[EricH]

I can almost side with both groups here.

I would agree that there is probably a good reason to keep certain people out of certain volunteer positions due to previous mistakes at those positions or similar ones. However, taking Dan's story at face value, he wasn't asking for a volunteer position that he'd had perceived trouble with in that past. In fact, he was asking for one that he was well-qualified for. He was given an alternate position, because the one he asked for was full. Then, at the last minute, he was told that his position was changed after he asked about a change that had been made without his knowledge. To me, if you change something, you tell the people that are affected right away. Don't make them ask you/find out at the last second; they tend to get rather annoyed. Trust me on this; I have some recent experience with this.

However, I do not agree with keeping the reason for the blacklist a secret when you've been asked by someone on the blacklist why he or she is on there. People can't read each others' minds very well. You tell them flatly that they are on because of X, they have a chance to explain X. Whether or not they do it to your satisfaction, you've had a chance to hear their side.

And, quite frankly, to restrict someone's volunteering to one and only one position is laughable. (Again, I'm taking Dan's statements at face value.) Where can you have no influence on a match? Safety assistant, Spare Parts attendant, Pit admin, gofer, awards assistant... Confining someone to a position that requires them to admit biases--well, if he wasn't biased before, he most likely is now!

(Caution: some speculation in the following, due to not knowing the full story) On the other hand, to look at it from the MI board's perspective: A ref made two mistakes against the same team, leading to their loss (perception). Naturally, you wouldn't want that ref reffing you again if you could avoid it. So you ask your VCs to keep him out of certain spots. A VC puts him in a more important spot. You don't want him there, because of your perception, so you have the VC move him behind his back. He asks questions. Later, you tell him to his face that he can't do a job that he's qualified for because you have someone else. Now he's asking you: "Why am I not allowed to volunteer at anything that I would like to do?" You choose not to answer, for whatever reason. He asks again. Again you don't answer. The next thing you know, he's sent the letter to FRC HQ. It isn't public knowledge, yet, but it could become public. [/speculation portion] And then he goes public, some time later. That's about the last straw.

Dan, by going public, you may have burned your last bridge with FiM. But if they did, in fact, tell you not to bother them, then they gave the tinder.


From what has been posted, I think that this type of blacklist is a very bad thing for FiM, and FRC if it is used elsewhere.
1) It's not gracious. I don't object to a blacklist, but at least tell people WHY they're on it if they ask!
2) No comment on professionalism; it could go either way.
3) It's too broad or too narrow in scope; that is, blocking out all positions except one is a bad idea. At least give a range, or block out ALL positions.
4) If, as is suggested, one team is behind this and able to impose a full ban, that is a bad thing. Just tell the head ref or appropriate official that you don't think that this guy can call you fairly, for crying out loud! That's enough to minimize the impact of any blown calls right there, most of the time.

Both sides are at fault; the FiM board for not being open enough to tell someone where they messed up and Dan for going public. That's the way it is in this case, I'm afraid. Like most anecdotes, you only get one side.


To fix this: If there are any FiM board members here, it would be a good idea to have a civil get-together with Dan, either by phone or by email or something of that sort if in-person meetings are impractical. Heck, make it a social event and go bowling or whatever Michiganders do during the winter. Figure out why he's on the blacklist, and tell him. That's half the issue, as it gives him a chance to explain and shape up, if he chooses. If you're blocking others out, tell them why as well. FIRST HQ is opening up a bit. Is there a reason FiM can't do the same when requested?

The other half of the issue is that it's given both of the affected parties a black eye. That one is the impossible half to fix without a lot of time and short memories.

I'm not saying that you completely ditch the blacklist. But, blocking people from one or two positions for cause is completely different from blocking people from most of the positions for something done in one position that may or may not be their fault.


Mr. Pockets, if that scenario happened at my school, I'd probably head for the department chair or the Dean of Students to see about the process for filing a complaint of not grading on academics but on personal prejudice. Dan went that route, because the FiM board has at least some oversight from FRC HQ.

Dan, if you're still in CA in March, I'm pretty sure you'll be welcome at the L.A. Regional.