Special Stage Forums banner

1 - 13 of 13 Posts

·
400 flat to crest
Joined
·
5,777 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
WE DON' NEEEED NO STIIIIINKIN' PR DOOOOOODZ!

With apologies to the Bandito in Treasure of the Sierra Madre, but it seems too appropriate.

Hokay, the horribly ironically misnamed Spitzner is gone effevtively and everybody has fogotten the structural changes and thinks all will be rosy but remember, Spitzner was no leader, and apparantly from direct comuncations with some who have worked around him, had no plans whatsoever his entire time at SCCA.
He was by all accounts a tool of others for their purposes.
Some might say a stooge.
But call him whatever you like, makes no difference, the problem was and remains that this is a club and that despite some peoples really worrying disregard and contempt for the concept of membership control of a process (I wonder what they think of giving the right to votre to all those sub humans in the population?) the fact that a fellow with ZERO competition expeience in any form whatso ever was hired and APPEARANTLY given a free reign on the running of the show was and remains the problem.
There is nothing saying that another inexperienced ego maniac wanna be Junior Dave Richards could not be hired by WHO THE PUCK KNOWS, in What sort of vetting process who the hell knows, under what terms who knows, with what sort of limitations whop knows.

What I am suggesting is WHO SAYS WE NEED A Pro Rally Director?

This is an excellent time to reshuffle procedures and make a clean start of the Organisational structure of the Rally Department.

Regardless of what Richard M assertsd elsewhere, the BOD is not my voice, and in fact I have nothing to sat to or from cone-squishers and roadracers. Nothing except to call them silly weeenie boys since they don't getr sideways or spit gravel.

So here's some suggestion, we have the time to discuss them, so lets.

I suggest that the Rally Board be named Rally Board rather than PERPETUATE THE SILLY MYTH IMPLICT IN THE NAME PRO-RALLY.

I suggest the Board members shall have clearly limited times they shall serve.

I suggest that they shall draft procedures for making the positions elective, and recallable to avoid the decrease in morale and confidence shown in the sports future in the recent past with the regime of derSpitzner.

I suggest that there should be something in peoples background which might be imagined in a generous light to give then the appearance of competence in their area of responsibility, especially saftey and technical related areas which is clearly not the case currently.

I suggest that some form of a chain of command chart be made.And some sort of disclosure about who are their contributors or supporters.

I suggest that each new rule proposal shall be attached to a name on who suggested it, and what problem the rule is intended to address.
IE, who called for the 34mm restrictor, especially on DEMONSTRABLY false grounds as was stated and repeated.
Should those putting forward rules proposal maybe not be allowd to vote as the issues become a case of digging one's heels in to simply have one's way?

I suggest that the Rally board to comply with the rules so ably stated by Christian Edstrom that the offical place for offiocal notices shall be some SCCA site, that some of the computer geniuses here figure a way to make a box or something HERE which will always be a little part of SCCA, thereby making this site, the site which is in Fact the only place for discussion, a place where when we write it is simultaneously a letter to SCCA.
Discuss here, publish reviews at SCCA (with texts here as well, discuss here some more, and publish final conclusions both places.
Christain, the bajs-laws don't DIS-allow simultaneous discussion on both SCCA site and someplace else like here.
I suggest that the admitted and encouraged policy told to each new Rally department person not to post here because we may not be sophisticated enough to realise from mere reading when a position is a SCCA Policy decision is fundementally cynical and arrogant and shows the contempt for membership and the active contributors views, and the reccomendation s to nevert speak should be stopped.
I say the public discussion of rally related issues should be required rather than "send me an email" crap I have been told about.

I suggest that the Rally boards memebers should be asked, not wait and see if the ask, go and suggest that they should have at least 2 sign on names, one showing their offical capacity.

I suggest once again that the Forum Administartors set up a "rules clarification and inquiry section" where the rules can be discussed without egos getting huffy.

I further suggest since we have a defacto admission of the trivial differences between the performance of so-called pro vs many Club folks implicit in the intergrated seeding and speed factors things, and also that Press releases continually count all entries "Pro" and Club to inflate the impression of participation in the events, we drop the Club VERSUS Pro BS and call ALL events Rally.

