Slalom returns - what on earth?

slink · Post by **slink** » Mon Sep 19, 2011 11:14 pm

So, we get home from Alva last night, chuck the muddy computers in the hall and decide to leave the admin until today. Fresh from a good nights sleep after an event well done, we tackle the organisers handbook...

<Rant mode>

First, the event results MUST include the participation statement...too long for a footer, so make a title page. Print results email to Nick...guess what, the only set of results with the participation statement on the site is ours! Do we need it, or not?

Then we come to the bit about who needs results. All competitors who sent an SAE - none, that's easy! The bib officers for our division and next...that's 7 copies. The slalom accounts manager. The slalom administrator. The SCA slalom treasurer. All ranking list compilers...that's another 7 copies, making 17 copies in all! 3 pages containing a material more expensive per ounce than platinum (i.e. printer ink) 17 times over, plus envelopes and stamps...well, there goes more of the profit and another tree or two...

The slalom summary sheets...great, they're ready to go in Excel format, and that doesn't work properly (try putting the organiser or jury chair name in!)...oh, but they need printing and posting (twice!), and wait, there's another sheet to fill in with the paddlers details before you can claim a multi class discount...

So, let's package up the entry cards and post them off, oh, but they need sending to the divisional compilers, so that means splitting them 7 ways and sending them off separately. Fortunately, these people are already getting the results, but it's now a rather thick envelope...

All done, a rather thinner looking paper tray in the printer and a low toner light, oh well, a year until the next event...and maybe the entry cards we asked for will arrive by then (thank you to CR Cats for lending us the spares they had left over!)?

Why oh why can't the ranking list compilers, bib officers, administrators, treasurers accept electronic results, either emailed directly or via the website? Why do their postal addresses not appear in the organisers handbook, rather than randomly thoughout the yearbook - or better still, their email addresses!

I know this isn't new, I know I am not the first to think this, but this is the first time we have run an event, and having had it dropped on us at fairly short notice, I have been pretty shocked by the admin required, and the means of return. I was happy proof reading results/entry cards/backup times, that makes sense, but the level of paperwork to be posted staggering...

</Rant mode>

On a plus, thank you to all who turned out and made the weekend a success, be you helpers, parents, competitors, judges, spectators or bakers

Steve

PeterC · Post by **PeterC** » Mon Sep 19, 2011 11:29 pm

Please be assured there are some of us looking to do something constructive about this. You will hear more before the ACM in November.

Nicky · Post by **Nicky** » Tue Sep 20, 2011 1:57 am

I for one am really looking forward to it!

andya · Post by **andya** » Tue Sep 20, 2011 10:04 pm

Nodding my head in agreement with this thread.

When I realised even a Div4 SC with "reduced admin" .. needs 13 envelopes as the organiser post event, I vowed "never again".

The clincher for me was Nick had the results up on the website for download BEFORE my (admittedly slow) printer had finished printing all the sets of results needed to stuff those envelopes...

Seedy Paddler · Post by **Seedy Paddler** » Wed Sep 21, 2011 12:07 pm

The Participation Statement is in fact a disclaimer, they have limited legal standing and in any effect are required prior to the event not post event. Printing a disclaimer within a results sheet will have no standing whatsoever in the event of a claim! So net result ignore the requirement and put it down to stupidity, typographical error, whatever....

I think you stated you hadn't got the Organisers Pack as there was a change in event organiser, which is unfortunate as one of the good aspects are the sticky address labels for the various returns.

Well done on getting the admin out so promptly -it is a pain and if you also (as I do) run checks on competitors card details, cross check and verify card/computer results etc. Along with the (often) obligatory requirement to dry out the event paperwork (cards etc.). All adds up and ultimately I get my letters from various officers to get my act together. ???

slink · Post by **slink** » Wed Sep 21, 2011 12:15 pm

Thanks CD, no, we didn't get the organisers pack so downloaded all the paperwork...sticky labels would have been nice!

At least putting the disclaimer on means we have pletny of room to thank sponsors etc on the title sheet, so there is a bonus...but yes, it does seem daft and completely ignored - even by the Slalom Committee!

We spent Sunday night & most of Monday going through every card and every backup time...we found one result (from Saturday) that was wrong (div 3 C1W) by a few seconds - the results were changed before publishing and the medal was correctly re-awarded!

£11.50 odd in stamps later, and that was second class as we managed to get things done early enough that they'll still get to the ranking officers in time! Still, it has meant I have already sent several of our family's bibs back

All done now...although I think Pamela is wavering on runnnig away for next years event!

Canadian Paddler · Post by **Canadian Paddler** » Wed Sep 21, 2011 1:10 pm

By the way, in case no one else said it, Thanks for going through all the pain and hassle of organising an event applies to all who organise events for others. Not many organisers get to paddle as well, so it is pretty selfless*

* selfless: definition: unthanked, hard work, long hours, stupid, exhausting, time consuming, WHY of WHY did I not say no quicker and with more empahsis, and later, that was OK lets do it again!

. been doing them for years, and only got 1 to organise next year, although it is a pretty big one.

John Sturgess · Post by **John Sturgess** » Wed Sep 21, 2011 2:52 pm

(Rant coming)

You my read this twice: it answers threads both on Div 4 eligibility and on the burden on organisers.

People who do not go to lower-division slaloms do not notice these problems - and many who are there do not realise how much trouble and angst they cause both for organisers and for the paddlers involved. Organisers know, of course!

What we have done in the past is to try to solve them with little bits of sticking-plaster - additional little rules which make the whole thing even more complicated and opaque.

