just a list of names with DNWs, not the entire list of participants...
-Arnold
"Gee, Brain. What are we going to do tonight?"
"Same thing we do every night, Pinky. Try and take over the world!"
>From: "Michael R. Clements" <mrclem@telocity.com>
>To: "Pat Kelly" <lollipop487@home.com>, "Michael R. Clements"
><mrclem@telocity.com>, <jesvilla@gte.net>, "cheryl grantz"
><sgrantz@peoplepc.com>
>CC: "ba autocross list" <ba-autox@autox.team.net>
>Subject: RE: More DNWs
>Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 15:57:08 -0800
>
>I plead guilty as charged! (of inventing ideas for others to implement)
>
>Would it slow things down if each person working registration had a
>hardcopy
>list of the last event's participants and could look up the name of the
>person registering to see if he had a DNW?
>
>Incidentally, my experience attending events periodically over the years is
>the opposite -- when I go to events I find it more interesting to work
>multiple assignments and see/learn what is going on, rather that sit on my
>duff or twiddle my thumbs, and I always see a lot of people who are doing
>the same thing (working multiple assignments). These are the same people
>I've seen off and on over the past 5 years. It always seemed to be the
>culture of the SFR SCCA that people try to make themselves useful and help
>out during the course of the day's event. I'm surprised to hear that there
>is a problem with DNWs.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-ba-autox@autox.team.net
>[mailto:owner-ba-autox@autox.team.net]On Behalf Of Pat Kelly
>Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2001 14:57
>To: Michael R. Clements; jesvilla@gte.net; cheryl grantz
>Cc: ba autocross list
>Subject: Re: More DNWs
>
>
>Aaah, Michael, it is YOUR assignment. Now that you've accepted it, I'm sure
>you can figure out a way. :) :) (please note the smiles!!)
>--Pat K
>----------
> >From: "Michael R. Clements" <mrclem@telocity.com>
> >To: "Pat Kelly" <lollipop487@home.com>, <jesvilla@gte.net>, "Cheryl
>Grantz"
><sgrantz@peoplepc.com>
> >Cc: "ba autocross list" <ba-autox@autox.team.net>
> >Subject: RE: More DNWs
> >Date: Thu, Nov 1, 2001, 3:01 PM
> >
>
> >If somebody gets a DNW at an event, perhaps we could mark their name so
> >if/when they show up at the next event, they have to work twice to avoid
> >another DNW. I think this would be a firm way to get the point across
> >without blacklisting, taking cards or other nastiness. Anybody who got a
>DNW
> >by honest mistake should be happy to "make it up" with extra work at the
> >next event, and it might increase the number of available workers.
> >
> >Like any idea, it will work only if it's easy to keep track of. I have no
> >idea how easy or hard this would be to keep track of, just seemed like an
> >easy and fair thing to do.
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: owner-ba-autox@autox.team.net
> >[mailto:owner-ba-autox@autox.team.net]On Behalf Of Pat Kelly
> >Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2001 13:54
> >To: jesvilla@gte.net; Cheryl Grantz
> >Cc: ba autocross list
> >Subject: Re: More DNWs
> >
> >
> > When this whole deal started, we simply gave no points or finishing
> >position with a "DNW" by the name. For some it took a few of these before
>it
> >sank in. I can thing of some very well known drivers where it took 5
>DNWs!
> > Asking registraion to maintain a list to keep the bad apples out is
>not
> >a good idea, as the folks who run change during run groups.
> > Lately we've not been showing times, too (which we used to do, just
>so's
> >the offender would know where they could have finished had he/she worked.
> >But we've drawn a harder line at present.
> > Usually the offenders get the picture pretty quickly and do one of
>two
> >things: 1) don't return; or 2) return and work. Either is okay with me.
> > Another offense some do is to get their names checked off, and wander
> >away. So you really have to be a cop to keep them going in the right
> >direction. :)
> >--Pat K
> >----------
> >>From: Jesus Villarreal <jesvilla@gte.net>
> >>To: Cheryl Grantz <sgrantz@peoplepc.com>
> >>Cc: ba autocross list <ba-autox@autox.team.net>
> >>Subject: Re: More DNWs
> >>Date: Thu, Nov 1, 2001, 1:45 PM
> >>
> >
> >>Cheryl Grantz wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> So every worker sheet was compared to the results to see if the lack
>of
> >>> workers was due to some people not even signing up to work.
> >>>
> >>> Sherry
> >>
> >>People caught doing this should be penalized somehow. Maybe confiscating
> >>their SCCA membership card at the next event they attend(we might not be
> >>able to do that) or banning them for a year. I had a few doing this at
> >>AAS events, it only took one warning of being banned for a year and they
> >>didn't do it again. At least I haven't caught anyone doing it lately. If
> >>they get mad and don't come back, so what, SCCA doesn't need bad apples.
> >>Most good people will respond positively to a firm warning.
> >>
> >>Jesus
_________________________________________________________________
|