Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Bad process, bad result

Expand Messages
  • klascar
    I sincerely believe every ranked trackchaser has the capacity to make their own decisions regarding the current question facing the trackchasing community.
    Message 1 of 7 , Oct 28, 2010
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      I sincerely believe every ranked trackchaser has the capacity to make their own decisions regarding the current question facing the trackchasing community. However, I also believe the process being used to amend the competiton rules, by-laws, whatever you choose to call the 'rules of the road' regarding trackchasing is fatally flawed.
      At present, a set of trackchasing rules exists. Ammendments or changes to these rules should be presented individually and considered on their own merit regarding their affect on current policy, not as a shotgun approach which assumes the inevitability of change to the current policy. We are currently assuming the policy MUST be changed. Of course, there is a distinct possiblity it will be changed, but to force the status quo to face a full slate of changes all at once, then take the top two changes as the mandate of those voting, makes a pretty big assumtion -- and you know what happens when we assume. Before we embark on this method of inflicting change, the more basic question of 'do you wish to change the current trackchasing rules?' must be put before the members. By taking the top two ideas for change (perhaps NEITHER of which received a majority) and holding a run-off between them to inflict change to the current rules, may force the group to accept change which is not supported by a true majority. Let each idea to change the current rules stand on its own merit against the status quo. Certainly no change should be made without majority concensus -- in which case a withholding of one's vote would be a vote against the measure. To suggest the two top vote getters, each without a majority of support, are a mandate for change is about as ethically honest as asking, 'Tell me Congressman, when did you stop beating your wife?'
      Paul Weisel

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • RTRYFBAR@AOL.COM
      Paul: Can you please clarify a few things regarding your post about the active rule proposal. 1.
      Message 2 of 7 , Oct 29, 2010
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        Paul:

        Can you please clarify a few things regarding your post about the active rule proposal.

        1. <<I also believe the process being used to amend the competition rules, by-laws, whatever you choose to call the 'rules of the road' regarding trackchasing is fatally flawed.>>

        On September 22, I originally posted on the list serve my idea as to HOW to HELP solve the kart question. I ran my proposal by Will White before making it, and he said it was basically a good proposal. The actual proposal was made October 14. It would seem to make sense that any problems you may have with the PROCEDURE of trying to help the group work out the issue should have been raised in the 20 days between when I explained how I would like to do it and the time that the rule was actually proposed.

        Please explain your logic behind not bringing up your procedural objections before the proposal was made, and what good you feel bringing up your objections now, after the process has begun, and in fact is more than halfway complete, does for this group? It seems to me that ship has already sailed, or to use a racing metaphor, it seems you’re a couple laps behind the field.

        2. <<Amendments or changes to these rules should be presented individually and considered on their own merit regarding their affect on current policy, not as a shotgun approach which assumes the inevitability of change to the current policy. We are currently assuming the policy MUST be changed.>>

        Since the very FIRST OPTION on the ballot trying to sort out the Champ Kart/Caged Kart/Flat Kart issue was to KEEP THE STATUS QUO, how did you arrive at the conclusion that there is any assumption that the current policy MUST be changed?

        3. <<Certainly no change should be made without majority consensus -- in which case a withholding of one's vote would be a vote against the measure.>>

        Your conclusion is that not voting would be a vote against the measure, but one of the choices in the vote was to keep the status quo. Using your logic and seeing that both keeping the current rule and changing the current rule are both options, not voting would be a vote against any change and a vote against no change. Imagine if we applied Paul Weisel logic to US elections? All registered voters that didn’t vote would be automatically counted as a vote for the incumbent (no change). The challenger could never win. That’s why registered voters that don’t vote don’t count for anything in election results. Please explain how you concluded that NOT voting is a vote FOR anything, especially given your comments about what someone is when they assume?

        4. <<To suggest the two top vote getters, each without a majority of support, are a mandate for change is about as ethically honest as asking, 'Tell me Congressman, when did you stop beating your wife?'>>

        What I attempted to do was to HELP the group solve an issue that has been brought up again and again, which was how to classify the Champ Karts in their current form. And I did it by attempting to allow ALL the suggestions from members of the group, whether they be listed TrackChasers or listserve members, to see the light of day with an up or down vote by the eligible voters.

