Forum Search:
RSD No Spam
rec.sport.disc without the spam


Home » RSD » RSD Posts » WHOS UP FOR MADITORY POLING
WHOS UP FOR MADITORY POLING [message #84659] Sun, 26 December 2010 06:54 Go to next message
ulticritic
Messages: 8204
Registered: April 2009
Senior Member
due to the different ways of interpreting the various COMPLETELY
INCOMPLETE polls out there "some" have concluded that the only REAL
way to get a complete read on the ENTIRE membership is to conduct
MADATORYsurveys that would accompany the registration process (nuthin
too time consuming like the standard "loaded question" suveys usau
usually conducts).

i sensed "dead air" mode for the sz's that are arguing FOR the
relevance of that "skied" spitit poll when this strategy was
suggested. AND I KNOW FOR A FACT THAT X-BOD PRESIDENT PERI K IS
COMPLETELY OPPOSED TO SUCH AN ASSESMENT.......and would assume all
other bod reps concur.

colin? care to indulge us with your expert opinion?

WHAT IS IT THAT USAU ADMINISTRATORS ARE AFFRIAD TO FIND OUT ABOUT THE
WANTS AND NEEDS OF THEIR OWN MEMBERS??????
Re: WHOS UP FOR MADITORY POLING [message #84684 is a reply to message #84659] Sun, 26 December 2010 08:35 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Kangaruo
Messages: 17
Registered: December 2010
Junior Member
*Mandatory Polling

I suggest you use correct spelling if you want people to really listen to what you have to say.
Re: WHOS UP FOR MADITORY POLING [message #84686 is a reply to message #84659] Sun, 26 December 2010 08:36 Go to previous messageGo to next message
agerics20
Messages: 8115
Registered: October 2008
Senior Member
mandatory 'poling'......?
man.....uhm.......

i've got a couple different replies for this one........
Re: WHOS UP FOR MADITORY POLING [message #84690 is a reply to message #84684] Sun, 26 December 2010 10:45 Go to previous messageGo to next message
ulticritic
Messages: 8204
Registered: April 2009
Senior Member
On Dec 26, 11:48 am, Ruozhou <Ruozh...@gmail.com> wrote.

> *Mandatory Polling
>
> I suggest you use correct spelling if you want people to
> really listen to what you have to say.


so you would reject a great idea/proposal just because the words were
spelt incorrectly? i know i know how to pronounce the words
correctly.......does that count for anything?
Re: WHOS UP FOR MADITORY POLING [message #84691 is a reply to message #84659] Sun, 26 December 2010 11:10 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Johnny Chimpo
Messages: 34
Registered: December 2008
Member
Toad Leber in (cue 80s porn music)........Maditory Poling

Excerpts: "Aw take it you dirty zealot!"
"I'll show you an adequate sample size!"
"What the upa/usau bod doesn't want you to know is.......I have a MONSTER POLE!!!!"
Re: WHOS UP FOR MADITORY POLING [message #84702 is a reply to message #84659] Sun, 26 December 2010 19:01 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Pete
Messages: 166
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
So, we would kick people out of the USAU if they don't respond to a poll? Wow....

I've worked in politics for quite some time...that's not how polls work. Mandatory polling wouldn't grow effective or complete data; it would grow lazy and rapid data. Learn how polls work, ultihopscotch.
Re: WHOS UP FOR MADITORY POLING [message #84705 is a reply to message #84702] Sun, 26 December 2010 21:00 Go to previous messageGo to next message
VI13
Messages: 20
Registered: December 2010
Location: Shippensburg
Junior Member
Wow, Toad actually has a decent point here. There are a few major flaws with the Skyd poll, which make it pretty unreliable. First, it is a straw poll. That means that anyone can vote on it, but nobody has to. That skews it in the direction of people who care strongly enough towards one side to go out of their way to vote, and is less representative of people who feel only slightly towards a side or are in the middle, but don't go out of their way to show it.

Second is the sample size. In 2009 USAU had a membership of 31,588. To be able to have a confidence level of 95% with a margin of error of plus/minus 3, which would make for a strong and reliable poll, you would need at least a thousand respondents. It currently has 346. Strong? I think not.

Third, it is an open poll on the internet. Anybody in the world can respond. Your little brother, my neighbor, this guy. It is not representative of the USAU membership whatsoever. For them to use is as such is foolishness.

Quote:
So, we would kick people out of the USAU if they don't respond to a poll? Wow....

Pretty sure he said nothing in the first post about kicking people out. If a poll during the registration process means when renewing registration for the year or signing up for the first time, then that's a good idea. A quick, mandatory poll is not too much to expect from a member. Heck, if I'm sending USAU my fifty bucks, I'd be pleased to give them some input and show how I feel. It would at least help me feel like my voice matters, which the board elections do a pretty poor job of.

I'm coming at this from a completely unbiased angle. I'm no "spirt zealot," nor am I pushing for reffed Ultimate. I am just your average college Ultimate player who would like to see an accurate, scientific poll conducted among the US Ultimate community, instead of some weak, poorly constructed poll which allows people to point and yell "Hey hey, looky looky!" but really means jack.
Re: WHOS UP FOR MADITORY POLING [message #84718 is a reply to message #84702] Mon, 27 December 2010 06:40 Go to previous messageGo to next message
ulticritic
Messages: 8204
Registered: April 2009
Senior Member
On Dec 26, 10:05 pm, Pete <hockeypeteschr...@gmail.com> wrote:

> So, we would kick people out of the USAU if they don't
> respond to a poll? Wow....

did i say, or even imply, that? i would kick em out for not doing a
good job AND not being representative of the membership. but untill
we survey EVERYBODY we wont know if they are representing or not,
right?
------------------------------------------------
>
> I've worked in politics for quite some time...that's not how
> polls work.

good
--------------------------------


Mandatory polling wouldn't grow effective or
> complete data; it would grow lazy and rapid data

cant get much lazyer than 3% input, can it. anyway, wouldnt you say
that "politics" change drastically from the general politics of our
government to the politics of a membership organization that people
must pay to join. either way, i COMPLETELY DISAGREE WITH YOUR
SPECULATION.....about manditory making people provide lazy
data.......although THE IDEA OF THEM sure seems to make people (like
yourself) paranoid.

OH, and just for the record, i'm not talking about mandating that
people take those long ass, 200 question, loaded question surveys that
usau is so famous for. i'm talking about some short and sweet
surveys.......like that "refs" one on the usau message board thread.

BUT, i can totally see ANYONE whos a sz come up with ANY crazy reason
NOT to conduct somthing like this. so let me ask you this. How would
you feel about canvasing sectionals with worker bee's that would
solicit players with said short n sweet surveys.......and maybe pay em
per survey.......so there is incentive to get as much input as
possible. will that strategy ALSO provide lazy and rapid data????.
AND, whats wrong with rapid data? wouldnt that mean MORE data in a
SHORTER amount of time? so how is this bad in any sort of way?
------------------------------------------------------------ --------------
.. Learn how
> polls work, ultihopscotch.

