Thanks - Great sympathy for this but not easy to deliver quickly and certainly with money transactions seems there is an extra cost over and above savings from envelopes & stamps. Am working on this - maybe we will have to enlist sponsorship. Most unlikely to be happy seeing a higher cost for on line! There are also some wanting actual signatures on the race cards and not keen to move.
Edited By SteveM on 1293731008
Strategy - What do you want covered?
Hi Peter,
Are you planning on producing a straw-man proposal for a 2 year / 5 year / 10 year strategy and publish on here so that we can throw it around and debate where we want to be in each of those timeframes?
We can then look to start a number of tasks that will address each of the key initiatives, such as simplifying the administration of slalom events at Div 2 and below, moving to an on-line entry system, creating a computerised ranking database, etc.
We also need to decide which initiatives need to be managed centrally for the benefit of the whole of the UK and which ones need to be the responsibility of each home nation, e.g. adding a new slalom event in a region which currently has poor coverage.
That way we can delegate responsibility for some initiatives rather than trying to take on everything.
Regards,
Mark
Are you planning on producing a straw-man proposal for a 2 year / 5 year / 10 year strategy and publish on here so that we can throw it around and debate where we want to be in each of those timeframes?
We can then look to start a number of tasks that will address each of the key initiatives, such as simplifying the administration of slalom events at Div 2 and below, moving to an on-line entry system, creating a computerised ranking database, etc.
We also need to decide which initiatives need to be managed centrally for the benefit of the whole of the UK and which ones need to be the responsibility of each home nation, e.g. adding a new slalom event in a region which currently has poor coverage.
That way we can delegate responsibility for some initiatives rather than trying to take on everything.
Regards,
Mark
The above is the personal opinion of Mark Shaw and does not reflect the views of either the BCU or England Slalom Committees.
PeterC wrote:Thanks - Great sympathy for this but not easy to deliver quickly and certainly with money transactions seems there is an extra cost over and above savings from envelopes & stamps. Am working on this - maybe we will have to enlist sponsorship. Most unlikely to be happy seeing a higher cost for on line! There are also some wanting actual signatures on the race cards and not keen to move.
Sorry I don't buy these reasons ....
increased cost online - nope. It can be cheaper to accept payments online, than a bank will charge businesses for paying in cheques. Either way a max of 2.5% to accept payment online will be less than the price of stamps .. hence cheaper overall.
Signatures - electronic legally binding permission, acceptance of terms and authorisation have been a standard part of ecommerce for 10+ years now. You couldn't do anything online without it. No one should be using this as a reason in this day and age ...
.. now cost of developing a system to cope with this .. yes that will cost. Ask NickP. he probably has a fairly good idea of £££ needed ... after all he's doing most of it already ...
(Mark .. good thinking above)
Andy
(D1 K1 1981, D2 C1&C2 2010)
(D1 K1 1981, D2 C1&C2 2010)
Thanks all - yes Mark we do need to get some structure out in the open for comment and savaging. There is a lot to cover and I am also aware that this board is not used by everyone although there are are clearly readers who don't comment on line. Have been diverted recently by family issues but will get back on track in the New Year.
With regard to online payment since payment processing costs, yes there is a cost that to the organisers would be significant and this compares to nothing for most clubs paying in cheques. I am however looking at the issue with the SCA.
We have to find a way round the signature issue and I agree this should not be insurmountable.
We do have to reduce the amount of paper that we consume and despatch around the country.
With regard to online payment since payment processing costs, yes there is a cost that to the organisers would be significant and this compares to nothing for most clubs paying in cheques. I am however looking at the issue with the SCA.
We have to find a way round the signature issue and I agree this should not be insurmountable.
We do have to reduce the amount of paper that we consume and despatch around the country.
Firstly, are signatures not only required by Div 4's and those that have not applied for/ forgotten their bibs. Everyone else has signed the declaration already.
Secondly, as mentioned above anyone that orders things online does electronic signature so there is n reason we can't do the same.
We would still need a paper back up for those that either do not have Internet access or don't gave bank cards...