And sorry I still think that we don't need a PR Dood.
And isn't the conflict of interests in having a married couple in two paid positions just about as obvious as hell?






John Vanlandingham
Seattle, WA. 98168

Vive le Prole-le-ralliat

Black Rocket Rally Tires
http://www.blackrockettires.com/
 

·
Marketing through Motorsports
Joined
·
1,385 Posts
An abbreviated response

>WE DON' NEEEED NO STIIIIINKIN' PR DOOOOOODZ!

Ummmm, we don't need no stinkin' personal attacks either....

>WHO THE PUCK KNOWS, in What sort of vetting process who the
>hell knows, under what terms who knows, with what sort of
>limitations whop knows.

I agree that since the selection process is unknown, it leaves us wondering or, if paranoid, suspicious.

>What I am suggesting is WHO SAYS WE NEED A Pro Rally
>Director?

IMHO, yes, for the Pro side of the house. How would the void be filled if we didn't have one for the Club side (which is all but 5 cars worth)? Would the dept manager do the necessary reporting to the BoD and Pres?

>Regardless of what Richard M assertsd elsewhere, the BOD is
>not my voice, and in fact I have nothing to sat to or from
>cone-squishers and roadracers. Nothing except to call them
>silly weeenie boys since they don't getr sideways or spit
>gravel.

They are our only voice. If they don't understand rally (yours does), then we need to educate 'em, fire 'em up, put 'em in a car, or elect 11 of our own.

>I suggest that the Rally Board be named Rally Board rather
>than PERPETUATE THE SILLY MYTH IMPLICT IN THE NAME
>PRO-RALLY.

John, John, John--oh, wait, that's me too--it's not been the "prorallyboard" for a few years now. It's "performancerallyboard" which is just a long-winded way of saying "rallyboard" without having to change a bunch of initials everywhere.

>I suggest the Board members shall have clearly limited times
>they shall serve.

As in the term limits that the SCCA BoD have? Makes sense.

>I suggest that each new rule proposal shall be attached to a
>name on who suggested it, and what problem the rule is
>intended to address.

I thought the name was included in Fastrack when initially presented? As for motives for the change, that's an interesting idea. I've wondered that myself on many occasions. Conspiracy theories abound.

>I suggest once again that the Forum Administartors set up a
>"rules clarification and inquiry section" where the rules
>can be discussed without egos getting huffy.

Seems to me the USA or car prep forums (forii?) works for this too, but I'd not object if there was another forum.

>And isn't the conflict of interests in having a married
>couple in two paid positions just about as obvious as hell?

Conflict of interest? I don't think so. In my company there are numerous cases of couples working at the same place. However, if one worked for the other, then there could legal and political issues, real or imagined; in particular, charges of favoritism could arise.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,443 Posts
RE: An abbreviated response

>>I suggest that each new rule proposal shall be attached to a
>>name on who suggested it, and what problem the rule is
>>intended to address.
>
>I thought the name was included in Fastrack when initially
>presented? As for motives for the change, that's an
>interesting idea. I've wondered that myself on many
>occasions. Conspiracy theories abound.
>

Actually, rule changes are often made without any rationale other than "That's how they do it in Yurp.", or, the oldest and most sacrosanct of arguments, "It's for safety.", as if invoking the S word negates the need for evidence. Look at the 2004 rule changes. My favorite is the PGT restrictors, which can't be justified by any line of reasoning.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,027 Posts
Aside from the personal attacks at the begining of this memorandum, and the clarifications of Mr. Dillon, these are well thought out recomendations. It is basically the issues I see as most critical for the rally department and structure to work well with the rally community.

If time allows I will follow up with succinct recomendations in my own words.

Regards,
Mike
 

·
400 flat to crest
Joined
·
5,777 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
Personal attack? WTF!!

I know nothing of the _person_ Kurt Spitzner, and although I feel that I would find him as a person to be somewhat like the couple of times I _have_ watched him do do smamry schmooze schtick, comments about Spitzner are always ALWAYS directed or referring to THIMN-Spitzner.

