Considering candidates for Area Director

[JThompson]

Speaking of elections, why do we not have Q&As for the guys running? Unless we know the guy and speak to them about what they think about rules etc, the only time we find out is after they are elected. It sure would be nice to know what someone holds true before we elect them. There are a couple meet and greet deals in FS, but not enough to get a handle on things. How about we do something about that as well?

I have a good idea about Kyle only from arguing err discussions here.

I certainly am in favor of gathering more data before I cast a vote...

JT

[ima45dv8]

How about we do something about that as well?

I agree with you that having a more intimate knowledge of how an AD-candidate might vote is a good thing.

How do you suggest we reach that end? Most of the ideas I've considered simply aren't practical.

[certainly not directed specifically at Jim] -- How would you go about vetting a candidate? How would you like to go about vetting a candidate?

Keep it practical and pragmatic. This isn't for pie-in-the-sky wishes but rather for actions that could in reality help us know more about the candidate.

What more, if anything, can we do than read a bio in Front Sight?

[ima45dv8]

{split from the BoD 3-lb. Production rules thread}

[Chuck Anderson]

How about a subforum on Enos for candidate discussions. Open it and only that forum to political discussions regarding USPSA. While some of the candidates will participate, some probably will not. At least it give somewhere we can do this at. Funny thing is I just sent an email talking about how we should do this on Enos.

[Jim Norman]

how about 20 well thought out questions? Essay answers and unlike Political Debates, this would require direct answers, any obfuscation would be considered a non-answer. The questions of course would need to be properly worded to allow for real answers, no "When did you stop beating your wife" questions.

[ChuckS]

There was/is an election forum available for the last election at www.uspsa.org. That forum could be set up to allow questions and discussion. That would be the appropriate place for such discussions to respect Brian's wish for no politics here. After all, there may be one or two USPSA members that are not members here...

JMHO,

Chuck

[Chuck Anderson]

There was/is an election forum available for the last election at www.uspsa.org. That forum could be set up to allow questions and discussion. That would be the appropriate place for such discussions to respect Brian's wish for no politics here. After all, there may be one or two USPSA members that are not members here...

JMHO,

Chuck

Yeah, but no one could figure out how to get on the USPSA forum site, and the three people that go there didn't do a whole lot of posting. Except Alan.

[ChuckS]

There was/is an election forum available for the last election at www.uspsa.org. That forum could be set up to allow questions and discussion. That would be the appropriate place for such discussions to respect Brian's wish for no politics here. After all, there may be one or two USPSA members that are not members here...

JMHO,

Chuck

Yeah, but no one could figure out how to get on the USPSA forum site, and the three people that go there didn't do a whole lot of posting. Except Alan.

Yeah, it was difficult to read the note that said to use uspsa for the user name and password . It wasn't just Alan, some guy named Kyle also posted there

In any case, USPSA business really belongs on the USPSA website. Perhaps it should be discussed at the next BOD meeting?

Later,

Chuck

[bbbean]

How about a subforum on Enos for candidate discussions. Open it and only that forum to political discussions regarding USPSA. While some of the candidates will participate, some probably will not. At least it give somewhere we can do this at. Funny thing is I just sent an email talking about how we should do this on Enos.

I like this idea! Motivated candidates and motivated voters will find each other and have an up to the minute way to address whatever the current hot issue is.

Of course, I'd also encourage candidates to spend some time making a tour of club matches and working sectional matches in their area, and encourage shooters to pay attention and go find their AD candidates at big matches. I ran into a couple of USPSA Presidential candidates who were working level II and level III matches as ROs this past year, and they took the opportunity to introduce themselves and make themselves available for anyone who had questions. Seems like a sure fire winner for AD candidates as well.

[Chuck Anderson]

There was/is an election forum available for the last election at www.uspsa.org. That forum could be set up to allow questions and discussion. That would be the appropriate place for such discussions to respect Brian's wish for no politics here. After all, there may be one or two USPSA members that are not members here...

JMHO,

Chuck

Yeah, but no one could figure out how to get on the USPSA forum site, and the three people that go there didn't do a whole lot of posting. Except Alan.

