Yeah... I guess my deal with this is exactly what Mark is saying... if it is a
predetermined list... it is all in the wording... which can easily sway people
to choose things that may 'sound' good... but have no understanding of they
have just chosen.
There is nothing wrong with member input... but putting words in there mouths
probably isn't right.
Why not... have the proposed shock rule listed on feedback cards... that they
could choose to fill out at the event... and turn in afterwards... this way you
would still get overwhelming responses, however the terminalogy would be in
each competitor's own words.
Then you can try to group them... best as possible... and see if there is any
kind of general consensus. Much like writing a letter would do on its own
merit.
Predetermined answers are NOT a good thing... what if the entire Nation thinks
1" is to small a variance... I doubt the 'poll' will have a 1" or GREATER... or
a 'within 2" of stock length' obviously this is an exaggerated example... but
hopefully you see my point.
Peace,
Dave Schotz
My next favorite Place: www.SCCAForums.com
In a message dated Thu, 14 Mar 2002 1:19:22 PM Eastern Standard Time,
TeamZ06@aol.com writes:
> Alex,
>
> I am not shooting arrows for the fun of it. I have seriously grave doubts
> regarding this polling proposal.
>
> a) There is nothing *scientific* about a poll. Calculating the numbers
> accurately, determining bell curves, etc. does not make the poll scientific,
> it just means it was processed a certain way.
>
> b) A poll can easily be skewed by the wording of the questions and how
> they're presented, particularly if the poll is limited by the number of
> questions. One of the reasons I don't generally get involved with the polls
> on this list is because the choices are often so poorly represented.
>
> c) There are a large number of people who are not well informed on this
> topic. Determining population consensus is not necessarily meaningful.
>
> I'd rather take my chances with an SEB ruling. IMO the purpose of member
> comment to the SEB is not necessarily to determine a consensus opinion, but
> rather to provide them with a variety of ideas and viewpoints, coupled with
> their own intimate experience and knowledge, to lead us in the proper
> direction. You will not achieve this with a poll. I'm shocked that the idea
> is even being considered.
>
> Mark Sipe
>
>
> In a message dated 3/14/02 10:59:57 AM Central Standard Time,
> alextzi@yahoo.com writes:
>
>
> > I spoke with Howard Duncan via email.
> >
> > #1 according to Howard "The name on the cover of the Solo rule book
> > says "SCCA National SOLO 2002 Rules", therefore, I would say that it
> > is safe to say that the rules have been developed over the years with
> > the National program mostly in mind. However, that is not to say that
> > the impact at the Regional level is not taken into consideration. It
> > most certainly is, but since regions can modify the rules to some
> > degree as they see fit, it is a secondary consideration. To confuse
> > this even more though, I would say a great deal of the push on
> > limiting shock rules comes from regional competitors."
> >
> >
> > #2 So, given that the Solo 2 rules are to serve the national program
> > first (since regions can change the rules if they want), what we
> > really want is the opinion of People who go to national events in
> > order to drive the rules going forward.
> >
> > #3 Given #2, I have agreed to implement a survey to be given to all
> > national level competitors at every SCCA national level Solo II/Pro
> > solo event. We will require every entrant to complete the survey
> > (which will be short, 3-4 questions which should take about 1 minute
> > to complete) which the entrant is *required* to hand in at
> > registration as part of the registration process. By taking a
> > sampling of EVERY national competitor the results will be
> > statistically valid and representative of the population of National
> > event competitors and thus the data can scientifically be used to
> > implement rule changes. I will compile the data and run the
> > statistics on it. Over the course of the season we should be able to
> > gather a good 1000 responses (if you take the duplicates out, because
> > one person probably goes to more than one national event. That will
> > be done by requiring the entrant to put the last 4 digits of their
> > SCCA number on the form, which won't identify them personally).
> >
> > Howard has agreed to try #3. We will see if we can try it at the El
> > Toro Pro, if not then The Houston Tour should give me enough time to
> > set everything up.
> >
> > Thanks
> > Alex Tziortzis
>
> /// unsubscribe/change address requests to majordomo@autox.team.net or try
> /// http://www.team.net/cgi-bin/majorcool
> /// http://www.team.net/mailman/listinfo
> /// Partial archives at http://www.team.net/archive
> /// Send list postings to autox@autox.team.net
/// unsubscribe/change address requests to majordomo@autox.team.net or try
/// http://www.team.net/mailman/listinfo
/// Partial archives at http://www.team.net/archive
|