Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber
You're right, I forgot that I'm not in MI where every event is full. However, the fact that 10k lakes ran 70 matches Friday almost proves my point of, we can do better than 8 matches a team.
Ok, let me put this very bluntly - 8 match events is terrible for team experience, it's a borderline offensive to see all these folks "oh we can't do any more" and that's acceptable. I'm tired of skirting around the issue - Jon, Doug, Alan, if you don't CARE that the teams are getting jack for their money fine. But at least advertise the fact that your events don't care about team experience. Or try to come up with some ideas on how to make it better for them that aren't "it's hard".
|
Well, thank you for putting words in my mouth. I never said I didn't care - Here in MN we care a lot, and we do everything we can to maximize the team experience. At our volunteer training event last fall, I spent about 45 minutes talking to inspectors about what we need to do to maximize the team experience at events. So please, don't say or imply that I don't care.
We are limited in what we can do. We do everything in our power to run as many matches as we can. Our field volunteers have worked through meals more than once at events, which is certainly less than ideal. Running events longer than we already do is a non-starter - it would mean needing to pay for more meals for the volunteers, which requires more money. adding volunteers to run them in shifts runs into the same problem. We're already doing everything we can to raise the money needed for these events.
It's not a question of shying away from something that is "hard" - it's a question of what we are actually capable of doing. We're already tackling a hard problem putting these events on and everyone at the events is working flat out to make them happen. So please, check the insults at the door and come up with actual useful advice.