HA, thats pure gold.......a sport that refuses to use refs (or "LEARN"
how "real" sports work) telling me that i need to learn about the
standards of politics. i guess i just figured that since we are
reinventing the wheel with our rule enforcement and game management
standards that we could do the same for the political aspect, no?

and i still dont understand how manditrory polling provides lazy
data. could you explain this phenomena in greater depth please? and
maybe take into account the "spirity" nature of ultimate players. i
mean, if you are gonna trust em to the point of MANDATING that they
play this sport with out refs and WITH honor cant ya trust em enough
to take a short survey and take it serious? talk about your
hypocracy!!!!!

i mean, couldnt you make the same contention about madating
sotg........that it results in a rule enforcement and game management
system that is both lazy and rapid too.

you people kill me........with all your conforming to various aspects
of thinking and process with mainstream shit on the one hand,,,,,,,but
then your total lack of adhearing to possibly the most important
standards in sports compoetition (arbitration) on the other.

ATE UP!!!!!!!!
Re: WHOS UP FOR MADITORY POLING [message #84719 is a reply to message #84705] Mon, 27 December 2010 07:05 Go to previous messageGo to next message
ulticritic
Messages: 8204
Registered: April 2009
Senior Member
On Dec 27, 12:05 am, Luke <vilageidio...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Wow, Toad actually has a decent point here.

if only i had a nickle for every time ive read that......I'D BE RICH
BITCH!
--------------------------------------------------------



There are a few
> major flaws with the Skyd poll, which make it pretty
> unreliable. First, it is a straw poll. That means that
> anyone can vote on it, but nobody has to.

HOWS THAT DIFFERENT FROM every poll/survey THAT UPA/USAU HAS
CONDUCTED?
------------------------------------------------------------ --



That skews it in
> the direction of people who care strongly enough towards one
> side to go out of their way to vote, and is less
> representative of people who feel only slightly towards a
> side or are in the middle, but don't go out of their way to
> show it.


BINGO!!!! thats the usau polls to a tee. ya GOT to figure that a
MUCH LARGER portion of the loyalist sz base are the ones participating
in usau polls. and even with taking that into account the usau data
showed 50% OF RESPONDANTS "ok with ref experimentation" and this was
trhee years ago.......and before uoa.......so ya gotta figure that
that % has gone up.

SO WHERE THE FUCKING REF EXPERIMENTATION??????
------------------------------------------------------
>
> Second is the sample size. In 2009 USAU had a membership of
> 31,588. To be able to have a confidence level of 95% with a
> margin of error of plus/minus 3, which would make for a
> strong and reliable poll, you would need at least a thousand
> respondents. It currently has 346. Strong? I think not.

i dont ev3en thin 3000 cuts it. especially when ya take into account
that its a volunteer poll that the sz bASE WILL MORE LIKELY
PARTICIPATE IN
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Third, it is an open poll on the internet. Anybody in the
> world can respond. Your little brother, my neighbor,http://www.youtube.com/watch?

I thought i already succeeded to that fact.

BUT LUKE, you forgot to go into detail about the wording of the
question that skied mag asked.......in that it was to abstract in
which as concept that has a multitude of interpretations to be used as
the subject of the question. nor did it take into account that MANY
people believe that sotg and refs CAN AND DO COEXIST. so the question
was flawed on many levels.

the keep it simple stupid meathod is what should be used in this
instance.......like tha usau message board "refs" thread. only one
way to interpret tohose questions.......and thus the data thats
derived from it.

luke, whats your take on canvasing all sectional events
simultainiously and what would it mean if usau was to get 95% of the
members input.......rahter than basing what that 95% wants and needs
of what some 3000 odd people have to say? would that make the ccuracy
rate of the data go up to like 1000%?


finally, should we even trust the current OVERT sz usau bod to be
conducting these polls since its so plainly obvious that the lot of em
are part of the spirit zealot faction of the membership?
------------------------------------------------------------ -----



v=yBkbj_S3etYIt is not
> representative of the USAU membership whatsoever. For them
> to use is as such is foolishness.

dont know what this is supposed to mean
----------------------------------------------------
>
> Quote:
>
> > So, we would kick people out of the USAU if they don't
> > respond to a poll? Wow....
>
> Pretty sure he said nothing in the first post about kicking
> people out. If a poll during the registration process means
> when renewing registration for the year or signing up for
> the first time, then that's a good idea. A quick, mandatory
> poll is not too much to expect from a member.


WORD!!!! AND if you(pete) really cared about proper representation
youde be ALL FOR SUCH A POLL. but is seems you are afraid of what that
opll might reveal......even to the point of discrediting it before it
even takes place. uhmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. i mean, if i were a sz and
REALLY BELIEVED THAT USAU ACURATELY REPRESENTED THE MEMBERSHIP then i
would be the first to agree to maditory polling.......just to prove
i'm right. yet you shun the idea of such a poll.......very telling
-------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------


Heck, if I'm
> sending USAU my fifty bucks, I'd be pleased to give them
> some input and show how I feel.


eh, they dont want it. in fact, the way they see it (from what i can
tell) is that THEY ALREADY KNOW WHATS BEST FOR BOTH YOU AND THE
SPORT. pretty arrognt and presumptuious of them eh?

that and....... i THINK they dont trust their own members to respect
such a poll and take it seriously. so imagin that, a sport that HAS
TO trust its players with sotg ON THE FILED (DUE TO THEIR DOGMATIC
INTOLERANCE OF REFS), yet dosent trust them to fill out a short lil
survey in a serious/honorable manner OFF THE FIELD.

WHAT FUCKING PLANET ARE YALL FROM?
-----------------------------------------------



It would at least help me
> feel like my voice matters, which the board elections do a
> pretty poor job of.
>
> I'm coming at this from a completely unbiased angle. I'm no
> "spirt zealot," nor am I pushing for reffed Ultimate. I am
> just your average college Ultimate player who would like to
> see an accurate, scientific poll conducted among the US
> Ultimate community, instead of some weak, poorly constructed
> poll which allows people to point and yell "Hey hey, looky
> looky!" but really means jack.
> --
> Posted fromhttp://www.rsdnospam.com
Re: WHOS UP FOR MADITORY POLING [message #84738 is a reply to message #84718] Mon, 27 December 2010 20:20 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Pete
Messages: 166
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
This is flat a sense of how little you understand how reality works. For an example of how little info would get out of mandatory polling, ask this question: how often have you actually read the "terms and conditions" of a website? But you always click yes, don't you?

People agree to a lot when they have to click through something. It will not give you any valuable info.
Re: WHOS UP FOR MADITORY POLING [message #84749 is a reply to message #84738] Mon, 27 December 2010 22:29 Go to previous messageGo to next message
VI13
Messages: 20
Registered: December 2010
Location: Shippensburg
Junior Member
Quote:
For an example of how little info would get out of mandatory polling, ask this question: how often have you actually read the "terms and conditions" of a website? But you always click yes, don't you?


That's a terrible analogy. Clicking "Agree" to terms and conditions of a website is something you do just to get onto the site. Answering say, ten quick multiple choice questions about the sport of Ultimate, how you feel about the direction it's heading, the roll of observers in the game, that sort of thing, is not the sort of thing someone's going to just fill out without thinking about. It is simple and provides relevant information directly from the membership to the organization that they can use to make better informed decisions and to represent and serve the Ultimate community better. A simple "Agree to Strongly Disagree" 1-5 scale would do the trick.

