Comments on: The Hanging Chad of Flyball http://www.flyballblog.com/the-hanging-chad-of-flyball/ i-Flyball Thu, 08 Dec 2011 13:35:10 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Chris http://www.flyballblog.com/the-hanging-chad-of-flyball/comment-page-1/#comment-1423 Chris Thu, 11 Feb 2010 19:59:53 +0000 http://www.flyballblog.com/?p=291#comment-1423 My answer to the question, "Did you win?" is "My dogs had fun. I had fun. I think that makes us winners!" Unless, of course, we DID have a "First PLace". Kidding aside, I was logged on to the "chats" and in the first chat, one candidate had a habit of commenting, "ha, ha" and "LoL" which I don't have a problem with but, those were edited out. While that doesn't sound "major", I think if a candidate isn't treating an issue seriously, I think voters should know that. Also, in the second chat, there were some follow up questions asking about who helped out at the CanAm and most of the candidates responded but, that whole exchange was edited out. As to the alledged "attack" on a candidate, I did not perceive this exchange as an attack at all. It was two candidates with opposing views talking to each other very civilized. (about "Rule" changes) Only one received a warning from the moderator but, I think that was because the candidates were talking to each other and not the questioner. They were discussing "on the topic" and I didn't think a warning was necessary nor did any of those comments need to be deleted from the transcript. Frankly, I think it would have been valuable information for the voters because issues debated at the Board are debated among Board members and not the public. There is no "questioner" and I think such an exchange would tell us how a candidate treats someone with an opposing view. Are they polite and respectful? Are their thoughts well reasoned and logical? Or, are they just in some kind of pissing match? Voters have a right to know! " as Lee responded didn’t really have a place on the chat (my reaction at the time)." Actually, what Lee responded to remained in the transcript and, although he felt the question belonged in a Leadership Chat, the way the candidates responded to the question would have been valuable to voters. I think people know that non-BoD members may not be privy to all the information that is available to Board members on certain NAFA issues but, "Leadership" as a trait needs to be "demonstrated". Its one of those intangibles that can't be defined but, you know it when you see it. What bothers me about all this is that NAFA has a vested interest in the election results. Since many voters rely on reading chat transcripts to get a feel for who the Board candidates are, I don't think any NAFA Board members should be involved in "moderating" or "editing". It's the equivalent of holding an election debate on the floor of Congress with the President moderating and C-SPAN editing a transcript. How many would blindly trust that as "reliable" information especially, if your political views were for the "opposition party"? I'd like to see a "neutral" third party take over the "candidate chats" (like the League of Women Voters does) and moderate it so that the "audience" doesn't know who asked a question but, the candidates can respond, challenge each other and followup questions come through the moderator. i-Flyball, would you be interested in hosting such a "chat"? JMHO Chris My answer to the question, “Did you win?” is “My dogs had fun. I had fun. I think that makes us winners!” Unless, of course, we DID have a “First PLace”.

Kidding aside, I was logged on to the “chats” and in the first chat, one candidate had a habit of commenting, “ha, ha” and “LoL” which I don’t have a problem with but, those were edited out. While that doesn’t sound “major”, I think if a candidate isn’t treating an issue seriously, I think voters should know that.

Also, in the second chat, there were some follow up questions asking about who helped out at the CanAm and most of the candidates responded but, that whole exchange was edited out.

As to the alledged “attack” on a candidate, I did not perceive this exchange as an attack at all. It was two candidates with opposing views talking to each other very civilized. (about “Rule” changes) Only one received a warning from the moderator but, I think that was because the candidates were talking to each other and not the questioner. They were discussing “on the topic” and I didn’t think a warning was necessary nor did any of those comments need to be deleted from the transcript.

Frankly, I think it would have been valuable information for the voters because issues debated at the Board are debated among Board members and not the public. There is no “questioner” and I think such an exchange would tell us how a candidate treats someone with an opposing view. Are they polite and respectful? Are their thoughts well reasoned and logical? Or, are they just in some kind of pissing match? Voters have a right to know!

” as Lee responded didn’t really have a place on the chat (my reaction at the time).”

Actually, what Lee responded to remained in the transcript and, although he felt the question belonged in a Leadership Chat, the way the candidates responded to the question would have been valuable to voters. I think people know that non-BoD members may not be privy to all the information that is available to Board members on certain NAFA issues but, “Leadership” as a trait needs to be “demonstrated”. Its one of those intangibles that can’t be defined but, you know it when you see it.

What bothers me about all this is that NAFA has a vested interest in the election results. Since many voters rely on reading chat transcripts to get a feel for who the Board candidates are, I don’t think any NAFA Board members should be involved in “moderating” or “editing”.

It’s the equivalent of holding an election debate on the floor of Congress with the President moderating and C-SPAN editing a transcript. How many would blindly trust that as “reliable” information especially, if your political views were for the “opposition party”?

I’d like to see a “neutral” third party take over the “candidate chats” (like the League of Women Voters does) and moderate it so that the “audience” doesn’t know who asked a question but, the candidates can respond, challenge each other and followup questions come through the moderator.

i-Flyball, would you be interested in hosting such a “chat”?