Secondly, as mentioned above anyone that orders things online does electronic signature so there is n reason we can't do the same.
We would still need a paper back up for those that either do not have Internet access or don't gave bank cards...
Firstly, are signatures not only required by Div 4's and those that have not applied for/ forgotten their bibs. Everyone else has signed the declaration already.
Rule 11.1 ".....Entries to a ranking competition must be on an official entry card. The competitor is responsible for correct completion of the card....." and this includes the signature. There is no current exemption for div 3 and above though I agree that there should be.
I am not convinced about relying on electronic signatures for div 4 and below for this purpose where juniors are concerned. Most (all?) on-line signatures I have come across are to do with legalities of licences etc not safety of minors.
If our goal however is to allow on-line entries, I think it would be reasonable to only allow on-line entries from div 3 and above where the paddler has already applied for their biband thus we already have a "real" signature to back up any on-line version.
Having said all this; it is I think going off topic as it is not really about strategy for slalom. Although on-line entry might be part of the plan to meet strategic aims once they are agreed!
Kit Washer, Entry Clerk, Chauffeur, Reluctant Organiser, Online Entry Advocate .....
Anything I post under this user is my personal opinion; I am not posting as a member of the Slalom Committee!
Anything I post under this user is my personal opinion; I am not posting as a member of the Slalom Committee!
Actually I thought we had done away with signatures a few years ago as sign for bib....! perhaps we just talked about it and never actually actioned!!!
Another consideration however is entry cards - I know Sue has been thinking about how it can be done from their prospective - so definitely need to talk to her if we are going to reconsider this (it was considered about 3 years ago). Lets do it properly - who wants on line entries but someone still has to fill in an entry card!!!! certainly not the organiser!!!! Dive 2 & 3 will also have to be considered how this can happen.
Another consideration however is entry cards - I know Sue has been thinking about how it can be done from their prospective - so definitely need to talk to her if we are going to reconsider this (it was considered about 3 years ago). Lets do it properly - who wants on line entries but someone still has to fill in an entry card!!!! certainly not the organiser!!!! Dive 2 & 3 will also have to be considered how this can happen.
Still don't think this is strategy, but possible option:
Don't bother with entry cards at all.
In an ideal world linked laptops running a system so that clerks enter penalties onto computer rather than writing on a card. Results then displayed for each competitor to an external monitor when completed.
Simpler option is just to print a "start sheet" with paddler's bib number and name and columns for penalties. Perhaps limited
to 5 or 10 paddlers per sheet. This becomes the card.
Or create print program to create single sided cards for on-line entries which just allow basic time and penaly info (like the penalty side of current cards) The stuff on the back isn't needed if it is on line. This would simplify printing of cards.
I'm sure that there are other ideas.
Don't bother with entry cards at all.
In an ideal world linked laptops running a system so that clerks enter penalties onto computer rather than writing on a card. Results then displayed for each competitor to an external monitor when completed.
Simpler option is just to print a "start sheet" with paddler's bib number and name and columns for penalties. Perhaps limited
to 5 or 10 paddlers per sheet. This becomes the card.
Or create print program to create single sided cards for on-line entries which just allow basic time and penaly info (like the penalty side of current cards) The stuff on the back isn't needed if it is on line. This would simplify printing of cards.
I'm sure that there are other ideas.
Kit Washer, Entry Clerk, Chauffeur, Reluctant Organiser, Online Entry Advocate .....
Anything I post under this user is my personal opinion; I am not posting as a member of the Slalom Committee!
Anything I post under this user is my personal opinion; I am not posting as a member of the Slalom Committee!
I agree with dee, don't need cards if we can print out or display where penalties have arisen, all other data is redundant at each individual event.
I think that the issues would occur at lower division events.
No point considering for div 4 as pretty much never get pre entries and div 2 and 3 see lots of on the day entries (maybe this would get more people to enter on time? Or would it put the people off who look out of their window and fancy a little race.....?
I think that the issues would occur at lower division events.
No point considering for div 4 as pretty much never get pre entries and div 2 and 3 see lots of on the day entries (maybe this would get more people to enter on time? Or would it put the people off who look out of their window and fancy a little race.....?
