Roy Braatz #182 Rant on CF

[William P.]

Re: Roy Braatz #182 Rant on CF

Sorry but I disagree with you sir. I think this is the perfect place for members to debate NCRS issues . This way you don't have to be a director to have your opinon heard by other members .

Bill Purdy

[Terry M.]

Re: Roy Braatz #182 Rant on CF

Sorry but I disagree with you sir. I think this is the perfect place for members to debate NCRS issues . This way you don't have to be a director to have your opinon heard by other members .

Bill Purdy

Yes, heard by the 40% of the membership who chose to participate here, but the discussion here will not bring about change. THAT has to come from the BoD.

[Tim S.]

Re: Roy Braatz #182 Rant on CF

Everyone should read the CF thread. I wouldn't say Roy is "bashing" NCRS but rather strongly disagrees with the punsihment he received.

I can see the rule about leaving cars in place until judging is over but the punishment seems a bit extreme.

Hope NCRS at least reviews its rules, policies, and procedures here and does consider the fact that the NCRS, like all clubs, is made up from individual members and without these members, they will soon perish.

Sometimes you need to take a step back and look at something from someone else's (A DIFFERENT) perspective. It can't hurt. Doesn't mean they have to change things to suit Roy. But it may make the NCRS a better organization.

Good point of view!

[Jack H.]

Re: Roy Braatz #182 Rant on CF

I think this is getting blown all out of proportion.

Roy clearly admits he broke the rules, he apologizes for having done so, and he says he accepts that he cannot participate in any NCRS events for 15 months (I thought the rule was 13 months, but that is a minor issue).

Roy is a big boy, and is willing to accept his medicine.

His question is simply this: Why does suspension from NCRS events also include suspension from the NCRS Discussion Board (this board)?

I have the same question? It seems to me that we are also penalizing everyone who might benefit from Roy's knowledge.

If the answer is "rules are rules"; that is just another way of saying "because I said so".

It does not address the fundamental issue, and it does not, in my opinion, pass the test of common sense.

I've read all of this and haven't commented. I usually don't comment anywhere unless I have something useful to ad to the conversation, so here's my thoughts.

I understand the punishment of 13 months, so does Roy. What I don't understand is not letting Roy participate in technical conversations here. Not conversations on this subject.

I can see not letting him show his car, or participate in NCRS events, if that is the ruling.

One question. During a suspension like this, does the NCRS and his local chapters accept annual dues ??

Just asking. I don't plan on breaking any rules and plan to be around here for many years. Just trying to learn something positive from this event.

Dan Murphy[/B] (50175)]Originally Posted by Dan Murphy (50175)
Everyone should read the CF thread. I wouldn't say Roy is "bashing" NCRS but rather strongly disagrees with the punsihment he received.

I can see the rule about leaving cars in place until judging is over but the punishment seems a bit extreme.

Hope NCRS at least reviews its rules, policies, and procedures here and does consider the fact that the NCRS, like all clubs, is made up from individual members and without these members, they will soon perish.

Sometimes you need to take a step back and look at something from someone else's (A DIFFERENT) perspective. It can't hurt. Doesn't mean they have to change things to suit Roy. But it may make the NCRS a better organization.

Here's an exact quote from the Sixth Edition of the JRM: ".....................owners prematurely removing cars from the judging field will nullify any award received and result in a 13 month suspension of the owner from any NCRS judging process".

Roy's complaint was NOT about the suspension, but about being banned from the TDB.

Is participation in the Discussion Board a part of the "judging process". OKAY, some nit picker, lawyer type will say that it is, if you are responding to a question. But how about lurking. Just being able to log on and watch. Roy cannot do this as his logon is locked out. Same as any non-dues paying non-members.

Was the wording changed or updated in the latest edition? Somebody please explain. I agree with the "rules are rules" mentality, but in Roy's case, it seems that we went beyond "throwing the book at him".

Quoted for truth and agreement.

I, for one, would miss Roy's contribution to the TDB and feel like this is borderline extracting personal revenge of sorts. I agree that you don't allow him have his car judged for some number of months, but why punish further especially if that punishment was not clearly conveyed prior. I'm sure there are some here on the TDB that are guilty of far worse anti-NCRS actions, but they are still around. As Ed stated, this just does not pass the common sense test.

[Peter J.]