Yeah, it was difficult to read the note that said to use uspsa for the user name and password . It wasn't just Alan, some guy named Kyle also posted there

In any case, USPSA business really belongs on the USPSA website. Perhaps it should be discussed at the next BOD meeting?

Later,

Chuck

Sure USPSA business belongs on the USPSA site, but no one goes there. USPSA business is clearly discussed on Enos far more than at the USPSA site. There are far more people that come here than the USPSA site. I'd love to figure out a way to get more people on the USPSA site, but really why bother. Enos is the best site out there, and everything else will just be trying to play catchup.

[ChuckS]

Sure USPSA business belongs on the USPSA site, but no one goes there. USPSA business is clearly discussed on Enos far more than at the USPSA site. There are far more people that come here than the USPSA site. I'd love to figure out a way to get more people on the USPSA site, but really why bother. Enos is the best site out there, and everything else will just be trying to play catchup.

I understand but the Enos forum has a minority of USPSA members. Remember back to the previous Prez election when the folks here thought Gary was a slam dunk and it turned out that it was no where near that. USPSA has a communication problem that needs to be fixed by USPSA on it's home turf! I don't know what to do to get members to participate. That is something for the BOD to work and solve using the USPSA tools like the website and Front Sight.

As for the why bother? Like I said above, Brian's guidelines state "No Politics"

Later,

Chuck

[MarkCO]

Personally, I think it is part of the candidate's responsibility to communicate. I've voted for USPSA candidates who communicated and included ideas, asked for feedback, etc., even though I may not have agreed with all of their positions. The candidate that represents and communicates will get my vote over the one who does not more often than not. If the candidate wants the position, let them work for it.

With all the media available, if they can not get their positions out to their constituency, they don't deserve the office. I get e-mails from people marketing products obviously from the USPSA list, candidates should be able to do the same.

[sperman]

Sure USPSA business belongs on the USPSA site, but no one goes there. USPSA business is clearly discussed on Enos far more than at the USPSA site. There are far more people that come here than the USPSA site. I'd love to figure out a way to get more people on the USPSA site, but really why bother. Enos is the best site out there, and everything else will just be trying to play catchup.

I understand but the Enos forum has a minority of USPSA members. Remember back to the previous Prez election when the folks here thought Gary was a slam dunk and it turned out that it was no where near that. USPSA has a communication problem that needs to be fixed by USPSA on it's home turf! I don't know what to do to get members to participate. That is something for the BOD to work and solve using the USPSA tools like the website and Front Sight.

As for the why bother? Like I said above, Brian's guidelines state "No Politics"

Later,

Chuck

I agree this should be done on the USPSA web site, but the USPSA forums have been all but abandoned since the web site upgrade a few years ago. If that is going to be a source of information USPSA needs to spend some time getting the forums better integrated into the new system.

[Chuck Anderson]

I understand but the Enos forum has a minority of USPSA members. Remember back to the previous Prez election when the folks here thought Gary was a slam dunk and it turned out that it was no where near that. USPSA has a communication problem that needs to be fixed by USPSA on it's home turf! I don't know what to do to get members to participate. That is something for the BOD to work and solve using the USPSA tools like the website and Front Sight.

As for the why bother? Like I said above, Brian's guidelines state "No Politics"

Later,

Chuck

I wouldn't be sure the Gary vote had to do with a minority of USPSA members here. I still think the polls and threads on here where people actually post are skewed. There is a very vocal group that if your opinion runs contrary will argue till they are blue in the face. Sometimes they are the majority, sometimes the minority. I think a lot of people just don't like to take an unpopular position because, as polite as this forum is, they still get chewed up. A lot of people just don't care to do that. I can also tell you there are significantly more people that view this forum than are registered users or posters. I talk to people all the time who are just lurkers.

As far as the "No Politics" I get that. It's Brian's Forum and his rules. However, I don't see a rule at the top against asking Brian to change one of his rules. Here's the problem with saying "No Politics" and expecting it to stick. Let's say I'm an AD up for election this year (Oh wait I am). How difficult is it for me to come on the forum and start threads, or reply in them to get my feelings on topics across. As an example, is there anyone who thinks I'm in favor of a three pound trigger pull limit in Production? No I'm not coming out and saying, "If elected Area Director I promise to....blah, blah, blah." But anyone on here who wants to know my feelings on any topic can probably go to that forum, do a bit of looking around and find out where I stand. Unless you ban people up for elections from posting during the election cycle there will always be the ability to get political messages across on this forum. Just a matter of whether the candidate chooses to use it for that purpose.