-
Seedy Paddler
- Posts: 440
- Joined: Wed May 26, 2004 2:00 pm
Online and E-entyry is OK in discussion but would potentially rule out several sites and current events - including mine! As an organiser for circa 30 years I can assure you that some current sites and many of the "lost" sites could not provide the basis of an event reliant totally on computer based solutions.
We had a major issue about 4 years ago when the generator kicked out and fried a lap-top and printer (and yes there was surge proitector in line). We were able to copmplete the event and award immediate prizes by using the entry cards.
We have sufficient issues around timing teams, TUTTIE/SCATTIE - how many of those pushing for electronic solutions actually organise events?
Set-up costs for networks, linked and fuly protected mains generation are expensive and would certainly be prohibitive in our case.
Focus on how to get people into the sport and then develop in the sport - on-line is not a significant issue until we get into competitive cyber slaloms on Wii/PS3 etc..
We had a major issue about 4 years ago when the generator kicked out and fried a lap-top and printer (and yes there was surge proitector in line). We were able to copmplete the event and award immediate prizes by using the entry cards.
We have sufficient issues around timing teams, TUTTIE/SCATTIE - how many of those pushing for electronic solutions actually organise events?
Set-up costs for networks, linked and fuly protected mains generation are expensive and would certainly be prohibitive in our case.
Focus on how to get people into the sport and then develop in the sport - on-line is not a significant issue until we get into competitive cyber slaloms on Wii/PS3 etc..
-
Canadian Paddler
- Posts: 1480
- Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 8:31 am
- Location: Peterborough
- Contact:
Doning flame proof underwear and preparing to duck
There are a lot of issues that concern us individually, and much of this discussion is focussed on short to medium term solutions. If we are to develop a proper strategy we need to agree where we want the sport to go, then how we get there, then how we support that.
What do we expect from a slalom site – are there minimal facilities expected (which may rule out some of the older traditional sites) or increase costs to cover the facilities at artificial sites and those with more bank side provision.
Do we want slalom to cover the full gamut of water from flat to the Olympic Channel on full flow? If so what should the progression be? incremental across the divisions, or flat to 2 and just rush people through (prejudicial rewording intended to spark comment)
Do we want to be elitist or get a full range of people competing from the three times a year div 3 paddler to fulltime lottery supported.
GB Team matters are dealt with by the International Panel/GB Canoeing, so should the volunteer sector worry about servicing 'the professionals'.
How should the sport be funded, all by paddlers, each home nation contributing or central BCU funding and how do we get everyone to agree this.
What is the point of the divisions, should ranking be allocated each year, or would a continuous ranking (based on the previous 12 month events) be better? Why all the hassle, after all the universities slalom event ran loads of paddlers down HPP, some doing gate 1, 2 swim, others racing to within seconds of each other. Is there a problem with this as a model for all slaloms? If so how do we compare ranking from a pool in the North East to Cardiff on 12 Cumecs?
I can bring out more difficult questions, and express them (and these) in more controversial fashion, but lets try to think strategically
Thats it off to the bunker to hide
There are a lot of issues that concern us individually, and much of this discussion is focussed on short to medium term solutions. If we are to develop a proper strategy we need to agree where we want the sport to go, then how we get there, then how we support that.
What do we expect from a slalom site – are there minimal facilities expected (which may rule out some of the older traditional sites) or increase costs to cover the facilities at artificial sites and those with more bank side provision.
Do we want slalom to cover the full gamut of water from flat to the Olympic Channel on full flow? If so what should the progression be? incremental across the divisions, or flat to 2 and just rush people through (prejudicial rewording intended to spark comment)
Do we want to be elitist or get a full range of people competing from the three times a year div 3 paddler to fulltime lottery supported.
GB Team matters are dealt with by the International Panel/GB Canoeing, so should the volunteer sector worry about servicing 'the professionals'.
How should the sport be funded, all by paddlers, each home nation contributing or central BCU funding and how do we get everyone to agree this.