JMHO

Chris

]]> By: barbara http://www.flyballblog.com/the-hanging-chad-of-flyball/comment-page-1/#comment-1396 barbara Wed, 10 Feb 2010 04:38:08 +0000 http://www.flyballblog.com/?p=291#comment-1396 Several random coments here -- People in Div 1 clubs are often more outgoing and more *aggressive* if you will so are MORE likely to be involved in the sport, what goes on in it, and more likely to be interested in running it, so they ARE the ones getting elected to the Board. As commented before a LOT of people playing the sport are not interested in the operation or the details -- they want to come and run their dogs and go home. I would like to see a bigger percentage of votes returned each year -- I am especially disappointed in the return from Reg 11. More clubs are active than the voting reflects. I didn't like the block voting -- they could have put codes for all the votes on one page and still saved paper. I don't have a problem with the club owner getting control of the votes -- I have some great people on my club, great flyballers... but they are not interested in the politics. They leave it to me to stay informed, tell them of anything they should know, and to do the voting. I DO tell them of the choices, especially if they actually know the people or dogs, and would support their choices IF they made some... but they are like the majority of flyballers -- they do not want to add that *responsibility* to their enjoyment of the sport. Larry I can agree with your idea that someone should serve their 3 years, be off at least a year and then serve 3 more -- and then no more BUT NAFA is still going to have to find people to serve who are familiar with what is going on. Bringing new ideas into the org is one thing -- bringing people in with no experience, who are not making a living off the org so are not *required* to give it all their attention or effort, who do not meet often -- even by teleconference -- is going to leave us all with a disadvantaged org. It needs more attention than it is getting NOW... to bar much of its experienced volunteer help could make it even less responsive. I was on the chat mentioned above -- the *attack* wasn't "that bad" but it did have the effect of a personal attack on a candidate and as Lee responded didn't really have a place on the chat (my reaction at the time). I have met most of the BOD members at one time or another and I believe most of them are doing what they feel best for the sport overall. Maybe many *bests* are a bit type A for some of us but this is a sport of WINNING as well as EARNING (titles) and if you don't aim high, you don't have a top notch sport. Playing with rules and equipment aimed at the BEST will serve more of us in the long run than aiming at a lower bracket. (By the way -- when I tell someone what I did over the weekend, they always, ALWAYS ask "did you win ??") Several random coments here — People in Div 1 clubs are often more outgoing and more *aggressive* if you will so are MORE likely to be involved in the sport, what goes on in it, and more likely to be interested in running it, so they ARE the ones getting elected to the Board. As commented before a LOT of people playing the sport are not interested in the operation or the details — they want to come and run their dogs and go home.
I would like to see a bigger percentage of votes returned each year — I am especially disappointed in the return from Reg 11. More clubs are active than the voting reflects. I didn’t like the block voting — they could have put codes for all the votes on one page and still saved paper. I don’t have a problem with the club owner getting control of the votes — I have some great people on my club, great flyballers… but they are not interested in the politics. They leave it to me to stay informed, tell them of anything they should know, and to do the voting. I DO tell them of the choices, especially if they actually know the people or dogs, and would support their choices IF they made some… but they are like the majority of flyballers — they do not want to add that *responsibility* to their enjoyment of the sport.
Larry I can agree with your idea that someone should serve their 3 years, be off at least a year and then serve 3 more — and then no more BUT NAFA is still going to have to find people to serve who are familiar with what is going on. Bringing new ideas into the org is one thing — bringing people in with no experience, who are not making a living off the org so are not *required* to give it all their attention or effort, who do not meet often — even by teleconference — is going to leave us all with a disadvantaged org. It needs more attention than it is getting NOW… to bar much of its experienced volunteer help could make it even less responsive.
I was on the chat mentioned above — the *attack* wasn’t “that bad” but it did have the effect of a personal attack on a candidate and as Lee responded didn’t really have a place on the chat (my reaction at the time).
I have met most of the BOD members at one time or another and I believe most of them are doing what they feel best for the sport overall. Maybe many *bests* are a bit type A for some of us but this is a sport of WINNING as well as EARNING (titles) and if you don’t aim high, you don’t have a top notch sport. Playing with rules and equipment aimed at the BEST will serve more of us in the long run than aiming at a lower bracket. (By the way — when I tell someone what I did over the weekend, they always, ALWAYS ask “did you win ??”)

]]> By: Fay http://www.flyballblog.com/the-hanging-chad-of-flyball/comment-page-1/#comment-1360 Fay Sat, 30 Jan 2010 05:38:31 +0000 http://www.flyballblog.com/?p=291#comment-1360 I agree, Julia. It will be interesting to see NAFA's response to this. I agree, Julia. It will be interesting to see NAFA’s response to this.

]]> By: julia http://www.flyballblog.com/the-hanging-chad-of-flyball/comment-page-1/#comment-1359 julia Fri, 29 Jan 2010 22:57:30 +0000 http://www.flyballblog.com/?p=291#comment-1359 It will be interesting to see what NAFA has to say. Anybody at the chat willing to comment at this time? It will be interesting to see what NAFA has to say. Anybody at the chat willing to comment at this time?

]]> By: Judy http://www.flyballblog.com/the-hanging-chad-of-flyball/comment-page-1/#comment-1358 Judy Fri, 29 Jan 2010 22:13:44 +0000 http://www.flyballblog.com/?p=291#comment-1358 At one time appointments to the bod were made from the list of people that had previously run for the bod. Somehow the present bod has gotten away from that "precedent that was previously set" (something that they have quoted in some recent decisions). This way of appointment would have been known by one of the present bod members so that couldn't be an excuse for not using that same way. Maybe something needs to be added to the rules and guidelines regarding this for future appointments. At one time appointments to the bod were made from the list of people that had previously run for the bod. Somehow the present bod has gotten away from that “precedent that was previously set” (something that they have quoted in some recent decisions). This way of appointment would have been known by one of the present bod members so that couldn’t be an excuse for not using that same way. Maybe something needs to be added to the rules and guidelines regarding this for future appointments.

]]>