Quote:
For an example of how little info would get out of mandatory polling, ask this question


You're asking the wrong question. Instead, ask yourself how much more info you would have. How much more relevant information would you have from simple questionnaire submitted with registration, then with a BS poll on the internet. Heck, even a survey sent to every member through email would provide a decent sample size and pretty solid info.
Re: WHOS UP FOR MADITORY POLING [message #84750 is a reply to message #84749] Mon, 27 December 2010 23:11 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Tim
Messages: 21
Registered: September 2008
Junior Member
VI13/Luke,

Just FYI -- the video you referenced (BillyBobNeck) is made by a comedian from Massachusetts. The name of the game is political satire.

http://telling-secrets.blogspot.com/2010/09/billy-bob-neck.h tml

Thanks for sharing.
Re: WHOS UP FOR MADITORY POLING [message #84752 is a reply to message #84750] Mon, 27 December 2010 23:27 Go to previous messageGo to next message
VI13
Messages: 20
Registered: December 2010
Location: Shippensburg
Junior Member
Quote:
Just FYI -- the video you referenced (BillyBobNeck) is made by a comedian from Massachusetts. The name of the game is political satire.


I did not know that, I appreciate the info though, thank you. I think the videos pretty funny, and I'm rather relieved that's satire and not sincere. It still serves the point about the poll though, that any nutcase in the world can vote on it.
Re: WHOS UP FOR MADITORY POLING [message #84753 is a reply to message #84719] Tue, 28 December 2010 00:14 Go to previous messageGo to next message
mvuong
Messages: 709
Registered: October 2008
Senior Member
ulticritic wrote on Mon, 27 December 2010 10:05

>
> Second is the sample size. In 2009 USAU had a membership of
> 31,588. To be able to have a confidence level of 95% with a
> margin of error of plus/minus 3, which would make for a
> strong and reliable poll, you would need at least a thousand
> respondents. It currently has 346. Strong? I think not.

i dont ev3en thin 3000 cuts it. especially when ya take into account
that its a volunteer poll that the sz bASE WILL MORE LIKELY
PARTICIPATE IN
-------------------------------------------------------

luke, whats your take on canvasing all sectional events
simultainiously and what would it mean if usau was to get 95% of the
members input.......rahter than basing what that 95% wants and needs
of what some 3000 odd people have to say? would that make the ccuracy
rate of the data go up to like 1000%?



Not thinking 3000 cuts it shows how you don't understand how statistics and polling even works. As others have noted, for a 3% margin of error you need about 1000 people (exactly 1032 for a membership of 31,588). There will always be a margin of error unless you get exactly 100% participation which isn't feasible for an in depth survey that would yield good quantitative data that we can cut well into tables.

A 10 question mini poll might be good for examining some specific issue (not even refs, maybe just active stall and active travels). I would consider a 10 question mini poll that is mandatory for signing up to be more of a general tracker that can be used to gauge satisfaction rates with the USUA and perhaps concerns about the series as it is.

If you really want good information on whether or not people want full refs at all levels of play, that is much more in depth and would need much more work than a 10 question poll that you are envisioning. Since this would be a longer survey, there is absolutely no way you can said survey mandatory since survey fatigue would set in for all those not hardline refs and hardline no refs. With survey fatigue you get mediocre data that simply doesn't represent the population.

This is why we use margins of error and why 3000 would be remarkably good for this membership. I would expect much closer to around 1000 people answering the survey, but who knows we might get more.
Re: WHOS UP FOR MADITORY POLING [message #84784 is a reply to message #84738] Tue, 28 December 2010 07:38 Go to previous messageGo to next message
ulticritic
Messages: 8204
Registered: April 2009
Senior Member
On Dec 27, 11:25 pm, Pete <hockeypeteschr...@gmail.com> wrote:.

> This is flat a sense of how little you understand how
> reality works. For an example of how little info would get
> out of mandatory polling, ask this question: how often have
> you actually read the "terms and conditions" of a website?
> But you always click yes, don't you?

BZZZZT, not even remotely the same, JERKY
---------------------------------------
>
> People agree to a lot when they have to click through
> something. It will not give you any valuable info.

better than no clicking at all. but again with the distrust???? why
not apply the same "spirit clause" to the survey as you apply to on
filed rule enforcement? wouldnt that solve the problem of lazy
responants?
Re: WHOS UP FOR MADITORY POLING [message #84786 is a reply to message #84749] Tue, 28 December 2010 07:43 Go to previous messageGo to next message
ulticritic
Messages: 8204
Registered: April 2009
Senior Member
On Dec 28, 1:30 am, Luke <vilageidio...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Quote:
>
> > For an example of how little info would get out of
> > mandatory polling, ask this question: how often have you
> > actually read the "terms and conditions" of a website? But
> > you always click yes, don't you?
>
> That's a terrible analogy. Clicking "Agree" to terms and
> conditions of a website is something you do just to get onto
> the site.

thank you luke
------------------------------


Answering say, ten quick multiple choice questions
> about the sport of Ultimate, how you feel about the
> direction it's heading, the roll of observers in the game,
> that sort of thing, is not the sort of thing someone's going
> to just fill out without thinking about.

word......only FUCK the multiple chioce......make em yes no
questions. as those multimple chioce questions usau asks are as
loaded as they get.
--------------------------------------------



It is simple and
> provides relevant information directly from the membership
> to the organization that they can use to make better
> informed decisions and to represent and serve the Ultimate
> community better. A simple "Agree to Strongly Disagree" 1-5
> scale would do the trick.

i guess that format could work. but the questions they traditionally
ask have the most fucked up and loaded answer options.
---------------------------------------------------
>
> Quote:
>
> > For an example of how little info would get out of
> > mandatory polling, ask this question
>
> You're asking the wrong question. Instead, ask yourself how
> much more info you would have. How much more relevant
> information would you have from simple questionnaire
> submitted with registration, then with a BS poll on the
> internet. Heck, even a survey sent to every member through
> email would provide a decent sample size and pretty solid
> info.

not when ya take into account that the loyalist base would be much
more likely to respond......outa desperation. MAKE IT MADITORY WITH
REGISTRATION.......or canvas all sectionals and get/give that face
time that usau underemphisizes.
Re: WHOS UP FOR MADITORY POLING [message #84793 is a reply to message #84753] Tue, 28 December 2010 08:08 Go to previous messageGo to next message
ulticritic
Messages: 8204
Registered: April 2009
Senior Member
On Dec 28, 3:15 am, mvuong <marvinvu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Not thinking 3000 cuts it shows how you don't understand how
> statistics and polling even works. As others have noted, for
> a 3% margin of error you need about 1000 people (exactly
> 1032 for a membership of 31,588).  There will always be a
> margin of error unless you get exactly 100% participation

so you are saying that 3000 people will provide the same accuracy as
99% of the membership (which woulf be 34K and change)........AND YOU
SAY I DONT KNOW WHAT THE FUCK I'M TALKING ABOUT?

why dont you take this argument up with luke from here on out?
-------------------------------------------------



> which isn't feasible for an in depth survey that would yield
> good quantitative data that we can cut well into tables.

why? dont you TRUST your peers to take the poll seriously? remember
now, these are the same people you are OBLIGATED TO TRUST, under the
sotg system, AS FUCKING OPPONENTS!!!!

cant you see the hypocracy here? in which you have to be overly
trusing of them on the one hand, yet completely suspecious of them on
the other? kinda inconsistant there, eh?
------------------------------------------------------------ ---
>
> A 10 question mini poll might be good for examining some
> specific issue (not even refs, maybe just active stall and
> active travels).


first, why cant a ref question fit in there? it IS the most
controversial issue with this sport, right?

second, cant we make the survey 20 questions long and INCLUDE
question or two about refs/more active observing?

third, what 10 questions would you ask that WOULDNT include at leat
one about refs? and another about more active observers?

