Ratings Idea

[Chexhero]

Dear fellow ACF members,

Over the last several months I have spoke to many people, most notably icheckers ratings owner Eric Strange regarding a idea of adding privacy to the icheckers ratings. Eric has agreed to allow us, the ACF, to add privacy to the icheckers ratings, which is the big rating list of players anyone can access by clicking the link above the official ACF ratings list in the ratings section of this website. So the list I am talking about is the list that does not only include players ratings, but the separate lists of players and tournament table. So the question on your mind is probably, "what does he mean by privacy?" What I mean is, having a type of system set up in which only ACF members can access the icheckers ratings list. One of the ideas that came up was possibly setting up a "members only" section of the site in which only ACF members would get access to, for free of course. The icheckers ratings list would be stored in this part of the site. We would devise ways to make sure that we are only giving access to ACF members. Non members would be able to view the rating list by either paying a small 5 to 10 dollar fee or by joining the ACF. The official ACF list would still be viewable in the same section that it is and can be seen by anyone. The purpose of this is not only to provide a way for the ACF to make a little extra revenue, but more importantly, to only give ACF members the privilege to see their rating. It is not that I don't respect non ACF members, but rather I respect ACF members and want to make the ratings more valuable for them (to you). Not to mention, it makes the ACF look much more professional. Furthermore, we can use the "members only" section of the site for other things as well, that only ACF members would have access to. So what I am asking for is your support in this effort. Sometimes it is hard to get things done when you are the only one asking for it. Secondly, I am open to opinions to those who disagree and think the idea is stupid and might be a waste. It would probably devote quite a bit of time on Jason's part to set up a good type of privacy system for the ACF. Let me know what you guys would like and if you have any good suggestions.

Your checker friend,
Joe Moore

[Michael Holmes]

I think this is a abad idea. Chess does not do this. If the organization is to grow then a wealth of information is better. If you do want to make it so private then eventually only a handful of people will know.

[Chexhero]

I agree a wealth of information not kept private is more effective. I am only talking about keeping the icheckers rating list private and maybe some bulletin information, stuff only relating to ACF members that non members have not paid for. The official ACF rating list would still be available for viewing as it has always been.

[neilwenberg]

I agree with Michael. Joe do not do that as I feel it would hurt the growth of checkers.

[Chexhero]

So are you guys saying you are ok with non members having access to our benefits such as ratings? Keep in mind, we can't just take non members off the list. Most tournaments ACF members compete in today are tournaments that are not ACF sanctioned. Meaning, many players that compete in these tournaments are not ACF players and have not paid membership. TN tournament is an example. Technically I could just calculate ACF tournaments, but then I would only be rating the Nationals and a few other tournaments. I can see restricting information is not something you guys would prefer. What would perhaps be a better way to go about this? Let me know, I am interested in your ideas.

[Michael Holmes]

Joe don't take away ANY rating information from anyone. On a different subject I would like a list of sanctioned ACF tournaments posted. I would also like the rules of how those tournaments are ACF sanctioned posted.

[Chexhero]

This would be something John might be able to gather better than I could. I know for a fact Nationals, PA, Texas, 11 Man, Ohio are ACF sanctioned tournaments. From what I know an ACF sanctioned tournament requires ACF membership. That is the main thing. Any tournament that includes non ACF members would not be ACF sanctioned. I am pretty sure most tournaments today are not ACF sanctioned.

[Alex_Moiseyev]

ACF sanctioned.

In legal terms - what does it mean "ACF sanctioned" and "ACF non sanctioned" ?

BTW. Do all states recognise ACF as governing body ?

[Palomino]

This idea could be a step towards the ACF becoming a secret society. When considering the merits of an idea I like to think about the idea carried to an extreme.

Would closing all ACF web-site access to non ACF members bring growth to the ACF or advance the game in any way?

A few years ago someone came up with the idea that all ACF memberships should be renewed on Jan. 1. I always renewed my membership in August when I attended the Indiana State Tourney. The winter largely kills my business and I struggle to pay the bills from Thanksgiving well into spring. When membership renewal came up for the first time on January 1st, I thought it to be better to let my ACF membership go and instead pay the electric or water bill or some other silly thing. I soon became used to not receiving a bulletin and I have just never gotten around to renewing my membership again.

Well that's just me and maybe the idea for all membership to expire on January 1 has worked out well for the AFC, I don't know. I just can't help but to think this idea of limiting access to the ratings should maybe be put into the category of “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”

My penny's worth..."Pal"

[Chexhero]

John, I don't know what I admired more, your explanation of ACF laws, or the writing itself.

The purpose of keeping the ratings private is not to keep them out of site from non members, but rather to perhaps influence those who are non members to buy a membership so they can have access to their rating. We are giving the non members who play in tournaments an ACF benefit for free at this point. Something that ACF members paid for when they bought their membership. That bothers me, I find it very disrespectful to those who pay the membership. I find that to be about the equivalent of putting a bulletin on the site for free access. Many if not more non members may rather choose to see their rating than to read the bulletin. I feel these points need to be considered in this decision. If there was an easier way to make the ratings more personalized I would do it instantly. But I honestly don't see any better way at this point since most tournaments are not ACF sanctioned.

[Alex_Moiseyev]

John Acker
ACF Treasurer.

This is official ... election results processed ?

If so - hot congratulations !!!

[Michael Holmes]

I can only stress that the ratings for all should be available to nonmembers for free.

[Chexhero]

Am I being to critical? It really doesn't make sense to me why we would want to allow non-members access to something that is regarded as an ACF privilege. This idea to me seemed like a logical way for the ACF to make a little extra revenue and increase its professionalism. I feel if we want more people to take us seriously and to gain an interest in us, we need to increase the value in things we offer, make them worth something, not give them away for free. As of now, the ratings only have little value. The official ACF list of ACF players doesn't mean a whole lot when everyone has free access to the icheckers list. Now, the possibility of creating one ACF list with only ACF members as John mentions is a whole nother issue, but I think I provided good enough detail of why that may not be a good alternative as of right now. But anyway, the majority has spoken, at least on this thread. As of now, I will not push to make any changes and will keep the ratings how they are.

[Alex_Moiseyev]

why we would want to allow non-members access to something that is regarded as an ACF privilege.

Watching my rating is not a privelege for me, but punishment I am OK to pass this privelege to someone else and I lose rights to see my rating.