A lot of this ACF discussion is going over old ground, but I just want to make one point. Steve said: "ACF, as it is right now, is a very informal organization *to say the least.* If it wants the year-in, year-out credibility that NAQT has, it needs to be a little more formal." "But with a completely opaque process, there's no information reaching we (sic) players..." "In sum, ACF has the feel of being an ad hoc committee, and that's dangerous." You repeatedly stress the fact that ACF is an informal organization. And you're certainly right about that. But is that informality necessarily a bad ("dangerous") thing? ACF is not a corporation; it doesn't have officers, a stable of writers, and a bunch of precise guidelines. Basically it's four or five guys who are trying to do EVERYTHING themselves, not for glory (and certainly not for money), but because they want to put on a good tournament. I think the reason there are only a few people in charge is because they're the few people who care enough to do something to keep ACF going. The guys running ACF are students like everybody else. Given that they're going to classes, taking exams, writing papers, preparing lesson plans, grading and all the rest of it while simultaneously trying to edit packets into shape, I'm not terribly surprised that they don't have the time to ruminate on every last contingency. If people are genuinely concerned about the perceived insularity of the ACF direction, maybe they should offer to help: the more people involved, the more open ACF will be. But if nobody volunteers, then of course the core of contributors will remain small. Alice wearing a coat and tie right now to make my statements more credible
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:44 AM EST EST