Nothing I can say which won't get deleted by the diligent and hardworking censors here in the ongoing effort to present a picture of genteel discourse, can match the comments from Spitzner a few years back at Prescott when in the context of something now lost but refering to goverance here of the sport said: QUOTE
"you can't have the lunatics running the asylum"
My fried Dave Clark told me he was standing a few feet away and heard the conversation and the context clearly.

It is consistant with the behaviour shown and I believe expresses clearly his sentiments.

Thus, nothing I say in reference to the man in that position, the Official Role PR dood, later PR Dood Kurt Spitzner, nothing in response should be deemed as an unprovoked attack.

It is simply correct and understandable to speak back to somebody in the same tone they refer to you.

Now I'm no Christian, but I read that something like 92% of all you 'mericans are (hell I'm only half 'merican, only kid in the family born 'en el Norte', hence the apologies to the bandito in the movie, I didn't want anybody to take offence at me making jokes about peoples accents when HALF OF VALL MY RELATIVES sound like that!!) although I am always wondering how all this Christian love of the other and your Nieghbor manifests itself, but be that what it may the is a concept in the Church which I think more of you should understand (and I have checked with some people of faith to make sure I am not just mixing my precepts and dogmas like most do)

Hate the SIN, love the Sinner.

Hoookay?

The terms "tool" or "some may say fool" are polite euphemisms for the terms which don't shake me any, but really creatively obscene terms nearly everybody I know uses in spoken conversation when refering to him.
And as for the term or title "the Horribly Ironically Mis-named"
The name Spitzner can be read as "one who is 'im sptiz'"
'im spitz' would be normal spoken German (and whatever you do don't mention the WAR!) 'in the lead'
Spitz= point= lead ( cf french 'en pointe' as in 'il est en point apres les premier tour'

In German one from or doing something, just like English you add an er
OK?
So Sptizner= leader.

Does the horribly ironical mis-appropriateness of the name now make sense?

I do not make fun of Doug Robinson becuase I have already recieved one long obscentiy and rage filled private email something to the effect of:
"You f*****g A*****e, so you are the F*****g a*****e that everybody say you are you F*****g a*****e..............."
so it went for 10 to 20 lines more.
This was response to wondering on these pages why there would be any need for any sort of inquiries regarding the legality of the Production VW Gold _which was seam welded throughly_ by Guy Lights crew with Paul Truess in the lead, and it was he who told me way back when, so many years and Nation Titles ago.
This articulate reponse was from a then CRS official and apparantly some sort of SCCA official.
Nice guy....
Honest, I'm impressed with passion and I thought it was pretty good rant if perhaps a bit repetitive in the choice of words, but I would give the message a B+, or if I knew he was from Boston, a A-.

But an SCCA and CRC official making efforts to circumvent the rule book that if he was unaware is incompetent, if he was aware, and he was, then I don't know what but subsequent rulings in Protests and self initiated rules ( Quote "_I_ wanted to remove the advantage in Chrome-moly tubing.....so I decided to make the wall thickness the same...."" WTF!!!) have me very worried about fittness for the position, once again hired who knows how with what crireria or what professional competence to make rulings and judgements of technical matters.

One must be able to discuss OFFICIALS behaviour vigourously with sidetracking the discussion about the tone or terms used.
I suggest readers have a look at the tone of rally and specialst car forums in the rest of the English speaking world, for more lively discussions and far more particiapation, and nobody gets too upset.
OK?
Now on to the ideas presented.





John Vanlandingham
Seattle, WA. 98168

Vive le Prole-le-ralliat

Black Rocket Rally Tires
http://www.blackrockettires.com/
 

·
www.christianedstrom.com
Joined
·
2,144 Posts
RE: Personal attack? WTF!!

>Now I'm no Christian,

"Oh, here we go," I think. But you just want to talk religious precepts, so on to your regularly scheduled conversation.

>One must be able to discuss OFFICIALS behaviour vigourously
>with sidetracking the discussion about the tone or terms
>used.

