Are there too many changes happening at once?

[egocentric pothunter]

Quite simple, no poll, but do other forum members think there are too many changes happenning in the sport, without piloting the new ideas, like they did with ageless juniors?

We have the event structure, I have yet to find someone in the flesh who likes it.

How the new event structure will effect rankings.

The new fixtures list (see the other thread)

MP3

Or am I just a luddite?

[Mrs H]

I think you're just a luddite! Read my next CompassSport column

[Clive Coles]

Yes ~ you probably are. But you are not alone. When ever change takes us away from the familiar we all tend to ask the question Why ?

And , naturally, none of us would have come up with something quite like this !

It will however bed down. We will get used to the new systems and event structures and the old ways will soon be forgotten. There is no going back ~ the new world is here to stay. Let's move forward.

But remenber...if there was nothing changing (or needing changing ) Nopesport would have no contributors.

How else would we all spend our dull, wet & cold winter evenings ?

[egocentric pothunter]

A great philosipher once said:

If you impose change you oppose change... or something like that?

[SJC]

When ever change takes us away from the familiar we all tend to ask the question Why ?

A not unreasonable question, and something which I have not seen clearly articulated.

It is evident from all the unanswered questions that the impact of these changes was never clearly thought through.
Just why are they being made ?
What are the benefits that we should all expect to see ?

Had the reasoning behind the changes and the expected improvements from them been clearly explained then I am sure they would have been far more readily accepted. (and don't point me at the Event Structure Review. Had this been a reasonable piece of work then it would have addressed all of the problems we are now seeing).

[Clive Coles]

Totally agree with SJC

This change programme was not thought through. The reasoning behind the changes were never fully explained. A lot of folk with different ideas were asked to contribute but may ideas were kicked into touch. And of course the working parties kept the wrappers on until they were ready to launch. So we are where we are. We have to accept what we have and look to find ways to utilise the new facilities

I never signed up to a 3 level event structure ~ When I had the opportunity I argued in favour of retaining the distinction of C4 and C5 events.

That would have avoided the problem we now face regarding BOF member discounts. I argued in favour of retaining discounts for the larger colourcoded events (the old C4's) but never thought the BOF Board would suggest we allow a discount on events which currently charge a £2 entry.

I challenge the sense of providing a full post code for Sat nav users ~ post codes can only be of use where a house can serve as a sensible attack point for signing the assembly point. It's often of no use in rural areas ~ when clubs try to derive a post code from a Grid reference they will find the position derived is on the wrong side of a river or mountain range where there is no convenient access to the competition area. Even in urban areas the converters can direct you to the middle of a housing estate. Not a good way to make friends of the local community on a Sunday morning. No ~if we wanted to accommodate Sat nav users we should also have provided the true coordinates. Post codes were introduced for sorting and delivering letters to buildings.

I have been quite blunt regarding the "image" conveyed by the new icons on the new "find event" screen. The display is targeted at newcomers ( and dog owners). We should rebalance the information displayed to serve existing orienteers as well.

I want to know, at a glance, what is on offer without having to drill down event by event to find out
1) the courses on offer
2) the cost of entry
3) the start time window
4) where the event is is in relation to the major roads and towns.

That for me is what a modern fixture list should provide.

For now , I intend to continue using Ollie's Google based facility. This shows me what is coming up in my selected area in the immediate future and gives me a good guide as to how long it might take for me to drive to an event. That's a good starting point. It would be nice Ollie, when you rework your code to be driven from the new BOF system. could you also provide a link to the event on the BOF event details screens. Then we get the best of both worlds. I don't need to see the dogs and smiley faces ~ just the orienteering details.

[Tatty]

Today we tried to find out where the 2010 JK is. unfortunately when you inout 2010 you get the JK 2009 so how can we find out? go back onto the old website or Ollie's page probably.
The new site seems to be set up solely with newcomers in mind, not those of us who go regularly and want to find out more info

[mharky]

everything seems to be set up for newcomers at the moment...

[egocentric pothunter]

everything seems to be set up for newcomers at the moment...

Which I think was my point on the fixtures list thread... which I have exhausated my self on.

Whilst I wish to encourage newcomers, I , as an oldcomer, do not wish to be alienated from the sport I love...but I am becoming increasingly so...I agree with Cilve and SJC. Similar things are happening in the workplace... management come up with an idea they have been paid to come up with, with what appears to have little thought for the consequences on the shop floor so to speak...which is partly why the British car industry failed and the Japanese one is so succesful.

[The Loofa]

[quote="Tatty"]Today we tried to find out where the 2010 JK is. unfortunately when you inout 2010 you get the JK 2009 so how can we find out? quote]

Its listed as SWOA. I believe they are looking at North Devon

[MIE]

JK2010

Probable venues are Exeter University (sprint), Cookworthy (one individual day), Braunton (other individual day and relay). Event Centre and accommodation possibly Braunton Army Camp (similar to Crowborough -- as used for JK2008)

[Copepod]

As a general principle, I once heard a politician saying the checklist for new legislation should be (in no particular order): (1) It is necessary? (2) Is it fair? (3) Will it work?
Seems a good starting point for considering any sport changes.

[awk]

Had this been a reasonable piece of work then it would have addressed all of the problems we are now seeing).

It was, but we weren't allowed to finish it. Pretty much all the problems stem from the implementation, not the review.

[awk]

And of course the working parties kept the wrappers on until they were ready to launch.

Wrong - absolutely nothing of the sort, no "of course" about it!! The working party hd put its proposals to the development conference, and were ready to take on board and discuss the feedback. Instead, we were disbanded before that, let alone when ready to launch and the proposals were taken over by Events Committee, whose subsequent shenanigans were the subject of some fairly strong correspondence from me to the officers. The situation we have now has moved a long way from where we were, and has little to do with the working party.

I never signed up to a 3 level event structure ~ When I had the opportunity I argued in favour of retaining the distinction of C4 and C5 events.

The events working party did sign up to a 3 level structure, and it could have worked properly, as we effectively retained the distinction between C4s and C5s. There would not have been a problem with BOF member discounts if our recommendations had been followed.

The rest of your comments have nothing to do with the work of the working party. It seems to me you're blaming us for things that are absolutely nothing to do with the group. This has been a source of constant frustration and irritation: if we'd actually been allowed to do our job properly, I don't think the bulk of this chaos would have happened. (One always has to accept that change can lead to some disruption).

[Clive Coles]

Never intended to point the accusitive finger at the initial working party. I wholeheartidly agree the initial report came up with something good that would have worked. That group should have been allowed to follow through their proposals to implementation stage.

I did however state working parties. That's where the whole matter got derailed. In the last 12 months all sorts of other groups have become involved and added their slant on what should be implemented.

It's a crying shame ~ so much time and effort by various hard working individuals and I still don't see clarity ~ does anyone really know where we are heading ?