[Tony Ristola]

Ian,

Nice try. Another attempt at deflection.
 
Those who make decisions about hiring an architect aren't most likely surfing here, it's one thread in hundreds if not thousands.

Why not try telling me what benefit the ASGCA rule about restricting free speech brings the game, the profession and the investor?

PS. You don't see a link to my site and I didn't link it in the thread; unlike others here.

[Forrest Richardson]

Confidential Guide...never heard of it. Was it that novel by Bob Cupp?

[wsmorrison]

I wonder who benefits the most, the ASGCA or Tom Doak, if he became a member of the Society.  Well, on second thought, I guess I don't wonder.

I find it hard to believe that all of the members reach all of the standards required for entry.  If they do not, what does this imply?

[Ian Andrew]

Tony,

deflecting what?

You state there is censorship in the ASGCA

We have countered that while there is a code of ethics - the reality is there is no enforcement - because judging a code is all subjective anyway. It's an old code written a long time ago in order to try and have some decorum in the society.

[Tony Ristola]

QUOTE:
We have countered that while there is a code of ethics - the reality is there is no enforcement - because judging a code is all subjective anyway. It's an old code written a long time ago in order to try and have some decorum in the society.
END
I was just about ready to call it quits and then this!
Well then... what is all the fuss about getting this restriction on free speech removed. So long as it's there it's bound to be abused. It has been.

Tell me. Will everyone, will every young up-and-comer know this isn't enforced? Why have it if it's just page filler. This makes zero sense. Especially the way the swords were drawn in its defense.

I'm baffled at the logic.


Tom:

I used your quote verbatim. Either way, I find it disturbing that the leading body can influence membership due to what someone says. Their professional opinion. It has a chilling effect on the most vulnerable, and it hurts the most vulnerable investors most; I don't consider myself in the "vulnerable" class, or I'd probably not posted anything. I'd probably be working for someone else too.

I'll leave your comment as The Summation to the Jury and let them ponder it... for now.

Have to say, I'm a wee bit disappointed in the attempt at character assassination. All from ASGCA members.

I'll guess the record is clear; you folks believe in restricting free speech. OK, now we know where you stand.

[Ian Andrew]

Tom:

I'm a wee bit disappointed in the attempt at character assassination

...and your not doing the same?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom Doak,

Since I posted the actual rules, I hope you would address those, rather than Tony's twisted view on them.  There are no codes agains self laudatory remarks, as per points 4-8 below, just nothing fraudulent, or false, etc.:

IV. Members shall not engage in any practices that involve dishonesty, fraud, deceit, bribery or misrepresentation in securing or executing their work.

V.  Members shall not promote themselves or their services with false, exaggerated or misleading information and publicity.

VI. Members shall report truthfully and clearly to their prospective client or employer their qualifications and capabilities to perform services.

VII. Members shall make full disclosure to their client or employer any financial or other interest they may have in any part of their project. Members shall avoid, abandon or remove such interests if they compromise their actions or prevent them from serving the best interest of their client or employer.

VIII. Members shall recognize and respect the work of other golf course architects and shall not knowingly make statements or offer opinions and comments that are false or attempt to injure or disparage their practice, projects or any of their work.


As you can see from point 8, the rule apparently applies to all gca's, not just members.  It also gives some wiggle room, saying "knowingly make false statments" which implies you can talk about other gca's but you can't lie about them, at least the way I read it.

Tony, I think Ian has summed it up with brevity.  

And, I will add that you are pretty arrogant to believe that an investor, smart enough to have made the millions necessary to build a golf course, isn't smart enough to know which gca is best for him, unless of course, you tell him.

Since you are the ones making the accusations that ASGCA harms the investor, why don't you offer some proof to start?  The facts are that investors in the US and elsewhere HAVE found young, relatively unknown at the time gca's like Kidd, Doak, etc. for high profile projects.  And not a peep from ASGCA, except of course, from individual gca's who happened to be both members and chasing those glorius, once in a lifetime commissions aggressively, as you like to say.

For all your rants, you really haven't convinced me that investors have been hurt, and you haven't really tried, other than to have us accept both your ideas on that, and your twisting of the ASGCA code

But keep trying....as I enjoy the good natured banter.