        I understand that if you were to take any action on behalf of helping the group sort this out, you would have done it in a different way than I did. However, I don’t see how a procedure that includes all suggestions, and encourages all eligible to vote, but is not the way you would do it, rises anywhere near the level of being ethically dishonest. Please explain how you came to that conclusion, because quite frankly, I find that comment about my attempt to help the group move forward both ignorant and offensive.

        Guy Smith




        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • deskjet960@aol.com
        Hi, First off, I want to thank Will for all his years of dedication to this group and all the thankless hours he has put into it..... I don t want the group
        Message 3 of 7 , Oct 29, 2010
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          Hi, First off, I want to thank Will for all his years of dedication to this group and all the thankless hours he has put into it..... I don''t want the group to become unregulated to the point that everythng some people like, will count, just to get new people involved........I think Guy will steer this group thru this current controversy with the best intentions of everybody concerned...........My point on not counting all Go Kart races is that.it opens up too many possibilities that can not be fair to other track chasers..... For example, When I grew up I lived on family prorperty that had a large paved driveway, we held go kart races there whenever we wanted (including adults)...... I hope that this group would not go to people's personal property to witness go kart races........Does everyone see how this could happen? PJ
          To: TrackChasers TrackChasers@yahoogroups.com.
          Sent: Fri, Oct 29, 2010 7:59 am
          Subject: Re: [TrackChasers] Bad process, bad result




          Paul:

          Can you please clarify a few things regarding your post about the active rule proposal.

          1. <<I also believe the process being used to amend the competition rules, by-laws, whatever you choose to call the 'rules of the road' regarding trackchasing is fatally flawed.>>

          On September 22, I originally posted on the list serve my idea as to HOW to HELP solve the kart question. I ran my proposal by Will White before making it, and he said it was basically a good proposal. The actual proposal was made October 14. It would seem to make sense that any problems you may have with the PROCEDURE of trying to help the group work out the issue should have been raised in the 20 days between when I explained how I would like to do it and the time that the rule was actually proposed.

          Please explain your logic behind not bringing up your procedural objections before the proposal was made, and what good you feel bringing up your objections now, after the process has begun, and in fact is more than halfway complete, does for this group? It seems to me that ship has already sailed, or to use a racing metaphor, it seems you’re a couple laps behind the field.

          2. <<Amendments or changes to these rules should be presented individually and considered on their own merit regarding their affect on current policy, not as a shotgun approach which assumes the inevitability of change to the current policy. We are currently assuming the policy MUST be changed.>>

          Since the very FIRST OPTION on the ballot trying to sort out the Champ Kart/Caged Kart/Flat Kart issue was to KEEP THE STATUS QUO, how did you arrive at the conclusion that there is any assumption that the current policy MUST be changed?

          3. <<Certainly no change should be made without majority consensus -- in which case a withholding of one's vote would be a vote against the measure.>>

          Your conclusion is that not voting would be a vote against the measure, but one of the choices in the vote was to keep the status quo. Using your logic and seeing that both keeping the current rule and changing the current rule are both options, not voting would be a vote against any change and a vote against no change. Imagine if we applied Paul Weisel logic to US elections? All registered voters that didn’t vote would be automatically counted as a vote for the incumbent (no change). The challenger could never win. That’s why registered voters that don’t vote don’t count for anything in election results. Please explain how you concluded that NOT voting is a vote FOR anything, especially given your comments about what someone is when they assume?

          4. <<To suggest the two top vote getters, each without a majority of support, are a mandate for change is about as ethically honest as asking, 'Tell me Congressman, when did you stop beating your wife?'>>

          What I attempted to do was to HELP the group solve an issue that has been brought up again and again, which was how to classify the Champ Karts in their current form. And I did it by attempting to allow ALL the suggestions from members of the group, whether they be listed TrackChasers or listserve members, to see the light of day with an up or down vote by the eligible voters.

          I understand that if you were to take any action on behalf of helping the group sort this out, you would have done it in a different way than I did. However, I don’t see how a procedure that includes all suggestions, and encourages all eligible to vote, but is not the way you would do it, rises anywhere near the level of being ethically dishonest. Please explain how you came to that conclusion, because quite frankly, I find that comment about my attempt to help the group move forward both ignorant and offensive.