would you include questions in which people could rate/critque how
effecient and effective the usau admin is......at, spending,
communication, transparency and representation??? i did on the survy
in which i canvased nc sectionals a couple years ago......and, let me
teel ya, THE USAU ADMIN SCORES SUCKED. even incimbant, gwen ambler
(who took the survey) gave THAT amin VERY POOR SCORES........i wonder
how she would rate the current bod?
----------------------------------------


I would consider a 10 question mini poll
> that is mandatory for signing up to be more of a general
> tracker that can be used to gauge satisfaction rates with
> the USUA and perhaps concerns about the series as it is.

well giddy up numbnuts. only i dont see the harm in making it a wee
bit longer so that it can accomodate the ongoing ref/more active
observer/sotg issues.

list the 10 questions would you include and i'll tell ya if you are a
sally ass spirit zealot or not
------------------------------------------------------
>
> If you really want good information on whether or not people
> want full refs at all levels of play, that is much more in
> depth and would need much more work than a 10 question poll

why, isnt it a simple yes/no question.

ie. ARE YOU FUNDAMENTALLY OR PHILISOPHICALLY OPPOSED TO THE IDEA OF
NON PLAYING REFS OFFICIATING ULTIMATE? YES/NO.

boy that was easy
--------------------------------------------
> that you are envisioning.  Since this would be a longer
> survey, there is absolutely no way you can said survey
> mandatory since survey fatigue would set in for all those
> not hardline refs and hardline no refs.


fatigue from either circling the word yes or the word
no??????????????????

GIVE ME A FUCKING BREAK!!!!!

you smack of desperation with the parinoia you show towards the idea
of having that info. remember sotg.......and the TRUST that it
requires? try practicing it here.
---------------------------------------------------


 With survey fatigue
> you get mediocre data that simply doesn't represent the
> population.

and what do you get from 3% input from a non random control group?

MUCH WORSE AND INACCURATE RESULTS......TRUST THAT!!!!
--------------------------------------------------  
>
> This is why we use margins of error and why 3000 would be
> remarkably good for this membership.

BUT NOT NEAR AS GOOD AS 34k AND CHANGE, RIGHT?
---------------------------------------------


 I would expect much
> closer to around 1000 people answering the survey, but who
> knows we might get more.


AINT NO "MIGHTS" TO IT IF ITS MANDITORY........ya kook
Re: WHOS UP FOR MADITORY POLING [message #85310 is a reply to message #84793] Thu, 06 January 2011 14:37 Go to previous messageGo to next message
mvuong
Messages: 709
Registered: October 2008
Senior Member
Alright here we go, point by point. I did not see a reply earlier so I had assumed the thread had died, but it seems it hasn't. Luke, please feel free to jump in with any knowledge of surveying that you have also. I welcome any corrections to any mistakes that I make.

ulticritic wrote on Tue, 28 December 2010 11:08


so you are saying that 3000 people will provide the same accuracy as
99% of the membership (which woulf be 34K and change)........AND YOU
SAY I DONT KNOW WHAT THE FUCK I'M TALKING ABOUT?

why dont you take this argument up with luke from here on out?


I would be more than happy to. He understands what a margin of error is. Basically, a random selection of a given population will accurately reflect the overall population to a tee with a margin of error. Since we want to get to a 3% margin of error, then yes that would mean that 3000 people is enough and will provide as much accuracy as 34k in a meaningful study. So yes you really don't know what you are talking about.

ulticritic wrote on Tue, 28 December 2010 11:08


why? dont you TRUST your peers to take the poll seriously? remember
now, these are the same people you are OBLIGATED TO TRUST, under the
sotg system, AS FUCKING OPPONENTS!!!!

cant you see the hypocracy here? in which you have to be overly
trusing of them on the one hand, yet completely suspecious of them on
the other? kinda inconsistant there, eh?



Who says I do trust my opponents fully? I trust any survey taker to take a survey very seriously if they are interested in the subject. If they aren't however, like I imagine many of the league/sectionals only/hat tournament members aren't, they won't take it seriously as the survey drags on.

ulticritic wrote on Tue, 28 December 2010 11:08


first, why cant a ref question fit in there? it IS the most
controversial issue with this sport, right?

second, cant we make the survey 20 questions long and INCLUDE
question or two about refs/more active observing?

third, what 10 questions would you ask that WOULDNT include at leat
one about refs? and another about more active observers?

would you include questions in which people could rate/critque how
effecient and effective the usau admin is......at, spending,
communication, transparency and representation??? i did on the survy
in which i canvased nc sectionals a couple years ago......and, let me
teel ya, THE USAU ADMIN SCORES SUCKED. even incimbant, gwen ambler
(who took the survey) gave THAT amin VERY POOR SCORES........i wonder
how she would rate the current bod?


There are many other issues that the USAU deals with other than just refs. A ref question could most certainly go in there, but I think that it should be followed up with more questions involving implementation, pricing, support, and a myriad of other questions that go in with whether or not refs or more active observers should be implemented. If you merely ask if people want refs and leave it at that, you are not getting a full picture.

Do they want this phased in over the next year, 2 years, 5 years, 10 years? Do you want this at all levels of competition or just the highest levels? What levels would you like to see this at (high school, college, club, summer)? Should these be at all games or the series? Should it be in all games in the series or just Regionals+? Nationals+? Should all games that are USAU sanctioned be required to have refs (this would be big for summer leagues and whatnot and might push them out of latching on with USAU)? Should there be an option for an unreffed tournament?

If they don't want refs, what are their reasons? Are they open to it happening over time? Do they not want any sort of officating? Are observers as they are okay? Do they want observers with more responsibilities? If so, what responsibilities would they be okay with?

So there, there are 14 questions that I came up with off the top of my head about observers/refs. Merely asking a yes/no question does not give you enough information to make any real action. What if the results were tied 50/50 with your one question? You would be able to act one way or the other without more information.

As for other questions that don't involve refs, the USUA does a lot of other things other than just their observer development program. For example, here are 10 things the USUA could ask about that don't involve observers/refs:
Youth development
Grant funding
College division 3 development
New regions for Club
Value adding for sanctioning
Website streamlining
Developing women's ultimate
NCAA/NHSA development
Rule changes
Dues and other fee changes

As you can see, there are a lot of subjects that a survey about ultimate run by the USUA could ask about that can also affect their constiuents.

ulticritic wrote on Tue, 28 December 2010 11:08


well giddy up numbnuts. only i dont see the harm in making it a wee
bit longer so that it can accomodate the ongoing ref/more active
observer/sotg issues.

list the 10 questions would you include and i'll tell ya if you are a
sally ass spirit zealot or not



It wouldn't just be 10 questions, see above.

ulticritic wrote on Tue, 28 December 2010 11:08

why, isnt it a simple yes/no question.

ie. ARE YOU FUNDAMENTALLY OR PHILISOPHICALLY OPPOSED TO THE IDEA OF
NON PLAYING REFS OFFICIATING ULTIMATE? YES/NO.

boy that was easy



It really is not that easy of a question. If the results came out 45% in favor of refs, would you then drop the subject as something that the majority of people don't want? I wouldn't. I would want to know who those 45% are. If they are all club and college regionals/nationals players, I would work towards giving them refs at regionals/nationals and let everyone else play the game without refs like they want. That is just one example of how the results can turn out.

ulticritic wrote on Tue, 28 December 2010 11:08


fatigue from either circling the word yes or the word
no??????????????????