[Tony Ristola]

Ian:

I have not called anyone "angry, troubled or used the word "hate" to describe them in an attempt to discredit their argument. ASGCA members have. These words indicate someone who is not rational and is working from emotion. It is an attempt at character assassination, and is usually the weapon of choice when someone cannot defend their position.

How do you defend restricting free speech?

Where have I impugned anyone's character? I've stuck to the issue. Free speech, membership, and abuses when speech is restricted, plus the wavering line in such rules.

I think Tom Doak did a fine Summation of the whole.

QUOTE
Tony, I think Ian has summed it up with brevity.
END

You think wrong. But that's OK, think what you like. You don't see me advertising here.

QUOTE:
And, I will add that you are pretty arrogant to believe that an investor, smart enough to have made the millions necessary to build a golf course, isn't smart enough to know which gca is best for him, unless of course, you tell him.
END
I think it is pretty arrogant for you to limit the information for investors assuming that all know everything about the business. Do you?

QUOTE
Since you are the ones making the accusations that ASGCA harms the investor, why don't you offer some proof to start?
END
You cannot measure what is lost. You cannot measure changes in industry direction, different choices. How do you? You can't. But restricting speech keeps people ignorant. Ignorance comes with costs.

QUOTE
The facts are that investors in the US and elsewhere HAVE found young, relatively unknown at the time gca's like Kidd, Doak, etc. for high profile projects.  
END
Some have, and more just might if the floodgates of speech are fully open.

QUOTE
For all your rants, you really haven't convinced me that investors have been hurt, and you haven't really tried, other than to have us accept both your ideas on that, and your twisting of the ASGCA code
END
Jeff, go read your code. There is no twisting. It's all there in black and white.

[Forrest Richardson]

Wayne — It is probably no different than the Western Division of the Wm Flynn Society. Hey, several of those members still don't believe the existence of the lost Bluenose Lake Course outside Chandler. But, do we excommunicate them?! Surely not.

[wsmorrison]

Forrest,

Tom Paul was delighted with your sense of humor upon meeting with you in Pittsburgh last week.  While I am certain you are trying to be funny, my last post, to which you responded, was serious.  There is no William Flynn Society, North, South, East or West.  There is an ASGCA with a membership that may not be as presented.  Are there members that do not meet the requirements?  A simple yes or no response is preferred.

[Tom_Doak]

Jeff:

Sorry I did not see your post which was way at the bottom of page two; I didn't get that far.

I really did not mean to get into this debate at all because it's ground we've covered before, but I don't like being dragged into things without all the facts being straight, which isn't your fault.

After reading the code, it's Rule 8 I'm wondering about -- I thought you had said it was in the context of an architect competing with another to try and secure a job, but I don't see that in the text.

[Ian Andrew]

If you feel so strongly - why would you ever join any society.

Why should you care what any society does - or does not - there are plenty of examples like Tom Doak where they are having great success without being part of a society. After all being a member of the ASGCA does not bring work.

What is this really about? Did you apply and not get in somewhere?

[Tony Ristola]

Ian:

Why not answer the questions that have been posed? Is the following rule good for golf? Investor? Why have it? What is self laudatory? Who defines it? What is the purpose of restricting free speech?

“Members will avoid "self-laudatory" advertisement/publicity..."
Source: ASGCA & EIGCA

One word difference. I believe it's Nr. 2 in both Codes.
If it doesn't matter, why not remove it?

[Ian Andrew]

Tony,

It matters to me if you applied and were turned down - then I might understand the importance of your point. I would at least be empathetic to how you feel.

Did you lose out on a commission to an ASGCA member working in your area and felt he had used his membership in the society to indicate he was more capable? Again I would get where this issue effects you.

You make assumptions on the restriction of free speech - I tell you I have not ever felt restricted in anything I say - you tell me to answer the question - I did. What more do you want me to say?

[Tony Ristola]

QUOTE:
It matters to me if you applied and were turned down - then I might understand the importance of your point. I would at least be empathetic to how you feel.
END
A previous post hits on some reasoning why. Don't require empathy, but thanks anyway.

QUOTE:
Did you lose out on a commission to an ASGCA member working in your area and felt he had used his membership in the society to indicate he was more capable? Again I would get where this issue effects you.
END
No. And you know what, it wouldn't bother me one bit if someone did. Not one iota. I'm not structured that way. I see this as a competitive business, and the investor should have maximum flexibility. It's his money after all. I don't see how an association should restrict his choice or flow of info in any way. What that scenario does is keep the architect(s) on his or her toes. That's as it should be. Having said that I don't go out and solicit projects others have.

