Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Anderson
Color me blind, then. I don't see the Minnesota document accusing anyone of not being mature. They both set the expectation of maturity. The Guam one just surrounds it with many more words, and softens it by saying "often over several years" rather than "will take at least several years".
|
Alan, I hate to play the age card but I genuinely think it could be that. I'm bothered by the MN FIRST document. It, overall, felt off-putting. I can't point to specific lines or phrases but it gave off a vibe of being unwanted. I know folks like Bailey reacted more negatively to it than I did.
Given the target audience of this document [1] I would definitely consider revising this document based on the feedback from young volunteers/potential volunteers. While you and Al might not see anything wrong with it the sample target audience in this thread has found it mildly distasteful. If my goal is to encourage/educate young volunteers [2] I'm going to want to revise it based on this feedback.
I'm not saying you're wrong or that the language in the MNFIRST doc is bad or that the GuamFIRST doc is perfect. I'm saying that one appears to be offensive to the target audience while the other one is less offensive to that audience.
[1] I'm assuming honesty and that the target audience is alumni volunteers in MN.
[2] It should be.