| Leland, I read your complaints about the NCCA. I myself have trusted the NCCA like I'd trust a rat to make it through a 5-mile maze in 5 seconds myself. However, you talk about not being able to open the PDF for the Grand Prix (or Gran Prix). Being a technical person, I'll bet the issue you are having with reading Beeman's files is a simple download away from being solved. It's a simple PDF, and all you need on your computer is Adobe Acrobat Reader. This is absolutely free, and can be downloaded from the internet. If you machine currently has it, it probably has an older version, and needs to be updated. It's the Adobe writer (the one that allows you to create and modify PDFs) that costs money. The Reader is free. The catch is that you can only read PDFs, and not do anything else. Patrick. ****************************************************** Patrick: Thanks for the tip. I still haven't seen the Grand Prix proposal. I'm pretty sure I have on old version of Adobe Reader which probably needs to be updated. But, regardless, why can't he simply have someone copy it to "html" and put it on the NCCA website? So far, I am not very impressed with anything Beaman has done or not done. I mean, his lack of experience is obvious and he doesn't even know the difference between a "constitution" and a set of "by-laws?" The problem is, I'm afraid there are many other things that he doesn't know as well. (I actually had to edit the brief message he sent for bad grammar). I think we are all in for a bumpy ride?! Regards, Leland ****************************************************** Leland, That's why we need someone who knows something about money, management, money management, running an organization and understanding the laws pertaining to them (i.e. the difference between a non-profit org, a corporation, a partnership, etc.). I haven't been able to make the NC open for 4 straight years now. However, if I could pick out, myself, who I'd want as president of a corrupted organization, like the NCCA, it sure as hell wouldn't be anyone under the age of 30 (personally, I think we should have a 35 year minimum age, like president of the US, and I'm speaking as someone who isn't even 35 yet and won't be until May of 2010). Actually, if I were to be at the NC open on an election year, I'd ask Ken Baxter if he'd take offense to being nominated and whether or not he'd be willing to do the job. We need someone like him in office. Patrick. ****************************************************** Patrick: For once I agree with you... Ken Baxter was the Sec/Treas during my administration in 1985. For 20+ years, from behind the scenes, Baxter has accomplished significant technical work and been one of the most important and effective leaders in the history of the NCCA. I hope I'm not being too offensive by stating that the gravest error made by past president Randy Wheeless was in not finding a competent successor. (I recommended Gary Newsom). The current officers of the NCCA (or as I like to call it, "the mutual admiration society!?") seem to be complacent with the mediocre direction in which the organization is crawling. However, I am not. I was finally able to open the special Pdf. file which contained the "proposed" NCCA Grand Prix system?! And, needless to say, I was perplexed by what I read!!? There is hardly anything "simple" about the convoluted system which Beaman proposes. I am still in the dark as to why Mr. Beaman failed to research the subject properly. As I stated in an earlier message, he would have learned that the Grand Prix system was originally developed by Robert Singletary and subsequently revised by NCCA President NM Leland Fuerstman in 1984. If he had simply asked me, I would have provided him with the refined design of the old system and the reasons why. Instead, though he had no experience, he chose to design it himself. First, may I recommend that President Beaman proof read and edit his material for proper content before he further embarrass himself by publishing material which is replete with grammatical errors and poor syntax?! The system which he proposes may be similiar to the one used by the USCF?! However, that does NOT mean it is best for a state organization. My design had nothing to do with the amount of money offered in an event? Nor did it contain a litany of restrictions which seem to prevent "every member" of the NCCA from participating on an equal playing ground, regardless of the section in which they are competing or what office or directors position they are executing!! I came across an old "Gambit" magazine which stated the following: "North Carolina Grand Prix System Changes" by NM Leland Fuerstman - New System Allows Equal Chance For All! - As of September 7, 1984, NCCA members who compete in tournaments announced in the Carolina Gambit magazine will earn ONE Grand Prix point for each WIN, and THREE bonus points for being CLEAR FIRST in his section. Draws earn no points. For every additional eight players in a section, the clear winner will earn THREE bonus points. Players who tie for first will divide bonus points equally. This new system will allow players in lower sections to accumulate just as many points as those in the top sections. (The old system was based on cash won). Now, players who compete more often around the state will be rewarded for their activity! Tournament directors will be required to send a copy of the official USCF printout of the results of their tournaments to the NCCA for the purpose of publishing a current leader list bi-monthly. The winner of the Grand Prix will receive $100, plus free entry in the 1985 North Carolina Championship. Since the organization of the North Carolina Grand Prix system the champions have been: 1982-83 Leland Fuerstman - 1983-84 Wayne Stuart" It was no easy task for Singletary to keep track of the Grand Prix points, considering that we had no computers back then. But, any player could easily verify, not only his own progress, but the progress of everyone else with a few observations of the printouts. Conversely, the system which Beaman proposed is so complex and subjective that I doubt a "cray" could figure it out much less any individual NCCA member without a Phd in math?! In addition, the special list of tournaments which qualify for the Grand Prix is arbitrary and restrictive? Every tournament listed (except for scholastic events) which requires NCCA membership should be included. Yes, even weekly events... Simply stated, my old system encourages players to participate more often and to play for a win! It also gave them an equal chance regardless of their rating! And, even if a computer is used for calculation, I can only assume that "the President" will consume a significant amount of time attempting to keep the standings current (in effect, a responsibility he is passing on to the next President; who may not want it?! - Sorta' seems like a task that the Sec/Treas would be responsible for!?) Again, I believe there are far more important issues facing the NCCA than redesigning the Grand Prix. And, for the good of all members of the NCCA, after reviewing Beaman's proposal, I strongly recommend that we revert to the system which I redesigned some 25 years ago. Have a nice day, NM Leland Fuerstman |