          Guy Smith

          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]







          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • RTRYFBAR@AOL.COM
          PJ: I for one do see your point about the number of kart tracks, and the unofficial nature of some of them. I recall using a similar example years ago
          Message 4 of 7 , Oct 29, 2010
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            PJ:

            I for one do see your point about the number of kart tracks, and the unofficial nature of some of them. I recall using a similar example years ago regarding Quarter Midgets setting up hay bales in a K-Mart parking lot on a Saturday morning, and you being in agreement with me on that.

            It's a tough call for me. I see the logic in what Mike says about letting all adult karting count and letting everyone do what they enjoy as a part of the group. No one is forced to go to any track they don't want to. Look to the Eckels for a perfect example. I also see the logic in what you say, as a move in that direction would move the group away from what was originally intended.

            I was fine with the status quo, fine with the caged karts to end the confusion, or fine with all the adult karts. I will still go to the races or tracks that I find enjoyable. I would hope others would do the same. I just wanted to help the group settle the question. I'm not fine with having my honesty and ethics questioned just because someone else disagrees with the procedure being employed. In the history of the group, I believe we have only had four people willing to go through the process to initiate rule changes. All four have been vilified by other members who disagreed with the change. I think three of those four would not consider making a rule proposal again. What will happen when there is nobody left willing to do anything for the group because of the personal attacks they are sure to suffer?

            Today's posts by Paul and PJ were personal opinions on the issues and free from personal attacks. That's the kind of healthy debate that I hope can be held on this group listserve. Thanks for sharing yours.

            Guy Smith







            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • poppee
            So PJ Some of the races on your current list were not held on temporary sites, ice, parking lots etc: A indy car street race should not count? I do want to
            Message 5 of 7 , Oct 29, 2010
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              So PJ
              Some of the races on your current list were not held on temporary sites, ice, parking lots etc: A indy car street race should not count? I do want to applaud your wonderful track total for many years of chasing but what have you done lately? I know you need 400 tracks to vote but maybe it should also be a rule for active people tp vote. I want the group to grow not the opposite. My point was if we eliminate then the advantage clearly goes to the people who went to all the tracks before the deadline. Guy is trying to keep the group going. Will announced he is stepping down. Will did a great job and it should have been a paid position but how many people would partisipate then? We all have opinions but we all seem to be fine with everything as long as someone else is doing the work. This includes me. I love that someone else keeps the score and am willing to pay for that service. I am one of the first people to voice my opinion and sometime I go over the line but do care about the group. I want new members as well as Rick, Allan, Roger and anyone else back that does not turn in their tracks anymore. I bet you the 20000 to win cart race in Mississippi will be better than 10% of the races on your current list. Why should flat carts not count. If it was the same track and the flat carts had to put a roll cage on them, it would count?????? You also stated padding totals. Sitting a half mile away on the bank at Lake George seems like padding to me????
              My opinion just like yours. We all have a few that no one will agree with. A track is a track and a race is a race. The question should be does everyone see a race or did they just see the track. Maybe they weren't even there?????? By the way there many cart tracks running on the way to Gateway. We choose Gateway
              Mike the bomb or bum, whatever you think (it is only an opinion) Knappenberger