I imagine, if Brian was okay with it, it would be relatively simple to open up a subforum for "USPSA Elections" with a page for each candidate. Let them answer or ignore as they see fit. Make it very clear at the top that this is the only location where political discussions may take place. As far as having the USPSA site involved, have a link on USPSA.org that points to that specific subforum.

As far as USPSA addressing the issue of how to have their own uber forum, personally I think it's a waste of resources for USPSA to do it. There is already an excellent forum for the discussion of USPSA rules, matches, shooting, guns etc. Why would USPSA want to try and recreate that. All it would do is dilute the sources of information. I know when I want clarification on something I either come here or email DNROI. Why would I want to add the USPSA Forum to that? I would rather use the resources we would put towards that project to support this forum and use this as the "official" USPSA forum.

[Gary Stevens]

This sounds like a good idea, but I wonder if it be used by more than a minority of the members who actually vote anyhow.

Our percentage of members who cast a vote is pathetic, but a lot of folks just want to shoot. They don't understand that leadership within an organization is important until a new rule bites them in the butt.

I remember having a discussion with a fellow at the Tulsa nationals the last time I ran for president. I asked him for his vote, he said he had already voted.

I asked if he would tell me who he voted for, and he did. I asked him what he chose that individual. He said it was the only person who's name he recognized and knew anything about.

I asked him if he had read the position statements of the candidates or the questionnaire's they had submitted to USPSA, or had made any effort to contact any of the other candidates to learn more about them. He said he had not.

We just looked at each other for a small uncomfortable amount of time and he turned and walked away.

While this member could vote for whomever he wished, to claim a lack of information when he had not even availed himself of the information USPSA mailed to his house, is another issue.

I don't know if this relates to your original question, but I don't think it will make any significant difference in the long run.

To piggy back on Chucks comment, I remember when I posted about the "new" rulebook that was being written whenever that was. You can go back and read the thread if you wish. The purpose was to have an informative exchange in an attempt to write a good rulebook. Most posters contributed to that exchange, however some had to eviscerate you before they asked their question or made their comment.

After a while it got pretty old. I am afraid that would be repeated again if you had a forum such as you are discussing.

However, after posting all that negative verbage, it would be worth a try.

Gary

Edited January 11, 2012 by Gary Stevens

[Flexmoney]

Not very likely to have a political forum here.

(little known fact)

What we have allowed is for somebody running to give one statement. This would usually be sent into a moderator (me) and posted into an already closed thread. Since I was running for Area 5 this year, I didn't handle that. (didn't want the conflict)

[RIIID]

Where are the moderators at, this thread is about politics shut it down

Rich

[Nik Habicht]

I imagine, if Brian was okay with it, it would be relatively simple to open up a subforum for "USPSA Elections" with a page for each candidate. Let them answer or ignore as they see fit. Make it very clear at the top that this is the only location where political discussions may take place. As far as having the USPSA site involved, have a link on USPSA.org that points to that specific subforum.

Relatively simple? Clearly you've never modded a forum of this caliber...... :D

One of the reasons this forum is as civil as it is, is the restriction on content. I won't speak for the team -- until we've discussed it, but my gut tells me that such a change is a long shot. (And Brian would almost certainly ask for input from the mod team....)

As far as USPSA addressing the issue of how to have their own uber forum, personally I think it's a waste of resources for USPSA to do it. There is already an excellent forum for the discussion of USPSA rules, matches, shooting, guns etc. Why would USPSA want to try and recreate that. All it would do is dilute the sources of information. I know when I want clarification on something I either come here or email DNROI. Why would I want to add the USPSA Forum to that? I would rather use the resources we would put towards that project to support this forum and use this as the "official" USPSA forum.