I had one of the ASGCA heavy hitters try to insert himself into a project I'd spent many years with the investors on. You know what? It doesn't bother me that he did try. Why? Because it is the investor's money, his risk, his investment. If he thought he'd get a better deal and service, that is his choice. That I provided excellent service, and it would continue once the project was permitted (it's still wallowing), was my saving grace. He told the individual he was happy with who he had. Had I not provided him with good service and had I not explained my services once the machines hit the site, and had a history that backed it up 100%, I may have lost out. Even if I had. His choice and no bad feelings. It's his money and his investment.

QUOTE
You make assumptions on the restriction of free speech - I tell you I have not ever felt restricted in anything I say - you tell me to answer the question - I did. What more do you want me to say?
END
You not, but the potential is there. You have spent your career associated with an ASGCA member before going solo?

What case can be made for restricting free speech?

The case I make regarding free speech is not cloaked in assumptions. Restricting it comes with grave consequences. It always has. I noted two instances where it is acceptable; national security and confidentiality agreements. Otherwise it's ripe for abuse.

What has been defended is the right to restrict speech. I don't understand the value in that. Not at all, and never will unless someone does a great job of explaining its advantages to me, for the investor and the great game of golf. The guy or gal who does it better do a great job because I think the Founding Fathers hit on an unbeatable model concerning the power of free speech.

[Forrest Richardson]

This is a load of semantics. I think the heart of the ASGCA Code of Ethics has to do with stuff we — hopefully — all learned in kindergarten. Being polite and not unnecessarily attacking a fellow professional seems like a good idea. That ideal has nothing to do with free speech.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Ian,

Tony did not get into the ESGCA several years back. I forget the exact circumstances, but he and I had numerous discussions.  He is clearly bitter about that from this and other discussions.

Now that it has come up again, I wonder aloud to Tony exactly what were those circumstances?  You have said a member told you to revise your advertising and such.  Was that as part of the formal application process or did an individual call you and short circuit you even trying?  Or did you apply and feel as if the "due process" (which IMHO is all you should be guaranteed) was cut short?

Tony, as near as I can tell, the industry problems you see come in two main areas - 1) A gca can't get into ASGCA if you have said/written certain things and 2) investors can't get all information they need without another gca pointing out the flaws of his competitors.

As to the first, technically, there is nothing in those code of ethics that prevents someone from applying if he has five courses, but there is never a guarantee of a favorable vote either for any applicant.  Net result, ASGCA doesn't stop you from doing .  There may be however, a link between behavior and the vote of about 140 regular members.

So, a few individuals who don't play well in the sandbox (to quote Forrest) don't get in to ASGCA.  Overall, I am not sure that is a huge blemish on the industry.  

As to investor knowledge, can you even acknowledge that if I said "Tony Ristola is a whack job" in an interview, that it might hurt you, but it would more likely hurt my image AND more importantly, simply be taken as one bit of info in making the decision?  More than that, it would not be taken too seriously because it is coming from a competitor with something to gain by slamming you.

You aren't really being any more convincing, to me at least by saying it over and over, and saying it louder.  Nor is the fact that you tell Ian that there is "potential" for such things even though you really don't list any abuses that HAVE happened. (You mentioned Tom D, but he came on to correct you.

Tom D,

Just goes to show that none of us sit here and read the ethics document every day to memorize it.  I would have sworn it said "in procuring work" but I am wrong, unless you believe the old adage that you are marketing yourself in every waking moment.  I posted the code verbatim because Tony tells us that we can't make self laudatory statements, even after seeing the code in BW which proves it isn't so.  In fact, we all do that, its called marketing.

I like the banter and the thought process of debating big ideas of things like limiting free speech as a concept.  I am tiring a bit of arguing with Tony.  (Ah, there has to be a Soprano's paralell in there somewhere) I think the ASGCA side has used more logic and less venom in this argument than he.  Of course, its all preception, and perhaps 1490 gca.com participants are sitting out there cheering him on.