              --- In TrackChasers@yahoogroups.com, deskjet960@... wrote:
              >
              > Hi, First off, I want to thank Will for all his years of dedication to this group and all the thankless hours he has put into it..... I don''t want the group to become unregulated to the point that everythng some people like, will count, just to get new people involved........I think Guy will steer this group thru this current controversy with the best intentions of everybody concerned...........My point on not counting all Go Kart races is that.it opens up too many possibilities that can not be fair to other track chasers..... For example, When I grew up I lived on family prorperty that had a large paved driveway, we held go kart races there whenever we wanted (including adults)...... I hope that this group would not go to people's personal property to witness go kart races........Does everyone see how this could happen? PJ
              > To: TrackChasers TrackChasers@yahoogroups.com
              > Sent: Fri, Oct 29, 2010 7:59 am
              > Subject: Re: [TrackChasers] Bad process, bad result
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > Paul:
              >
              > Can you please clarify a few things regarding your post about the active rule proposal.
              >
              > 1. <<I also believe the process being used to amend the competition rules, by-laws, whatever you choose to call the 'rules of the road' regarding trackchasing is fatally flawed.>>
              >
              > On September 22, I originally posted on the list serve my idea as to HOW to HELP solve the kart question. I ran my proposal by Will White before making it, and he said it was basically a good proposal. The actual proposal was made October 14. It would seem to make sense that any problems you may have with the PROCEDURE of trying to help the group work out the issue should have been raised in the 20 days between when I explained how I would like to do it and the time that the rule was actually proposed.
              >
              > Please explain your logic behind not bringing up your procedural objections before the proposal was made, and what good you feel bringing up your objections now, after the process has begun, and in fact is more than halfway complete, does for this group? It seems to me that ship has already sailed, or to use a racing metaphor, it seems you’re a couple laps behind the field.
              >
              > 2. <<Amendments or changes to these rules should be presented individually and considered on their own merit regarding their affect on current policy, not as a shotgun approach which assumes the inevitability of change to the current policy. We are currently assuming the policy MUST be changed.>>
              >
              > Since the very FIRST OPTION on the ballot trying to sort out the Champ Kart/Caged Kart/Flat Kart issue was to KEEP THE STATUS QUO, how did you arrive at the conclusion that there is any assumption that the current policy MUST be changed?
              >
              > 3. <<Certainly no change should be made without majority consensus -- in which case a withholding of one's vote would be a vote against the measure.>>
              >
              > Your conclusion is that not voting would be a vote against the measure, but one of the choices in the vote was to keep the status quo. Using your logic and seeing that both keeping the current rule and changing the current rule are both options, not voting would be a vote against any change and a vote against no change. Imagine if we applied Paul Weisel logic to US elections? All registered voters that didn’t vote would be automatically counted as a vote for the incumbent (no change). The challenger could never win. That’s why registered voters that don’t vote don’t count for anything in election results. Please explain how you concluded that NOT voting is a vote FOR anything, especially given your comments about what someone is when they assume?
              >
              > 4. <<To suggest the two top vote getters, each without a majority of support, are a mandate for change is about as ethically honest as asking, 'Tell me Congressman, when did you stop beating your wife?'>>
              >
              > What I attempted to do was to HELP the group solve an issue that has been brought up again and again, which was how to classify the Champ Karts in their current form. And I did it by attempting to allow ALL the suggestions from members of the group, whether they be listed TrackChasers or listserve members, to see the light of day with an up or down vote by the eligible voters.
              >
              > I understand that if you were to take any action on behalf of helping the group sort this out, you would have done it in a different way than I did. However, I don’t see how a procedure that includes all suggestions, and encourages all eligible to vote, but is not the way you would do it, rises anywhere near the level of being ethically dishonest. Please explain how you came to that conclusion, because quite frankly, I find that comment about my attempt to help the group move forward both ignorant and offensive.
              >
              > Guy Smith
              >
              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              >
            • Will White
              It would be awesome to see who became the first person to go to 10 kart tracks in one day. Maybe I ll try it even if they aren t countable. After all, I m
              Message 6 of 7 , Oct 29, 2010
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment
                It would be awesome to see who became the first person to go to 10 kart
                tracks in one day. Maybe I'll try it even if they aren't countable.
                After all, I'm still a race fan.

                Will
              • RTRYFBAR@AOL.COM
                Ha ha. Maybe we will see more of your humor/humour in the future. But get your own tag line. That one s mine. :) ... From: Will White
                Message 7 of 7 , Oct 29, 2010
                View Source
                • 0 Attachment
                  Ha ha. Maybe we will see more of your humor/humour in the future. But get your own tag line. That one's mine. :)








                  -----Original Message-----
                  From: Will White <trackchaser@...>
                  To: TrackChasers@yahoogroups.com
                  Sent: Fri, Oct 29, 2010 1:00 pm
                  Subject: [TrackChasers] records will fall


                  It would be awesome to see who became the first person to go to 10 kart
                  tracks in one day. Maybe I'll try it even if they aren't countable.
                  After all, I'm still a race fan.

                  Will




                  ------------------------------------

                  Community email addresses:
                  Post message: TrackChasers@yahoogroups.com
                  Subscribe: TrackChasers-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
                  Unsubscribe: TrackChasers-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                  List owner: TrackChasers-owner@yahoogroups.com

                  Shortcut URL to this page:
                  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TrackChasersYahoo! Groups Links







                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.