What is the point of the divisions, should ranking be allocated each year, or would a continuous ranking (based on the previous 12 month events) be better? Why all the hassle, after all the universities slalom event ran loads of paddlers down HPP, some doing gate 1, 2 swim, others racing to within seconds of each other. Is there a problem with this as a model for all slaloms? If so how do we compare ranking from a pool in the North East to Cardiff on 12 Cumecs?
I can bring out more difficult questions, and express them (and these) in more controversial fashion, but lets try to think strategically
Thats it off to the bunker to hide
All spelling errors are intentional and are there to show new and improved ways of spelling old words. Grammatical errors are due to too many English classes/teachers.
Old. Fat. Slow. Bad tempered. And those are my good points
Old. Fat. Slow. Bad tempered. And those are my good points
What do we expect from a slalom site – are there minimal facilities expected (which may rule out some of the older traditional sites) or increase costs to cover the facilities at artificial sites and those with more bank side provision.
How about:
Water to paddle on. Water should be of sufficient depth that boats do not scrape along the bottom if the course is being followed!
Water to drink. I think this should be a requirement, but could range from a tap to the organiser selling bottled water and other drinks.
Adequate, legal, parking in the vicinity or as a minimum a drop off points for boats within a reasonable distance. Disabled parking?
Toilet facilities??
Sufficient bank access along lengh of course to enable reasonable safety precautions.
Do we want slalom to cover the full gamut of water from flat to the Olympic Channel on full flow? If so what should the progression be? incremental across the divisions, or flat to 2 and just rush people through (prejudicial rewording intended to spark comment)
Or no divisonal restriction on water access
Or have events graded as div 4 only, div 3 and under, or div 2 and under, or div 1 and under or prem and under.
- Less confident lower division paddlers know which events are likely to be a flatter water
- More confident lower division paddlers can attend higher division events and get points there as well as experience. Could use a system similar to calculating C1W points, perhaps divide time by 1.1 for one div up, 1.2 two divs up etc. - Higher ranked paddlers couldn't paddler lower div events so you don't get anomalies of scoring in the top divisions
GB Team matters are dealt with by the International Panel/GB Canoeing, so should the volunteer sector worry about servicing 'the professionals'.
Possibly not, but need to think about those just below "professional", who probably have similar needs.
Kit Washer, Entry Clerk, Chauffeur, Reluctant Organiser, Online Entry Advocate .....
Anything I post under this user is my personal opinion; I am not posting as a member of the Slalom Committee!
Anything I post under this user is my personal opinion; I am not posting as a member of the Slalom Committee!
-
kendall chew
- Posts: 101
- Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2010 11:21 pm
- Location: Cheshire
Like the idea of no divisional restriction on access in principal but, It will come with some horrendous legal problems for under aged paddlers. Perhaps a divisional upper limit should be applied. Div 4 paddlers can paddle up to Div 2 water (Washburn ???!!!**) Div 2 paddlers can paddle in Div 1 events.
There is no point in anyone ranked below Div 1 even attempting to paddle at a Prem event as they will just get in the way.
Simple but obviously fraught with problems.
There is no point in anyone ranked below Div 1 even attempting to paddle at a Prem event as they will just get in the way.
Simple but obviously fraught with problems.
-
djberriman
- Posts: 806
- Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 8:19 pm
Like others I have donned my hard hat and here is my 2p
I think the whole signing issue is overblown, does anyone ever validate a signature, does anyone ever check who signed a childs card?
I would have thought a once a year signing when you get a bib is sufficient but if not as others have said it can be done online.
I'm pretty sure you can never sign away your rights and the organiser can never sign away their responsiblities so I'm not sure what signing at each event actually achieves.
I've just signed a contract with a company (for my company) online using this system.
http://www.echosign.com/public/static/p ... erview.jsp - its just an example I am not suggesting we use it.
Moving on I'd like the review to also look at the whole process of what happens to results once an event is finished.
