gold.

[edew]

Originally posted by DHCJr
I know of two who have been responding. Not on a regular basis, but always with great knowledge George Kolombatovich is on the Refereeing Commission of the FIE and a number of USFA committee.

Then there is Eric Dew, who is on the USFA Youth Committee and I am sure everyone notices does post a few (million) times.

[...]

I don't think George K is on this board. At least none of the posts read as if written by him. Wasn't Bill Oliver once or twice on this board? I don't know of any other person in any official capacity in the USFA administrative hierarchy who posts here, frequently or not.

[Inquartata]

None who've admitted it, anyway.

That might change when we get a lot of participation here from elite fencers and/or coaches. ( I'm not holding my breath for that either. ) Until then, we hoi polloi are not worth their time.

[DHCJr]

Eric, your right, it was Bill Oliver. It was a copy of a letter from George K, that was posted. My mistake.

[oiuyt]

I certainly don't post in an official capacity for the USFA and do not attempt to post the official position of the national office. I am, however, a member of the BoD and, therefore, could be considered a "USFA official" depending on context. Unless I'm explicitly posting such a position paper (BoD agendae/minutes, etc.) assume that everything that I write is merely my (somewhat informed) opinion.

I've seen no evidence that the USFA officers or national office staff monitor the board. One would hope that at least some of them at least lurk, but....

As DHCJr points out there are a number of informed people that are involved at the divisional, section, national, or international level (many for a significant period of time) that can generally be relied on to know (and be willing to share :) ) the official stances of the USFA, as well as what actually happens. Figuring out who those people are is, of course, an exercise left to the reader. :)

-B :)

[Regret d'Vie]

Yes, Eric Dew has always been a consistent and reliable source of information on rec.sport.fencing. It's nice to hear from him here, as well.

To answer your question, Craig, possible questions would be:

1. What is the current status of fencing for the 2008 Olympics? (Current USOC sentiment toward fencing, any push by prominent USOC officials to cut fencing in 2008, wireless technology and Lexan mask requirements for 2004 (for other than sabre), etc.)

2. Why did the USFA decide to leave the halt on off-target rule in place for foil? Was it tabled or killed? What is the rules committee's sentiment on the subject (50/50, 60/40, etc.)?

3. What is the USFA's marketing strategy for 2004-2005? How does the USFA plan to take advantage of the buzz surrounding this Olympic year? Why has United Airlines (I believe) and others stopped supporting fencing? Who are the largest current corporate sponsors? Has the USCF's success in convincing ESPN to air chess matches prompted the USFA to renew efforts to televise high-level fencing competitions? etc.

You get the idea. I'm sure that much of this information is available on the net, and other information would be provided simply by asking in this forum. (I've been out of the loop for awhile and have some catching up to do.) However, some of these questions concern specific USFA policy and/or privileged information that is either not communicated to the fencing community or is served with a "spin" in a shrouded propaganda "all is well" <i>American Fencing</i> story. Having an insider -- anonymous or otherwise -- may prompt fencers (myself included) to waste less time speculating about USFA's intentions and motivations. Lochinvar's point would be partially addressed as well.

Too, I was hoping that the USFA was monitoring and responding to fencers concerns, and -- gasp -- considering these concerns when formulating policy. Because this appears to be one of the most prominent fencing discussion forums on the web -- if not <i>the</i> most prominent, I asked here first.

On another note, I'm surprised that Paramount even noticed the intellectual property violations. I suppose a fencer-trekkie must have reported them. Not a huge loss, though. The charts were somewhat humorous, but terribly unprofessional considering the context and the source.

[Tireur]

If no USFA official regularly posts, is there any evidence that this board is at least monitored by the USFA in order to keep its finger on the pulse of the fencing community?

I don't believe you can call a relatively small number of regular posters "the pulse of the fencing community".

[Rolls]

Originally posted by Tireur
I don't believe you can call a relatively small number of regular posters "the pulse of the fencing community".

I don't know form what I can tell the site gets something like 1200 unique visitors a day... That probably be about as much of a pulse as fencing has in one place.

Roll.s

[GGK]

Your questions cover huge topics. I can only answer 2 parts.

Originally posted by Regret d'Vie
2. Why did the USFA decide to leave the halt on off-target rule in place for foil?

The USFA mirrors whatever the FIE passes.

Why has United Airlines (I believe) and others stopped supporting fencing? Who are the largest current corporate sponsors?

You mean UAL which is currently in bankrupcy? The corporate sponsor list is on USFencing.com

[40Saberthieves]

That list still has UAL on it

[Tireur]

don't know form what I can tell the site gets something like 1200 unique visitors a day... That probably be about as much of a pulse as fencing has in one place.

Visitors not posters

How many post?

[Rolls]

Originally posted by Tireur
Visitors not posters

How many post?

I'd don't know. Don't really care. But would you like to show me somewhere with more fencers posting? I'd probably check the place out.

Rolls.

[Army Fencer]

Originally posted by Tireur
I don't believe you can call a relatively small number of regular posters "the pulse of the fencing community".

Whatever the case, it occurs to me that this site does have a tremendous influence on the fencing community. Craig's April Fools joke is an excellent example.

I do think that a reader could take "the pulse of the fencing community," by reading posts on this site. Not only is there a wide breadth of experience in the official capacity, but there is a wide breadth in the abilities of the members posting. We have U's regularly discussing major issues regarding the fencing community with nationally and internationally ranked A's.

Officials on the Board probably don't have a whole lot of time to spend, though, and I have a feeling that they get the idea of how US fencing is going through a variety of sources.

Certainly, if you want something official, you can bring up your ideas to your division chair, or write a letter to the USFA office. You have some interesting ideas that should be discussed, and I'm sure they would take your ideas into consideration.

[Regret d'Vie]

Thanks, GGK. I misspoke. I meant FIE. I was typing USFA so often that I apparently stopped thinking. Concerning United Airlines, it's still listed as a sponsor on the USFA web site, but I understand that they discontinued sponsorship before this season began. Assuming this is true, it would be nice if USCF would update their site.

Tireur, perhaps "pulse of the fencing community" <i>was</i> a bit strong. However, going with Rolls' point: Assuming that 750 USFA members post here each day (1200 users minus international users minus non-USFA users), that's 5% of 15,000 USFA members. (I read 15,000 somewhere and 12,000 elsewhere. Anyone know for certain?)

Can that number of member voices be approached elsewhere? Rec.sport.fencing? I doubt it, though Eric Dew would be far better able to answer this question than I. FencingForum.Com? Certainly an active forum, but it appears to have a much larger international contingent than fencing.net. That's wonderful for "community," but certainly makes it a less effective candidate for USFA monitoring.

Of course, if the USFA were truly interested in member sentiment and opinion, they could simply open their own forum, and only allow USFA members access. Of course, they'd likely purge all posts containing criticism of USFA, which would probably alienate many users. Or worse, shut down the forums entirely. Perhaps I'm being hard on them, but I've seen plenty of sites do this: Activision, Origin Systems, Boston.Org, etc. Free speech often conflicts with marketing.

[Tireur]

I'd don't know. Don't really care. But would you like to show me somewhere with more fencers posting? I'd probably check the place out.

Not the point. I just think it's a stretch to call a few posters "the pulse" of the fencing community.

Look to the divisions for that.

Whatever the case, it occurs to me that this site does have a tremendous influence on the fencing community. Craig's April Fools joke is an excellent example.

Not talking about effect on the fencing community, but, effect on USFA leadership.......