Re: closure of the 67 BB hood stinger by don
This whole issue has puzzled me from the first time NCRS came online. It has almost become a joke / punchline on other Corvette related forums.
The scenario is pretty much the same.
1. Some sort of ruling / guidance / suggestion is announced (usually in The Restorer)
2. Now, while I am sure that said ruling etc. is clear to the author of said ruling, it may not be clear to others.
3. Members get on the NCRS DB and voice their concerns / issues etc. with said ruling.
4. Others join in the discussion.
5. Someone will invariably state / inform members that the answers are in the Judging Reference Manual / Judging Manual / Advanced Seminars / NCRS Judging School / <fill in the blank> and that all anyone has to do is stop being lazy and read (or stop being cheap and go) to various schools).
6. Other members state objections to this tone of response, or continue to ask for clarification.
7. A member (or members) complains that they object to the thread (and by the way, this prerogative "appears" to be restricted to certain members).
8. Moderator, citing fact that "members are complaining", and rather than explaining the issue clearly and concisely, instead implements standard TB response - close the thread.
9. Members open another thread, objecting to the closure of the first thread.
10. Members also continue to ask for clarification, because the issue IS SILL NOT CLEAR!
11. Moderators / admins / etc. unilaterally (or on direction for higher authority), implement standard TB response.
12. This leaves some number of members feeling frustrated / left out / ignored / neglected.
13. Moderators / admins / etc. continue to tell members to contact their regional representatives for clarification / suggestions / etc.
Now, from my personal experience, with two exceptions, every suggestion / request for clarification / etc. has been met with ... wait for it ... DEAD SILENCE. This process even has a nickname on other forums; it is called "the black hole".
I have made numerous suggestions over the years that would have at least required discussion at the BOD level, but I never hear a word about it. It fell into the black hole.
Now, I do recognize that there are many members who could not care less about me, much less about what I think. But that is not the point.
ANY suggestion, from ANY member, deserves at the very least an acknowledgement that the suggestion was received, and once the issue is discussed and decided, a follow up status.
As an example:
My example suggestion (to my regional rep): I think we should implement term limits for all NCRS elected and appointed officials. A new set of eyes every so often is a good idea.
My example regional reps's initial response: I received your suggestion for implementing term limits for all NCRS elected and appointed officials. This would have to be addressed by the Board of Directors. I will take the action to put it on the agenda for discussion by the BOD at the next meeting scheduled for July of this year.
The comes Late July or August, and my regional reps followup response: Your suggestion about term limits for all elected / appointed officials was discussed at the BOD meeting in July. The BOD has appointed a team consisting of elected members, appointed members, and regular members to review the suggestions, and to report back top the BOD with their analysis of the pros and cons of implementing a system like this. I will continue to update you as progress continues.
That is a reasonable and prudent way to handle issue like this.
If anyone really objects to a topic / thread / whatever, there is a very easy solution to this ...STOP READING IT!!! If it really bothers you, ignore the thread / topic altogether.
And finally, for the record, I still cannot figure out what the issue is with 1967 hood stingers. I wish someone would explain it to me ... in English please.
Kudos to David Brigham for considering my suggestion, and especially for replying in both an thoughtful and insightful manner. It is clear from David's response that, while my suggestion may not get any traction, but I do know that was and is being considered and evaluated in an objective manner.
I can't ask for anything beyond that.
This whole issue has puzzled me from the first time NCRS came online. It has almost become a joke / punchline on other Corvette related forums.
The scenario is pretty much the same.
1. Some sort of ruling / guidance / suggestion is announced (usually in The Restorer)
2. Now, while I am sure that said ruling etc. is clear to the author of said ruling, it may not be clear to others.
3. Members get on the NCRS DB and voice their concerns / issues etc. with said ruling.
4. Others join in the discussion.
5. Someone will invariably state / inform members that the answers are in the Judging Reference Manual / Judging Manual / Advanced Seminars / NCRS Judging School / <fill in the blank> and that all anyone has to do is stop being lazy and read (or stop being cheap and go) to various schools).
6. Other members state objections to this tone of response, or continue to ask for clarification.
7. A member (or members) complains that they object to the thread (and by the way, this prerogative "appears" to be restricted to certain members).
8. Moderator, citing fact that "members are complaining", and rather than explaining the issue clearly and concisely, instead implements standard TB response - close the thread.
9. Members open another thread, objecting to the closure of the first thread.
10. Members also continue to ask for clarification, because the issue IS SILL NOT CLEAR!
11. Moderators / admins / etc. unilaterally (or on direction for higher authority), implement standard TB response.
12. This leaves some number of members feeling frustrated / left out / ignored / neglected.
13. Moderators / admins / etc. continue to tell members to contact their regional representatives for clarification / suggestions / etc.
Now, from my personal experience, with two exceptions, every suggestion / request for clarification / etc. has been met with ... wait for it ... DEAD SILENCE. This process even has a nickname on other forums; it is called "the black hole".
I have made numerous suggestions over the years that would have at least required discussion at the BOD level, but I never hear a word about it. It fell into the black hole.
Now, I do recognize that there are many members who could not care less about me, much less about what I think. But that is not the point.
ANY suggestion, from ANY member, deserves at the very least an acknowledgement that the suggestion was received, and once the issue is discussed and decided, a follow up status.
As an example:
My example suggestion (to my regional rep): I think we should implement term limits for all NCRS elected and appointed officials. A new set of eyes every so often is a good idea.
My example regional reps's initial response: I received your suggestion for implementing term limits for all NCRS elected and appointed officials. This would have to be addressed by the Board of Directors. I will take the action to put it on the agenda for discussion by the BOD at the next meeting scheduled for July of this year.
The comes Late July or August, and my regional reps followup response: Your suggestion about term limits for all elected / appointed officials was discussed at the BOD meeting in July. The BOD has appointed a team consisting of elected members, appointed members, and regular members to review the suggestions, and to report back top the BOD with their analysis of the pros and cons of implementing a system like this. I will continue to update you as progress continues.
That is a reasonable and prudent way to handle issue like this.
If anyone really objects to a topic / thread / whatever, there is a very easy solution to this ...STOP READING IT!!! If it really bothers you, ignore the thread / topic altogether.
And finally, for the record, I still cannot figure out what the issue is with 1967 hood stingers. I wish someone would explain it to me ... in English please.
Kudos to David Brigham for considering my suggestion, and especially for replying in both an thoughtful and insightful manner. It is clear from David's response that, while my suggestion may not get any traction, but I do know that was and is being considered and evaluated in an objective manner.
I can't ask for anything beyond that.
Comment