GIVE ME A FUCKING BREAK!!!!!

you smack of desperation with the parinoia you show towards the idea
of having that info. remember sotg.......and the TRUST that it
requires? try practicing it here.



I want that information more than anyone. Right now I am drafting a proposition to add a formalized system of surveying and information collection done at regular intervals and for major subjects for the USUA.

Survey fatigue is a very real thing that all market researchers deal with in long surveys. If a survey starts to drag on, many respondents will start checking anything just to get through the survey. This leads to straightlining and simply bad data that you don't want in your analysis. If you want to read more: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=survey+fatigue

ulticritic wrote on Tue, 28 December 2010 11:08


and what do you get from 3% input from a non random control group?

MUCH WORSE AND INACCURATE RESULTS......TRUST THAT!!!!


I never said that this was a very good data point to use. I said that it was more legitimate than the poll that you continually reference.

ulticritic wrote on Tue, 28 December 2010 11:08


BUT NOT NEAR AS GOOD AS 34k AND CHANGE, RIGHT?


As has been described, 3,000 is just as good as 34,000 statistically.

ulticritic wrote on Tue, 28 December 2010 11:08



AINT NO "MIGHTS" TO IT IF ITS MANDITORY........ya kook



And there you go. To sum it up, gaining actionable insights is not as easy as asking 1 or 2 questions on an issue as complex as adding refs/strengthening observers in ultimate.

Any comments from are welcome. If you do have experience in this type of research or surveying/polling, please feel free to point out any inaccuracies.
Re: WHOS UP FOR MADITORY POLING [message #85336 is a reply to message #85310] Fri, 07 January 2011 06:39 Go to previous messageGo to next message
ulticritic
Messages: 8204
Registered: April 2009
Senior Member
On Jan 6, 5:40 pm, mvuong <marvinvu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > so you are saying that 3000 people will provide the same
> > accuracy as
> > 99% of the membership (which woulf be 34K and
> > change)........AND YOU
> > SAY I DONT KNOW WHAT THE FUCK I'M TALKING ABOUT?
>
> > why dont you take this argument up with luke from here
> > on out?
>
> I would be more than happy to.  He understands what a margin
> of error is.  Basically, a random selection of a given
> population will accurately reflect the overall population to
> a tee with a margin of error.

BUT THATS NOT HOW USAU HAS GOTTEN ANY OF THE DATA THEY GOT......all
there responses to surveys were on a voluteer basis.......which is
hardly the same as randomly..........so take that up with them
---------------------------------------------------


 Since we want to get to a 3%
> margin of error, then yes that would mean that 3000 people
> is enough and will provide as much accuracy as 34k in a
> meaningful study.  So yes you really don't know what you are
> talking about.

then i guess usau dosent either........cause they dont conduct random
surveys. NOW if usau wants to cold call 3000 of its randomly picked
members and take the time and effort it takes to get their 300
question surveys filled out then i would contend that they could do a
general survey that was mandatory get WAY more complete data...... AND
spend less time and effort.

my suspecian is that the spirit centric admin dosent really WANT TO
KNOW THE GENERAL WANTS AND NEEDS OF THE MEMBERSHIP AT LARGE.........so
they can continue unfettered with their spirit centric agenda


i know that its quite likely that the loyal base of usau is much more
likely to fill out there surveys than people that dont like the usau
spirit centricity...........wouldnt you concur?
------------------------------------------------------------ -------
>
> > why?  dont you TRUST your peers to take the poll
> > seriously?  remember
> > now, these are the same people you are OBLIGATED TO
> > TRUST, under the
> > sotg system, AS FUCKING OPPONENTS!!!!
>
> > cant you see the hypocracy here?  in which you have to
> > be overly
> > trusing of them on the one hand, yet completely
> > suspecious of them on
> > the other?  kinda inconsistant there, eh?
>
> Who says I do trust my opponents fully?

you........you siad the data would be tainted for some lame reason or
another
------------------------------------------------------


I trust any survey
> taker to take a survey very seriously if they are interested
> in the subject.  If they aren't however, like I imagine many
> of the league/sectionals only/hat tournament members aren't,
> they won't take it seriously as the survey drags on.

WHY is it that they arent interested though?........is it because they
are satisfied with things as they are or is it that they just dont
trust the admin to accept their 2 cents worth of opinions......because
of past neglect and obvious spirit centricity?

look at the survey results of the "REF experimentation" question.
basically half of the "volunteer" survey takers form 3 years ago said
they would be ok with REF experimentation..........and since ther have
been NO experiments since then its quite apparent that the admin will
interpret the data how they see fit.......and since they are ALL (SAVE
ONE) spirit zelots up in there........well, you do the math

the upa/usau surveys have a distinct history of asking loaded
questions to such that usau administrators can interpret them in a
number of ways.......and we all know which way they interpret them
------------------------------------------------------------ -------
>
>
> > first, why cant a ref question fit in there?  it IS the
> > most
> > controversial issue with this sport, right?
>
> > second, cant we make the survey 20 questions long and
> > INCLUDE
> > question or two about refs/more active observing?
>
> > third, what 10 questions would you ask that WOULDNT
> > include at leat
> > one about refs?  and another about more active
> > observers?
>
> > would you include questions in which people could
> > rate/critque how
> > effecient and effective the usau admin is......at,
> > spending,
> > communication, transparency and representation???  i did
> > on the survy
> > in which i canvased nc sectionals a couple years
> > ago......and, let me
> > teel ya,  THE USAU ADMIN SCORES SUCKED.  even incimbant,
> > gwen ambler
> > (who took the survey) gave THAT amin VERY POOR
> > SCORES........i wonder
> > how she would rate the current bod?
>
> There are many other issues that the USAU deals with other
> than just refs.

none nearly as big or controversial though
------------------------------------------


 A ref question could most certainly go in
> there, but I think that it should be followed up with more
> questions involving implementation, pricing, support, and a
> myriad of other questions that go in with whether or not
> refs or more active observers should be implemented.

fine.......so we'll ask those too......like one that sais......"do you
support paying for observers on a per game wage basis?"

by the way......ALL bod members are opposed to this.........how would
you speculate tha the membership would feel about this?
--------------------------------------------------------

 If you
> merely ask if people want refs and leave it at that, you are
> not getting a full picture.

well you dont need the full picture right out of the gates. i mean if
people are substantially more opposed than supportive(as the usau
admin OBVIOUSLY speculates they/we are) than all those other questions
were a complete waste, right? the thing is that the current admin
works on the assumption that the majority of the membership opposes
refs......AND EVEN MORE ACTIVE OBSERVERS AT THAT RATE,

LETS GET THE GENERAL INFO FIRST then refine the data collection
process to learn more of the specifics of the wants and needs
------------------------------------------------------------ ------- 
>
> Do they want this phased in over the next year, 2 years, 5
> years, 10 years?  Do you want this at all levels of
> competition or just the highest levels?  What levels would
> you like to see this at (high school, college, club,
> summer)? Should these be at all games or the series?  Should
> it be in all games in the series or just Regionals+?
> Nationals+? Should all games that are USAU sanctioned be
> required to have refs (this would be big for summer leagues
> and whatnot and might push them out of latching on with
> USAU)? Should there be an option for an unreffed
> tournament?

again, you are putting the cart before the horse here. FIRST find out
wha the general consensus is, THEN worry about the details.