A fine ideal. But we're all aware that the medium is at least part of the message. So a little politic self-suppression does often further dialogue.

That said, I believe that a ruthless critique of everything existing will serve our community well.

Rally will not be best-served by dogmatic beliefs of catering exclusively to the most cash-strapped clubman, and acting in a reductio ad absurdum manner to drive down cost at the expense of safety, competition, or a meaningful series. Nor will we best be served by catering exclusively to the marketing departments of auto manufacturers, in the hope that this will provide for a small class of professionals at the expense of the general community satisfaction.

I still believe that moderation, and a progressive, balanced stewardship of our sport, predicated on safety, reasonable costs, consistent event operations, and controlled growth, can serve the majority of constituents well.

>Now on to the ideas presented.

Indeed.

"No" Christian Edstrom

And Ethical Humanism is a farce as it is predicated entirely on Christian ideals. A non-deistic morality should not be so stultified that it must assimilate the totality of its precepts on the dominant deistic morality of the time.

Bjorn Christian Edstrom
www.christianedstrom.com
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
630 Posts
RE: Personal attack? WTF!!

>I still believe that moderation, and a progressive, balanced
>stewardship of our sport, predicated on safety, reasonable
>costs, consistent event operations, and controlled growth,
>can serve the majority of constituents well.

I am glad to hear you say that Christian. I think all most folks want is to not feel like they are being marginalised or left out, which quite a few do. We need the top teams of course, they should not leave, but we also need the lowest budget clubmen to feel like they are being given an even playing field. They (I) want to be able to say with sincerity "The SCCA and the PRB in particular are looking out for me". At the moment, I cant say that with any sincerity.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,738 Posts
I don't think that too many club rally folk will be too bothered by what SCCA does anymore. We've already had 2 very successful rallies and may I add, very enjoyable, both to work in and partake in, without any intervention from Topeka or elsewhere. This is the main reason why NASA was approached to take over from SCCA. NASA is now becoming a household word, so you guys carry on ranting and raving about SCCA while we get on with our very sedate and peaceful lives, knowing that NASA is taking care of us. Have fun gentlemen, club rallies are doing just fine here.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
583 Posts
>Two good sanctioning bodies would be better than one. Free
>market competition and all that junk makes everything better
>for everyone right?

Skye,

Well, it all depends upon how Benevolent & Competent (B&C) those sanctioning bodies appear to their constituants. It's like any Government. HOW a government actually performs and behaves toward the people it serves means a lot more than the philosophy it espouses.

When their B&C rating is high everybody's happy regardless of philosophy. If the B&C rating becomes low people tend to get roudy very quickly; particularly during periods of high taxation and rising costs. Once things get roudy, it usually takes some fancy footwork (regime change, democracy, etc.) to win the people back. Then everything needs to stabilize, benevolently.

In Rally parlance, it won't matter whether a sanctioning body is a non-profit club or a business; old or new. People won't stay if their B&C rating stays low for an extended period. Voting on issues and officers can be a plus in turning things around and getting (and keeping) things stabilized. When Competitors pony up most of the money, B&C democratic processes can also prevent a sanctioning body from farming the competitors as if those same competitors WERE the "market".

Rich Smith

Vive le "Pro-le-Ralliat"
 

·
don't cut
Joined
·
4,075 Posts
John, as pointed out below, (edited to note that instead of being below, that should be "above" ) within the present organization of SCCA, the BOD is your ONLY voice at the national level. If you wish to change that, I will be glad to point you in the right direction. The by-laws allow changes to be proposed by the members at large. Also, as pointed out below, individuals also have a voice by simply not showing up. At the regional level, the local clubs also have boards and elected officers. Individuals can affect change at that level also. And yes it takes time away from building rally cars and running rallys. Or else it takes time away from sleeping and eating.
Richard M

>
>Regardless of what Richard M assertsd elsewhere, the BOD is
>not my voice, and in fact I have nothing to sat to or from
>cone-squishers and roadracers. Nothing except to call them
>silly weeenie boys since they don't getr sideways or spit
>gravel.
 
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
Top