Currently as I understand it (and as I'm not involved I may be wrong) the cards are then sent to the volunteer ranking officers who then undertake the massive task of checking all the cards, reading all our awful hand writing, coping with those of who forgot our bibs (or never got them) and any errors made by organisers because we didn't understand the points rules correctly, forgot the addendum rule changes or our event system got it wrong and we didn't notice. At this point they may change the results for one reason or another (which I'm not sure is actually allowed under the rules in the year book). There are two issues with this, firstly those final approved results are never published and secondly it can take a number of weeks for this to be done. This was fine when end of year promotions were done but now paddlers can get promoted and race a different division in the same weekend. So we have a back end system designed around end of year promotions but a sport based on in year promotions.
The only time you actually find out the offical result is when there is an issue with promotion or at the end of the year when you may find some points have been deducted without the paddler being informed.
It would also be useful if organisers were informed if they have made any mistakes, and conversely if everything was correct. A simple email would do it. Most of us only run a couple of events a year so its easy for us to get it wrong or miss a rule change int he heat of things.
Similarly paddlers should be informed if they have their points altered from the results published by the organiser.
This is not a criticism of ANY volunteer but of a system that has failed to change with the change to in season promotions and I can't say I have all the answers either.
So I'm guessing my suggestions are:-
Publication of actual official final results for every race.
Review of the process of checking of cards/results.
Feedback for organisers.
Communication with paddlers if results are changed.
An easy to use event system provided and certified by the slalom committee (I believe this may be under way).
Clarifcation in the year book on points being altered.
Clarification in the year book on timeframes to register for a bib for a new division and any subsequenet points cancellation.
I'd say 99% of the time our sport works great and the volunteers always do a great job but it would be nice not to have to tell some youngster that for some reason you can't quite explain that the points they got paddling at an event have been cancelled or aren't correct. Its a tad demotivating for them!
I think the whole signing issue is overblown, does anyone ever validate a signature, does anyone ever check who signed a childs card?
I would have thought a once a year signing when you get a bib is sufficient but if not as others have said it can be done online.
I'm pretty sure you can never sign away your rights and the organiser can never sign away their responsiblities so I'm not sure what signing at each event actually achieves.
I've just signed a contract with a company (for my company) online using this system.
http://www.echosign.com/public/static/p ... erview.jsp - its just an example I am not suggesting we use it.
Moving on I'd like the review to also look at the whole process of what happens to results once an event is finished.
Currently as I understand it (and as I'm not involved I may be wrong) the cards are then sent to the volunteer ranking officers who then undertake the massive task of checking all the cards, reading all our awful hand writing, coping with those of who forgot our bibs (or never got them) and any errors made by organisers because we didn't understand the points rules correctly, forgot the addendum rule changes or our event system got it wrong and we didn't notice. At this point they may change the results for one reason or another (which I'm not sure is actually allowed under the rules in the year book). There are two issues with this, firstly those final approved results are never published and secondly it can take a number of weeks for this to be done. This was fine when end of year promotions were done but now paddlers can get promoted and race a different division in the same weekend. So we have a back end system designed around end of year promotions but a sport based on in year promotions.
The only time you actually find out the offical result is when there is an issue with promotion or at the end of the year when you may find some points have been deducted without the paddler being informed.
It would also be useful if organisers were informed if they have made any mistakes, and conversely if everything was correct. A simple email would do it. Most of us only run a couple of events a year so its easy for us to get it wrong or miss a rule change int he heat of things.
Similarly paddlers should be informed if they have their points altered from the results published by the organiser.
This is not a criticism of ANY volunteer but of a system that has failed to change with the change to in season promotions and I can't say I have all the answers either.
So I'm guessing my suggestions are:-
Publication of actual official final results for every race.
Review of the process of checking of cards/results.
Feedback for organisers.
Communication with paddlers if results are changed.
An easy to use event system provided and certified by the slalom committee (I believe this may be under way).
Clarifcation in the year book on points being altered.
Clarification in the year book on timeframes to register for a bib for a new division and any subsequenet points cancellation.
I'd say 99% of the time our sport works great and the volunteers always do a great job but it would be nice not to have to tell some youngster that for some reason you can't quite explain that the points they got paddling at an event have been cancelled or aren't correct. Its a tad demotivating for them!