the whole sotg issue is really a philisophical belief. if people
arent philisophically opposed to refs then the admin needs to adjust
to cator to HOW tey will go about meeting the specific wants and needs
of how to intergrate them.
-----------------------------------------------------
>
> If they don't want refs, what are their reasons? Are they
> open to it happening over time? Do they not want any sort of
> officating?  Are observers as they are okay?  Do they want
> observers with more responsibilities?  If so, what
> responsibilities would they be okay with?

you make it more complicated than it needs to be.
------------------------------------------------------------ -----
>
> So there, there are 14 questions that I came up with off the
> top of my head about observers/refs.

which is unnecessary......2 or 3 follow ups may be prudent though
---------------------------------------------


 Merely asking a yes/no
> question does not give you enough information to make any
> real action.

it woul give usau the general info to understand if their policies are
reflective of the membership........which is what is needed A LOT more
than all the specifics, and i'm sure everyone has enough knowledge
and experience with refs to know that all that other stuff would sort
itself out after time IF THE CONCENSUS WAS THAT THE MAJORITY OF
MEMBERS WERE IN SUPPORT OF REFS.....or more active observers
------------------------------------------------------------ -----



 What if the results were tied 50/50 with your
> one question?  You would be able to act one way or the other
> without more information.

well, that would mean that the usau administration would have to
change some of their policies and start catoring to the faction that
supports refs, right?

WHICH WOULD BE A HUGE STEP FORWARD IN THE SPORT PROGRESSING
------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------
>
> As for other questions that don't involve refs, the USUA
> does a lot of other things other than just their observer
> development program.  For example, here are 10 things the
> USUA could ask about that don't involve observers/refs:
> Youth development
> Grant funding
> College division 3 development
> New regions for Club
> Value adding for sanctioning
> Website streamlining
> Developing women's ultimate
> NCAA/NHSA development
> Rule changes
> Dues and other fee changes
>
> As you can see, there are a lot of subjects that a survey
> about ultimate run by the USUA could ask about that can also
> affect their constiuents.

SO ASK THEM TOO......just keep it short and sweet.......as the info
they need to better represent the membership is all pretty general
-----------------------------------------------------
>
> ulticritic wrote on Tue, 28 December 2010 11:08
>
> > well giddy up numbnuts.  only i dont see the harm in
> > making it a wee
> > bit longer so that it can accomodate the ongoing
> > ref/more active
> > observer/sotg issues.
>
> > list the 10 questions would you include and i'll tell ya
> > if you are a
> > sally ass spirit zealot or not
>
> It wouldn't just be 10 questions, see above.

20 then......30 even. i wouldnt go higher than that though. i'd also
ask question referencing how well the admin does at there
jobs......now THAT would be VERY TELLING INFO, dont ya think
------------------------------------------
>
> ulticritic wrote on Tue, 28 December 2010 11:08
>
> > why, isnt it a simple yes/no question.
>
> > ie. ARE YOU FUNDAMENTALLY OR PHILISOPHICALLY OPPOSED TO
> > THE IDEA OF
> > NON PLAYING REFS OFFICIATING ULTIMATE?  YES/NO.
>
> > boy that was easy
>
> It really is not that easy of a question.

for those of us that arent opposed to them it is.
-------------------------------------------------------



 If the results
> came out 45% in favor of refs, would you then drop the
> subject as something that the majority of people don't want?


nope.....i would demand tha 45% of resources go towards those people
AND the bod should comprise of 45% "progressives"..........just like
if it came back that only 30% of the members were in favor of
facilitating co ed comp.......then they should get that amount of
resources and administrative attention...
------------------------------------------------------------
>  I wouldn't.  I would want to know who those 45% are.  If
> they are all club and college regionals/nationals players, I
> would work towards giving them refs at regionals/nationals
> and let everyone else play the game without refs like they
> want.  That is just one example of how the results can turn
> out.

what if it were 55%? youde still want to know all that
stuff.......which would be what the FOLLOW UP questions would concern
themselves with......not that you couldnt get some of that info right
off the survey where people list wat team they are on and what level
they play at........that are more demographic related and unrelated to
the ref issue
---------------------------------------------------
>
> ulticritic wrote on Tue, 28 December 2010 11:08
>
> > fatigue from either circling the word yes or the word
> > no??????????????????
>
> > GIVE ME A FUCKING BREAK!!!!!
>
> > you smack of desperation with the parinoia you show
> > towards the idea
> > of having that info.  remember sotg.......and the TRUST
> > that it
> > requires?  try practicing it here.
>
> I want that information more than anyone.

how could you want more info than me?
--------------------------------------



 Right now I am
> drafting a proposition to add a formalized system of
> surveying and information collection done at regular
> intervals and for major subjects for the USUA.


well make sure they do it ranomly rather than having people volunteer.
------------------------------------------------------
>
> Survey fatigue is a very real thing that all market
> researchers deal with in long surveys.  If a survey starts
> to drag on, many respondents will start checking anything
> just to get through the survey.

sounds like you are very familiar with the type of surveys the upa has
run in the past.
----------------------------------------------------------



 This leads to
> straightlining and simply bad data that you don't want in
> your analysis.


are you saying that this is what usau has gotten via all the surveys
theyve conducted to date?
------------------------------------------------------------ ----------



If you want to read more:http://lmgtfy.com/?q=survey+fatigue
>
> ulticritic wrote on Tue, 28 December 2010 11:08
>
> > and what do you get from 3% input from a non random
> > control group?
>
> > MUCH WORSE AND INACCURATE RESULTS......TRUST THAT!!!!
>
> I never said that this was a very good data point to use.  I
> said that it was more legitimate than the poll that you
> continually reference.

i think a madatory general poll would reval MUCH MORE ACCURATE INFO
than the current usau volunteer polls (that are probably comprised of
more response from the spirit centric usau loyalist base)

and i CERTIANLY dont trust an administration that dosent have accurate
representation to CONDUCT THE SURVEY in the first place.

LET A NUETRAL PARTY COMNDUCT IT. are there any such services?
------------------------------------------------------------ --------
>
> ulticritic wrote on Tue, 28 December 2010 11:08
>
> > BUT NOT NEAR AS GOOD AS 34k AND CHANGE, RIGHT?
>
> As has been described, 3,000 is just as good as 34,000
> statistically.

why rely on statistics when you can just get everyone to participate?
and, like luke said, it shows that usau is reaching out and actually
cares.......which is why i favor the face time youd get from canvasing
all sectionals simultainiously.

it sure wouldnt hurt to try and would cost a hellova lot less than
that ultimate revolution program they spent 50K of OUR MONEYon
-----------------------------------------------------

>
> ulticritic wrote on Tue, 28 December 2010 11:08
>
> > AINT NO "MIGHTS" TO IT IF ITS MANDITORY........ya kook
>
> And there you go.  To sum it up, gaining actionable insights
> is not as easy as asking 1 or 2 questions on an issue as
> complex as adding refs/strengthening observers in ultimate.

AND THERE YOU GO.....trying to complicate an issue that is very
simple.

its the philisophical tollerance vs intolerance that has to be
addressed FIRST.......then we can get down to the nitty gritty. as
said, currently the admin works on the assumption that the ENTIRE
MEMBERSHIP is supportive of the usau "policy on refs"

so i'll ask......ARE YOU? if you are ok with and even prefer the uoa
version of the sport then YOU ARE NOT OK WITH THE CURRENT USAU POLICY
ON REFS.

they actually, via their policy, catagorize uoa officials as
refs(because of the few active/subjective calls they make......plus
using irs on fouls). DO YOU?
Re: WHOS UP FOR MADITORY POLING [message #85351 is a reply to message #85336] Fri, 07 January 2011 08:58 Go to previous messageGo to next message
mvuong
Messages: 709
Registered: October 2008
Senior Member
I look at this issue like a product refresh/test. If as you are advocating, you get 1-3 questions on refs done, this does not give you sufficient information to do anything.