The problems arise from three sources, all to do with how the legislators see the sport. Firstly we assume that the aim of the ranking system is to make sure that we restrict the numbers promoted so that only the best/the most deserving go up. Secondly (and largely as a result of this) we assume that micro-fairness is terribly important even at the lowest level of the sport. And thirdly we assume that the only way to achieve these aims is through a rigid system of rules.

First answer: ‘Proper’ slalom takes place on rough water: say from Div 2 up. Clubs, coaches, parents - and paddlers - want to get paddlers there as soon as possible. The sport as a whole needs to adopt that as an aim - i.e. ‘put paddlers first’ - and as a measure of success - as with the SCA’s Performance Plan: ‘A key performance indicator of our success will be the number of clubs competing in Sprint and Slalom and the number of new junior athletes they have ranked in top divisions each year.’ Looked at that way, much of what we legislate for would become unnecessary.

Second answer: Notice that minor decisions on points etc make very little difference to speed of progress: paddlers go up when they have done enough races in a season; and when they go up it is usually by quite a large points margin (or score in Div 4). (Stats available if you contact me). And within that they go up when they are paddling fast enough (especially from Div 4): penalties have little effect.

Third answer: Decisions on what Division paddlers should start in are best dealt with at the event on the bank: I have as a Jury Chairman relatively often (and totally illegally) spoken to a paddler who leads Div 4 by 30 secs after first runs, and suggested that he/she competes in Div 3 and sorts out the ranking status afterwards. Nobody has ever refused.

Although I have done a lot of research for the Strategy Review (and proposed one of the ACM motions to set it up) I have not even been able to find out who is on it, so who will be making the decision on what goes to the ACM this year is a mystery to me.

However whatever the Strategy Panel decides there will be a motion proposed at the ACM to enact the Third Answer, as a pilot for 2012 so that it can be fully implemented in 2013, as part of a motion to make results published on the day official when signed off by the Chairman of Jury, and therefore web-rankings also official. At which stage most of the returns become redundant, slink.

The first two answers might take a little longer: they are about attitudes and beliefs rather than machinery.

Dee · Post by **Dee** » Wed Sep 21, 2011 3:13 pm

Lots of sympathy with what you say. Well done for running the event and surviving!

First event I ran I got "told off" (nicely!) for not printing the disclaimer. Like you I stick it on a front page with the thanks etc. I also print double sided with two pages to a sheet to keep costs down, although the type can then be a bit smaller than ideal.

You were lucky not to have any results envelopes, I usually get a clutch of those and a similar clutch of start list envelopes. There are often a few who send one envelope but don't label whether they expect start list or results and the occasional paddler who then complains that they get the "wrong" one :p ; psychic I am not! I think we should do away with this option for paddlers for all events where start list/results are available on line and just require email addresses to be supplied with entries.

With regard to the printed copies to ranking officers (a couple of years ago it used to be two copies per officer!), it is less than straight forward with the current system. When I was a ranking officer I prefered electronic formats, but some officers find it easier to do checks with a physical hard copy which means if you don't print it out they have to and since you have to send the cards......

The spreadsheet for returns is an improvement on the paper version - at least it is a step in the right direction. After first time I produced my own look- alike spreadsheet because it was easier to my mind than paper version!

John Sturgess · Post by **John Sturgess** » Wed Sep 21, 2011 4:13 pm

Dee

See above - as official results and rankings will go straight to the web under the resolution to be proposed most of this copying and posting becomes redundant

slink · Post by **slink** » Wed Sep 21, 2011 4:50 pm

You know what...if all the organisers sent the price of a stamp to all the people who need printed copies, within a season they would all be able to buy a second monitor for their PC, and so drag the emailed copy of the results on to that and still use their main PC desktop to update the ranking lists etc. After that first year, monitors paid for, job done ???

carealto · Post by **carealto** » Mon Sep 26, 2011 11:22 am

slink wrote:<Rant mode>

....Then we come to the bit about who needs results. All competitors who sent an SAE - none, that's easy! The bib officers for our division and next...that's 7 copies. The slalom accounts manager. The slalom administrator. The SCA slalom treasurer. All ranking list compilers...that's another 7 copies, making 17 copies in all! 3 pages containing a material more expensive per ounce than platinum (i.e. printer ink) 17 times over, plus envelopes and stamps...well, there goes more of the profit and another tree or two...

</Rant mode>

Hexham Canoe Club ran our first slalom yesterday - just a SC div 4. Like Steve (but with our computers clean and dry) we are now trying to sort out the admin.

My question is, if these people all need a paper copy of the results, do they need two (or more) copies when they are fulfilling two (or more) roles (eg. C1 & C2 ranking officers are also bib officers)? What do they do with them?

Munchkin · Post by **Munchkin** » Mon Sep 26, 2011 1:25 pm

I don't know if it's the right answer but I only sent one copy to those with multiple roles. I have not had a complaint from them about it either...

boatmum · Post by **boatmum** » Mon Sep 26, 2011 3:08 pm

As I have often said - if you want to send me results electronically I'm more than happy with that, I hate paper! - PM me and I'll give you my e-mail address. Also if you want to pay in the SCA levy electronically thats absolutely fine too - again PM me and I'll give you the details.

Hope that helps

Lois

SCA Slalom Treasurer

slink · Post by **slink** » Mon Sep 26, 2011 9:41 pm

It says in either the rule book or the organisers handbook that people filling more than one role only need one copy.

Sorry Lois, didn't realise that - note made for next year!