Re: Roy Braatz #182 Rant on CF

Terry,
Thanks for getting on your soap box. I haven't judged in a couple of years but if you have been around the judging field you know the rules as Roy admitted he did. I don't understand the surprise by people that the NCRS Tech board would be barred. It wasn't that long ago you had to be a dues paying member to use it.
As far as the CF guys bad mouthing the NCRS who cares? There are plenty of NCRS members over there too who choose to not get sucked in to a political debate. Let them have bashing time and it will all mean nothing tomorrow.
I agree with the thirteen month rule as being harsh, but Rules are Rules and when you break one anyway, what did you expect?

[Tim S.]

Re: Roy Braatz #182 Rant on CF

It is my belief, this is a fine time for the NCRS to reexamine it's rule. Understandably, the suspension should apply to participation to any and all judging events.
1. He cannot attend an event as a spectator? (please someone correct me if I am wrong there).
2. Cannot participate in the discussion board?
3. What else gets limited or emliminated here?

To any and all who govern the NCRS.....

Understandably, you need rules to adhere to during your judging events for saftey, consistency, and to uphold the judging standards set forth. But ban other benefits from the dues paid? The NCRS needs to understand it needs the members more than the members need the NCRS. Nothing more than simple business principles. Just my .02

One poor judgment call does not deserve another.

[Dan M.]

Re: Roy Braatz #182 Rant on CF

For that mattet couldn't Roy create a new account ubder nom-de-plume "Joe Blow" and continue to use the NCRS tech board?

Much like EBAYers create new names everyday?

[Tim S.]

Re: Roy Braatz #182 Rant on CF

For that mattet couldn't Roy create a new account ubder nom-de-plume "Joe Blow" and continue to use the NCRS tech board?

Much like EBAYers create new names everyday?

[Edward C.]

Re: Roy Braatz #182 Rant on CF

I think exclucing Roy from this Forum is unfair. Ed

[Bill M.]

Re: Roy Braatz #182 Rant on CF

Here's Roy's post from CF. He asked it be posted here:

"Will I made a bad decision at the Bend NCRS meet this month.I was told "not" to remove my 55 from the judging field till 5PM . The judging was done and people were cleaning up after the judges left for a well deserved rest . I wonted to collect my swap meet things back into my tear trop trailer , shower for the dinner and load luggage to get ready to drive early in the morning for home 425 miles. So now I've been band from NCRS for 15 months which is their rules . I was wrong I admit < and thought it was fare to not give me any judging award and to take my 55 of the field and that I could not attend any NCRS meet for the next 15 months .But when I got home I also realized I was also band from NCRS forum so I cant even tell others what happened explaining I was wrong leaving the field and apologizing .
When we attended the 05 National in Utah we left the judging field each day to go for dinners because we drive our 55 from Ca. And had nothing but the 55 to drive and every one was OK with that. At Bend we took food for dinners this time. This was the 5th time we ever attended a NCRS meet in over 25 years with our 55 because we were involved in SACE in the 80's. So bottom line to any NCRS members that may use this forum we think it's over after more the 35 years being member #182 . There were good times and vary few bad times , but mostly will miss long time friends we made along the way.
Because I cant post this letter on NCRS telling friends we know, may be some NCRS member can . Thanks

[Mark D.]

Re: Roy Braatz #182 Rant on CF

So bottom line to any NCRS members that may use this forum we think it's over after more the 35 years being member #182 . There were good times and vary few bad times , but mostly will miss long time friends we made along the way.

Oh brother...here we go again.

[Martin N.]

Re: Roy Braatz #182 Rant on CF

I'm not sure of Roy's age but maybe he just had a "Senior's moment". I know rules are rules (and where made to be broken?????) BUT this is just a hobby, right? I say give the guy a slap on the hand and let him live on the board.

Marty

[Edward C.]

Re: Roy Braatz #182 Rant on CF

Funny that NCRS encourages Judges to give ever opportunity and courtesy to owners of cars being judged but come down so hard on Roy. Ed

[Edward M.]

Re: Roy Braatz #182 Rant on CF

Wasn't Roy also working with the judging manual revision team for the updates to the 53-55 judging manual?

I assume he is suspended from that as well.

[Michael H.]

Re: Roy Braatz #182 Rant on CF

Good point of view!

I agree, seems harsh to me as well.

Mike