If you do get a result of 50/50, you can't even act on adding refs to any part of the game without more information. If you make refs mandatory for all games, will leagues, hat tournaments, and thousands of other one time members who contribute to the USAU's bottom line drop out? If every summer league that was associated with the USUA and paying dues dropped out, would that significantly cut their budget while they are slotting much larger expenses for refs? It would make no fiscal sense to take on significant expenses while you are also cutting your revenue by a substantial amount. With a 50/50 result, I would keep the status quo since I can't tell if I would alienate the 50% who want to keep the game as it is. Hell, the 50% that would be pro-ref still play the game as it is so you wouldn't even necessarily lose them. This is not simply a black and white issue.

I don't see how I am overcomplicating the issue by wanting to break down those that don't want refs. This could actually be useful information. Suppose that 60% of respondents did not want refs, but of those, 50% are okay with stronger observers. That would lead to an overall population of 70% that do want stronger observers/refs, but only 40% that want refs. At this point, the prudent strategy might be to strengthen observer responsibilities rather than go to full refs.

Again, a minor poll or small survey like you are suggesting simply will not get the information you need. If all you do is ask if you want refs, and it comes out to any sort of even split, you can't do anything with that. You need to follow up with another study which will take up more time and waste more rsd space about how they aren't trying to get anything done. Why waste more time when you can draft a full survey that will clearly flesh everything out? I can easily see a survey on refs turning into a 50-70 question survey. There are that many questions that you can ask on the subject. For this reason, this is why it can't be a mandatory survey. 50 questions is too much to ask of a league player who has never even heard of observers.

The BoD will always be comprised of those that fill a couple of requisites: want to run, actually run, and present a case that gets people to vote for them. No one is barred from voting if they are a member, just as no one is barred from running. If more people wanted to be "progressives", they would run and allow the "progressive" base to vote for them. If no one does this, it probably indicates that "progressivism" is not what people want to do. You can't "make" the board 45% "progressives" without people that actually want to do it.

Re: WHOS UP FOR MADITORY POLING [message #85370 is a reply to message #84659] Fri, 07 January 2011 10:04 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Doctor
Messages: 247
Registered: April 2010
Location: H-town
Senior Member
First, Toad, I like hearing you're ideas but is there any way you could get to the point with your post. Im not criticizing but I think people tend you skim or skip over your post not so much cuz you use caps but because your post are loooong.

Second, every year the USUA sends me a sticker to put on my car and a quarterly magazine with really uninteresting articles (cuz I'm not in any of them). I think adding a poll into the mail shouldn't be too hard for them to do.

How about it USUA? Are you man (or women) enough to face up to your constituents? Are you willing to ask the tough questions that may come back and reflect poorly on how the organization is doing? Or will you skew your questions and instead of asking, "Would you like to see Ref's in Ultimate" you ask, "Would you like to see an increased role in officiating" only to allow yourself to say that the current steps being taken are an increased role in officiating but minor and ineffectual ones at that.
Re: WHOS UP FOR MADITORY POLING [message #85382 is a reply to message #84659] Fri, 07 January 2011 11:32 Go to previous messageGo to next message
wabart
Messages: 41
Registered: April 2010
Member
wtf is a maditory? is it anything like a madatory?
Re: WHOS UP FOR MADITORY POLING [message #85383 is a reply to message #85382] Fri, 07 January 2011 11:48 Go to previous messageGo to next message
agerics20
Messages: 8115
Registered: October 2008
Senior Member
> wtf is a maditory? is it anything like a madatory?
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~


--12 days late for that one!
Re: WHOS UP FOR MADITORY POLING [message #85387 is a reply to message #85351] Fri, 07 January 2011 12:39 Go to previous messageGo to next message
ulticritic
Messages: 8204
Registered: April 2009
Senior Member
On Jan 7, 12:00 pm, mvuong <marvinvu...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I look at this issue like a product refresh/test.  If as you
> are advocating, you get 1-3 questions on refs done, this
> does not give you sufficient information to do anything.  

it give you enough info to know EXACTLY how UNREPRESENTATIVE THOSE
THAT REPRESENT US ARE.
---------------------------------------------
>
> If you do get a result of 50/50, you can't even act on
> adding refs to any part of the game without more
> information.

which would be phase 2 of the assesment process
---------------------------------------------


 If you make refs mandatory for all games,


easy francis.......aint no one talkin about all that.......dont be
chasin butterflies on me.
----------------------------------------------------


will
> leagues, hat tournaments, and thousands of other one time
> members who contribute to the USAU's bottom line drop out?

no, becuse their prefered version will continue to be facilitated
--------------------------------------------------
> If every summer league that was associated with the USUA and
> paying dues dropped out, would that significantly cut their
> budget while they are slotting much larger expenses for
> refs?  It would make no fiscal sense to take on significant
> expenses while you are also cutting your revenue by a
> substantial amount.

come on back down to earth ther pal
------------------------------------


 With a 50/50 result, I would keep the
> status quo since I can't tell if I would alienate the 50%
> who want to keep the game as it is.  Hell, the 50% that
> would be pro-ref still play the game as it is so you
> wouldn't even necessarily lose them.  This is not simply a
> black and white issue.

untill we KNOW what that ratio IS it is
----------------------------------------------
>
> I don't see how I am overcomplicating the issue by wanting
> to break down those that don't want refs.

BECAUSE WE NEED TO FIND OUT WHAT THE RATIO IS FIRST DIPSHIT
-------------------------------------------------


 This could
> actually be useful information.  Suppose that 60% of
> respondents did not want refs, but of those, 50% are okay
> with stronger observers.

then the bod is eve LESS representative
------------------------------


 That would lead to an overall
> population of 70% that do want stronger observers/refs, but
> only 40% that want refs.

thats 110% einstien
---------------------------------


 At this point, the prudent
> strategy might be to strengthen observer responsibilities
> rather than go to full refs.

GREAT......lets start the madness. thing is, usau isnt even going
with the stronger observer option.......and has policies that are
intolerant of it. isnt that a little extreem?
---------------------------------------------
>
> Again, a minor poll or small survey like you are suggesting
> simply will not get the information you need.

initially it will.......it just wont be the info you or usa WANTS to
see
---------------------------------------



 If all you do
> is ask if you want refs, and it comes out to any sort of
> even split, you can't do anything with that.

sure you can.....you can tell exactly how unrepresentative (on this
issue anyways) the bod ISNT.
---------------------------------------------



 You need to
> follow up with another study which will take up more time
> and waste more rsd space about how they aren't trying to get
> anything done.

Dosent rsd have limmitless amountsa of space.

i dont see anything wrong with phasing the reasearch though.......the
development would have to be phased to so........
------------------------------

 Why waste more time when you can draft a
> full survey that will clearly flesh everything out?


it would be too involved......IF you wanted to find out about all
those other issues too.....and disect em all the way usau already
does. talk about your lazy data
----------------------------------------------


I can
> easily see a survey on refs turning into a 50-70 question
> survey.  There are that many questions that you can ask on
> the subject.  For this reason, this is why it can't be a
> mandatory survey.  50 questions is too much to ask of a
> league player who has never even heard of observers.

there ya go complicating it again. but hey, if thats your
gig.....proposing a 50 question survey on refs, go for it. i would
support it.......but i'd still rather have a complete understanding of
just the general feeling of EACH MEMBER......are your pro ref or anti
ref as far as the sport of ultimate is concerned......then, are your
pro more active observer of con.

