Lou, perhaps you are infallible on uncorruptable. I freely admit that I am all too easily fallible and corruptable. But at least I know my shortcomings and I can work against my nature whenever I can.
What can I say, Richard, I am just a 59 year-old trained in psychology and business who is just too dull to see myself for what I am. Please allow me to suggest to you that just about all of us are "corruptable", but that perhaps the threshold of crossing the line is a bit higher than a green fee at a top 100 course. Believe it or not, in the early 1980s I could have played Augusta National by simply tossing some business to an Atlanta bank. Eventhough it was relatively little money to my employer (but an opportunity for the bank to establish an important corporate relationship) and I could have pushed the decision that way, it did not make business sense and I never gave it a second thought. I may never play ANGC, but don't regret my decision- it makes sleeping at night even with an enlarged prostrate a bit easier.
BTW, I heard that you are now a rater. Given your admitedly high susceptibility to even the most minor of inducements, what firewalls are you erecting to ensure that the faith and confidence bestowed upon you by the magazine were well-placed? Are you insisting on paying the rack rate expected of a non-rater stepping up to the counter?
BTW2, I don't consider myself to be a role model for anything or, for that matter, a particularly virtuous person. However, I routinely do stuff for other people with no expectation of receiving anything in return. Maybe it is a cultural thing, but I don't consider doing "favors". I don't keep a "book" of debits and credits, but if I can reasonably help someone, why not? Perhaps the quid pro quo is the satisfaction for just doing the good deed (one of my biggest regrets in life is not earning my Eagle Scout badge before my Boy Scouts troop folded- lacking one requirement for my Cooking merit badge as three times my homemade reflector oven failed in my attempt to bake bread over an open fire, but I digress).
Sean,
Your pursuit of "getting it right" is laudable. But, I suspect, gaining your endorsement is nearly impossible. I am sure all the list administrators do everything possible in their judgement to "getting it right". As the well-known book suggests, it is not a "game of perfect". Sometimes satisficing is the best reasonable expectation and guide to driving improvement. I think that most raters would take umbrage with your characterization that their work and process constitutes "doing a sloppy job".