As much as I would love to have a functioning USPSA forum, the existing one was active for a few moments, but IIRC, that surrounded the release of a rulebook, and possibly an election. That may have been 2007, or around the time I ran for A8.....

[Nik Habicht]

Where are the moderators at, this thread is about politics shut it down

Rich

Mmmm, not quite. This thread is about an idea for change -- change that would allow limited political content -- and I think it's o.k. to ask that question....

The occasional "why do you run things this way" thread is informative -- especially for the folks who haven't been here since the Millenium....

[BritinUSA]

We're bombarded with politics everywhere we look, except here. I'd like to keep it that way, just my 2 cents.

[Chills1994]

J.T. pondered:

Considering candidates for Area Director

How do we optimize that process?

Use this:

[Chuck Anderson]

I imagine, if Brian was okay with it, it would be relatively simple to open up a subforum for "USPSA Elections" with a page for each candidate. Let them answer or ignore as they see fit. Make it very clear at the top that this is the only location where political discussions may take place. As far as having the USPSA site involved, have a link on USPSA.org that points to that specific subforum.

Relatively simple? Clearly you've never modded a forum of this caliber...... :D

One of the reasons this forum is as civil as it is, is the restriction on content. I won't speak for the team -- until we've discussed it, but my gut tells me that such a change is a long shot. (And Brian would almost certainly ask for input from the mod team....)

As far as USPSA addressing the issue of how to have their own uber forum, personally I think it's a waste of resources for USPSA to do it. There is already an excellent forum for the discussion of USPSA rules, matches, shooting, guns etc. Why would USPSA want to try and recreate that. All it would do is dilute the sources of information. I know when I want clarification on something I either come here or email DNROI. Why would I want to add the USPSA Forum to that? I would rather use the resources we would put towards that project to support this forum and use this as the "official" USPSA forum.

As much as I would love to have a functioning USPSA forum, the existing one was active for a few moments, but IIRC, that surrounded the release of a rulebook, and possibly an election. That may have been 2007, or around the time I ran for A8.....

I said it would be easy to open the forum, I didn't say anything about moderating it. I was just talking from the perspective of adding the forum, not dealing with it later.

How about this, open the forum, allow members to post questions, the candidates reply and lock the thread. Seems like it would allow for some dialogue but the back and forth would be cut down. If a candidate didn't like the tone/presentation/nature of the question, they just don't answer. And make it very, very clear that forum is the only one to speak of such icky things. That's the way the rules forum is handled. It's a bit different than the rest of the forum.

I'm not saying Brian has to do this, it his, and the mods call. I'm just answering Jim and Mark's question the best way I can for how to interact with candidates. I'm not the most computer literate guy. I, unlike Phil, don't know how to make a website on my own. I've got Facebook, but rarely use it. I'm not really worried about the election from my perspective (I think I'm running unopposed, but so did Alan a year or two ago). I was hoping for a way to get more info out about the candidates and hope people would vote more. Gary's experience above is what I have seen and talked about with a lot of non-voters. Many believe they just don't know enough to vote so they don't, or they just vote for the incumbent. I would much rather people know who is on the BOD and be comfortable enough with them to not only vote for who they want but comfortable enough to contact them with questions, advice, suggestions, whatever.

[Nik Habicht]

Chuck,

I understand the why -- and even agree that would be good for the sport.....

....just not sure I see the upside for the forum. I see a lot of downside for the forum however -- and question whether a USPSA election forum, even in the most heavily moderated way, wouldn't ultimately degrade the tone of civility here....

[Singlestack]

I like the idea and believe it could be handled. I would vote yes if it comes to it.

[JKSNIPER]

Nik,

I think you guys as mods do a good job at keeping us all civil to each other. I see no reason such civility can't transfer over to another section of the forum.

I used to moderate a LE sniper forum a while ago and the way that one worked was the posting party had to send his/her post to the moderator. The moderator would read it and if it was civil and related to the discussion at hand it would be posted. If it was not civil or related I would privately e-mail that party and tell him/her why it was not posted to the discussion and would suggest changes to make it "postable".

This would entail a lot of work on a mods part but it would seem to be a good way for candidates to be asked questions and for them to respond without the "evisceration" happening.

JK