---------------------------------------------------
>
> The BoD will always be comprised of those that fill a couple
> of requisites: want to run, actually run, and present a case
> that gets people to vote for them. No one is barred from
> voting if they are a member, just as no one is barred from
> running.  If more people wanted to be "progressives", they
> would run and allow the "progressive" base to vote for them.


they are lazy fucks......but just because they are dosent mean they
shouldnt be accurately represented. and the field of recreation
teaches that its the leaders responsibility to UNDERSTAN THE WANTS AND
NEEDS OF THEIR PARTICIPANTS. and if people are "loving the uoa" the
way THEIR data shows.......and usau has stringent restrictions and
policies AGAINST that version then somthing is amiss.
-----------------------------------------------------
>  If no one does this, it probably indicates that
> "progressivism" is not what people want to do.  You can't
> "make" the board 45% "progressives" without people that
> actually want to do it.

your right.......we'll have to do somthing about that.......but that
dosent excuse the bod from their unethical representation
Re: WHOS UP FOR MADITORY POLING [message #85388 is a reply to message #85370] Fri, 07 January 2011 12:46 Go to previous messageGo to next message
ulticritic
Messages: 8204
Registered: April 2009
Senior Member
On Jan 7, 1:05 pm, Doc <daveryan...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> First, Toad, I like hearing you're ideas but is there any
> way you could get to the point with your post.


better needs and wants assesments via our bod reps
-------------------------------------------


> Second, every year the USUA sends me a sticker to put on my
> car and a quarterly magazine with really uninteresting
> articles (cuz I'm not in any of them). I think adding a poll
> into the mail shouldn't be too hard for them to do.

there too......of which, just got my mag, skimmed it and tossed it in
the recycle
----------------------------------
>
> How about it USUA? Are you man (or women) enough to face up
> to your constituents? Are you willing to ask the tough
> questions that may come back and reflect poorly on how the
> organization is doing?

doubtful.......of which i ran a short survey at nc club sectionals in
09. i also put it on rsd. the bod encumbant gwen amble filled one
out and geve the upa admin low scores on all the qualites i asked
about (SPENDING, COMMUNICATION, TRANSPARANCY AND REPRESENTATION)

i sure dont see that anything has changed in regard to those aspects
since.......do you?
------------------------------------------


Or will you skew your questions and
> instead of asking, "Would you like to see Ref's in Ultimate"
> you ask, "Would you like to see an increased role in
> officiating" only to allow yourself to say that the current
> steps being taken are an increased role in officiating but
> minor and ineffectual ones at that.

i just want to know if the usau "POLICY ON REFS" is valid.
Re: WHOS UP FOR MADITORY POLING [message #85390 is a reply to message #85387] Fri, 07 January 2011 13:08 Go to previous messageGo to next message
mvuong
Messages: 709
Registered: October 2008
Senior Member
ulticritic wrote on Fri, 07 January 2011 15:39


 That would lead to an overall
> population of 70% that do want stronger observers/refs, but
> only 40% that want refs.

thats 110% einstien
---------------------------------


...you don't add them together. This from a breakdown of the 40% that want refs + the 30% that want stronger observers. Together they are 70% of the population in this example. Math is cool.

ulticritic wrote on Fri, 07 January 2011 15:39

>
> Again, a minor poll or small survey like you are suggesting
> simply will not get the information you need.

initially it will.......it just wont be the info you or usa WANTS to
see
---------------------------------------


Again, you underestimate the data that I want. I want the data to say that more than 50%+ are interested in refs. Making assumptions is fun.

ulticritic wrote on Fri, 07 January 2011 15:39

 You need to
> follow up with another study which will take up more time
> and waste more rsd space about how they aren't trying to get
> anything done.

Dosent rsd have limmitless amountsa of space.

i dont see anything wrong with phasing the reasearch though.......the
development would have to be phased to so........
------------------------------


Like I said, phasing research increases costs of doing it, and it increases the amount of time until we get actionable insights. This snowballs into even more time before anything is actually done.

ulticritic wrote on Fri, 07 January 2011 15:39

 Why waste more time when you can draft a
> full survey that will clearly flesh everything out?


it would be too involved......IF you wanted to find out about all
those other issues too.....and disect em all the way usau already
does. talk about your lazy data
----------------------------------------------


Everyone of those other issues could use their own survey too. None of these subjects are throwaway subjects where 1 or 2 questions fills an answer to an issue.

ulticritic wrote on Fri, 07 January 2011 15:39

I can
> easily see a survey on refs turning into a 50-70 question
> survey.  There are that many questions that you can ask on
> the subject.  For this reason, this is why it can't be a
> mandatory survey.  50 questions is too much to ask of a
> league player who has never even heard of observers.

there ya go complicating it again. but hey, if thats your
gig.....proposing a 50 question survey on refs, go for it. i would
support it.......but i'd still rather have a complete understanding of
just the general feeling of EACH MEMBER......are your pro ref or anti
ref as far as the sport of ultimate is concerned......then, are your
pro more active observer of con.


First you say I am overcomplicating it by wanting to break down those that say no to refs, but here you are saying that is what you want? Don't you need a ratio first before you even decide that?

You don't need a ratio to start with to really get good data on what those that want refs vs those that don't want refs and what each group wants for the sport. Do it all at once, let it provide information for setting strategy for all the groups at once.

I ignored everything about BOD representation, because that isn't what this thread is for.
Re: WHOS UP FOR MADITORY POLING [message #85394 is a reply to message #85390] Fri, 07 January 2011 13:40 Go to previous message
ulticritic
Messages: 8204
Registered: April 2009
Senior Member
On Jan 7, 4:10 pm, mvuong <marvinvu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Everyone of those other issues could use their own survey
> too.  None of these subjects are throwaway subjects where 1
> or 2 questions fills an answer to an issue.

the usau admin needs to be reeled in as to the generality of some
things before we overburden them with shit they cant handle
>
> > there ya go complicating it again.  but hey, if thats
> > your
> > gig.....proposing a 50 question survey on refs, go for
> > it.  i would
> > support it.......but i'd still rather have a complete
> > understanding of
> > just the general feeling of EACH MEMBER......are your
> > pro ref or anti
> > ref as far as the sport of ultimate is
> > concerned......then, are your
> > pro more active observer of con.
>
>
> You don't need a ratio to start with to really get good data
> on what those that want refs vs those that don't want refs
> and what each group wants for the sport.  Do it all at once,
> let it provide information for setting strategy for all the
> groups at once.

like i said, go for it
----------------------------------------
>
> I ignored everything about BOD representation, because that
> isn't what this thread is for.

they are for what ever i (or anyone else) makes em for. to me, if
people understood the amount of people that were in the same boat and
KNEW they werent being represented then it would activte people to be
more active. its a classic case of no one wanting to be the first to
jump in the pool......yet EVERYBODY wanting to swim.
Previous Topic:disc sport trivia....MDSC
Next Topic:Without Limits:: Keystone Classic
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Tue Feb 25 08:37:47 PST 2020
.:: Contact :: Home ::.

Powered by: FUDforum 3.0.0RC2.
Copyright ©2001-2009 FUDforum Bulletin Board Software