Page 2 of 2

Re: Supp 7.7-7.91

Posted: Wed Dec 15, 2010 8:50 am
by George Schilling
T. Osifeso wrote:This thread went sideways quickly :(

Without the rest of the participants in a class the class dies. I fail to see the logic of insulting everyone that didn't take first place in their respective class.

No need to call people losers and compare them to children. I'm proud of what ever position I end up with in my class, I won some, I lost a lot :) but gosh darn it I drag that tired, banged up E36 to every event, drove her as best as I could and had lots of fun.
Any perceived comparison to children Theo was unintended. We don't offer participation trophies. I was just venting some frustration for my granddaughter getting a trophy for doing little more than just signing up. It was off topic and no comparison was intended.

Insofar as our trophy situation, it's my belief, that while nothing is perfect, our ruling body has spent considerable thought to devising a plan of year end award distribution that is fair, reasonable, and generous. Of course good people can disagree.

Like KJ said, any idea members may have to improve our methodology on this or any other club function can be brought to committee either in person or through your club rep.

Re: Supp 7.7-7.91

Posted: Wed Dec 15, 2010 8:56 am
by Theo O.
I think I got something wrong here, I usually do if it's not written in Java or C :(

So, the 5/8% deal is in "addition" to the standard way we normally dish out trophies (some calculation based on number of participants in a class) and actually results in extra trophies being awarded (potentially)?

Re: Supp 7.7-7.91

Posted: Wed Dec 15, 2010 9:03 am
by Theo O.
Thanks for the clarification George!

Re: Supp 7.7-7.91

Posted: Wed Dec 15, 2010 9:09 am
by John Stimson
T. Osifeso wrote:So, the 5/8% deal is in "addition" to the standard way we normally dish out trophies (some calculation based on number of participants in a class) and actually results in extra trophies being awarded (potentially)?
That's what Rick wrote in post #4 of this thread. Y'all should pay more attention to Rick. ;)

Re: Supp 7.7-7.91

Posted: Wed Dec 15, 2010 9:29 am
by Kurt Rahn
John Stimson wrote:
T. Osifeso wrote:So, the 5/8% deal is in "addition" to the standard way we normally dish out trophies (some calculation based on number of participants in a class) and actually results in extra trophies being awarded (potentially)?
That's what Rick wrote in post #4 of this thread. Y'all should pay more attention to Rick. ;)
The what would we have to argue about?

Re: Supp 7.7-7.91

Posted: Wed Dec 15, 2010 10:50 am
by Theo O.
Kurt Rahn wrote:
John Stimson wrote:
T. Osifeso wrote:So, the 5/8% deal is in "addition" to the standard way we normally dish out trophies (some calculation based on number of participants in a class) and actually results in extra trophies being awarded (potentially)?
That's what Rick wrote in post #4 of this thread. Y'all should pay more attention to Rick. ;)
Then what would we have to argue about?
:oops:

Re: Supp 7.7-7.91

Posted: Wed Dec 15, 2010 11:21 am
by Michael Smith
Maybe the suggestion should be something other than a trophy.
Can you bring this up in the next meeting George. Thanks.

Re: Supp 7.7-7.91

Posted: Wed Dec 15, 2010 12:03 pm
by Rick Brown
Michael Smith wrote:Maybe the suggestion should be something other than a trophy.
Can you bring this up in the next meeting George. Thanks.
As the person asking for a change, you should really provide some detail of how you think it should be. Ideally provide George with alternate wording to replace what's there. Asking the committee to discuss it without specific wording or at least a detailed concept is not likely to go very far, especially if the majority sees nothing wrong with what we have. Not saying we are not open to something new.

Re: Supp 7.7-7.91

Posted: Wed Dec 15, 2010 12:13 pm
by Michael Smith
Rick Brown wrote:
Michael Smith wrote:Maybe the suggestion should be something other than a trophy.
Can you bring this up in the next meeting George. Thanks.
As the person asking for a change, you should really provide some detail of how you think it should be. Ideally provide George with alternate wording to replace what's there. Asking the committee to discuss it without specific wording or at least a detailed concept is not likely to go very far, especially if the majority sees nothing wrong with what we have. Not saying we are not open to something new.
Thank You Rick. I will discuss this with George.

Re: Supp 7.7-7.91

Posted: Wed Dec 15, 2010 12:57 pm
by Mike Simanyi
I think the rule, as it stands, is reasonable. Feel free to suggest alternatives so your Club Rep or the Rules Chair can bring them up for discussion, but in the interim know that it's been this way for quite some time and The Management has enough latitude to ensure something wacky doesn't happen (like 3rd gets an annual trophy and 2nd doesn't.)

Since we're on the subject, keep your eyes open for the banquet announcement. We're putting together something special in honor of 2010 being the 25th year of our little Solo gig under the SCCA umbrella.

It's on the calendar and we're on track for Sunday, January 30th (corrected!) We will likely have a *very* special venue with lots of space, great food, and even better pricing than last year, so everyone who wants to attend can likely fit.

Mike

Re: Supp 7.7-7.91

Posted: Wed Dec 15, 2010 1:23 pm
by Michael Smith
Thanks Mike.
Added the tentative date to my calendar too.

Re: Supp 7.7-7.91

Posted: Thu Dec 16, 2010 6:35 am
by Michael Palero
Michael Smith wrote:I cant disagree with you George or Ricky Bobby
Sorry. I tried for u Palero. I can visit the trophy shop tommorrow. Does it matter if it has a bowler or cheerleader?


Wha? I started this tread to clarify a point for you Smith! You butt.
If I wanted trophies for meeting a year minimum, I would have ran San Diego.
As much as I'd like another 5th place trophy, I'd rather have a polo!

Though, Smith, if you really want to get me a trophy, check if I had asked for average those 4 drops I have.

Re: Supp 7.7-7.91

Posted: Thu Dec 16, 2010 7:03 am
by Michael Palero
Mike Simanyi wrote: Sunday, January 29th. We will likely have a *very* special venue with lots of space, great food, and even better pricing than last year, so everyone who wants to attend can likely fit.
Mike
Hey All,
I was trying to enter some time off for the banquet when I noticed that the 29th is a Saturday.
Will the banquet be on Saturday or Sunday of the weekend of the 29th of January 2011?

Re: Supp 7.7-7.91

Posted: Thu Dec 16, 2010 10:05 am
by Robert Puertas
It's actually Sunday the 30th.

Re: Supp 7.7-7.91

Posted: Thu Dec 16, 2010 10:15 am
by KJ Christopher
Robert Puertas wrote:It's actually Sunday the 30th.
Then someone needs to change the calendar. I'll email Gio.

Re: Supp 7.7-7.91

Posted: Thu Dec 16, 2010 11:05 am
by Giovanni Jaramillo
KJ Christopher wrote:
Robert Puertas wrote:It's actually Sunday the 30th.
Then someone needs to change the calendar. I'll email Gio.
Calendar updated.