They would somehow share Tony's thinking the golf architecture biz is different enough than other businesses to warrant special treatment allowing competitors to say untruthful things about each other with impunity.  Heck, the burger chains are suing Jack in the Box for deceptive advertising right now, and the pizza chains once sued Papa Johns for saying "their ingredients were better."  I question those lawsuits, like Tony presumably would, but in general, I see more harm in a bunch of competitors outright lying about each other (which again is all the code prevents) than in agreeing not to lie about each other!

[Forrest Richardson]

It all beings with good parenting.

[Kyle Harris]

It should be noted here that in open Lincoln/Douglas style debating. Both the Aff and Neg sides need to present facts in terms of a position, and not merely attack the logic or position of the other side. One can compete merely on the benefits of one's own position, in other words.

Perhaps it is more of an indictment of an architects ability to sell his own design if a comparitive question is the test of worthiness.  

[Joe Hancock]

It should be noted here that in open Lincoln/Douglas style debating. Both the Aff and Neg sides need to present facts in terms of a position, and not merely attack the logic or position of the other side. One can compete merely on the benefits of one's own position, in other words.

Is that what happens in a typical "debate" between husband and wife?

And, since I'm on a movie/ TV quote kick....

"Hello, Mrs. Premise...."

"Hello, Mrs. Conclusion.."

"Busy day?"

Joe

[Kyle Harris]

Joe,

Of course not, but seeing as we are all professionals here...

And that's the point.

Oh who cares, I'm tired...

I just spent four hours outside burying the cat!

[Don_Mahaffey]

Joe,
Is your "facility" clean? Stop these useless posts and get down there and uphold the honor of your fellow supts...honkus.

Damn Kyle,
I haven't been to a four hour funeral since the local bishop died. Special cat?
What did you have to do...jack hammer the driveway?

[Kyle Harris]

Well, I read a book on the subject, and the book said, you could either shoot it in the head, or hit it with the book....

[Mike_Young]

Gosh..this thread is still here after all day of playing golf......

PERCEPTION IS REALITY

Tony,
I am not a member either.....I only really think about it when this site gets something going.....so it ain't that big a deal if you are getting jobs....
It may be that my comments keep me from getting in if I ever apply again... just as the same type comments could keep me from getting a job if they were directed at a potential client.....that is the free enterprise system.....they do not govern golf architecture and are a group that is ,thankully  allowed to set their rules just as a private club can set their own rules.....SO BE IT....
NOW....having said the above......let me say the below....

PERCEPTION IS REALITY......the perception by most of the golf world is that the ASGCA is the final word on golf architecture....I honestly don't think the other Allied Associations of Golf understand the ASGCA as well as some of us that have not been accepted.....OK...SO WHAT....
but it was funny last year I was at an event sponsored by one of the large, if not largest, turf equipment/irrigation companies....and the person in charge of calling on golf architects and PR for the country addressed the group as "architects and designers".....when I asked him why he said that he had been told by a past president that non members were not considered architects......WELL.....is that an untruth??? NO..it may the policy of that particular group, whether it be ASGCA or any other private group.....IT may also have been ignorant of the PR person.....
Tony, let me say this as someone who has also been turned down....quit bitching about it here because it will make you look worse than the group.....no one wins these things.....
AND as with anything in a free society....if it is not working and there are enough disgruntled people..something else will come along to fill that niche.....always does.....

Wayne,

You asked if there are members that don't qualify.  Yes....there are members that cannot draw a set of plans, analyze an irrigation system or get a golf course built.....there are members that were admitted by waiving specific requirements at the time of admission.....AND the ASGCA members know this BUT it is there group and they can set their own rules.....guys are dying in Iraq for that right as we speak....I may become agitated at such but I would want the same for other private groups.....  MY GRIPE HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE PERCEPTION .....AS I SAW FIRST HAND BY THE TORO PR GUY.....They do one hell of a job with that.....PERCEPTION
HOPE I HAVE BEEN NICE ABOUT THIS.....

[paul cowley]

....see, Mike's very honest thread [and TomDs] convinces me all the more that their inclusion would bode well for the Society....I think some of the Ethics Code might benefit from a little tweaking and updating to bring it more in line with the times....but I feel its best done from the inside.

They could work on the E Code as inside agitators.

I would lend a hand, but I already have my hands full trying to revise the Dress Code.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()