How to have your say, A self guide for those who cant be bothered

[worms]

step 1-- Become a member of a club,

step 2 -- make it a VMX friendly club,

step 3-- find an email address for said club,

step 4-- send an email to club for discussion on your thoughts of how we go forward with changes facing VMX

step 5-- dont make it 2 pages long, be brief and to the point


please add to the list now boys, but you get the drift, and yes the youngins can have their say as well

cheers Trev

[shortshifter]

Worms where does it go after ratification at club level?

[worms]

you forward it to your state delegate for VMX and then on to your State body. easy

the clubs can submit straight to their State bodies as well.

dont send it into space as this will not achieve anything.

Cheers Trev

[worms]

aw gee, come on you guys,

youve all gone very quite, bloody hell! if you all knew how to do it, why wasnt there more input?

Cheers Trev

[micks]

forget going thru a club/scb or committee go straight to ma.

[Rossvickicampbell]

How do individuals get heard?  Didn't Col go straight to MA?  I have heard of another who put an individual submission in?

[Nathan S]

This is just like the CAMS world - at least in the VMX world we've got commissioners who are actively involved and passionate about the sport.

While the basic structure sounds fine, the faults in the system are many.
Basically, it is open to subversion - it is far too easy to derail an idea, no matter how good the idea is. I mean, it you wanted to create a system that's designed to appear egalitarian but actually isn't, then I struggle to think of a better one.

I mean, you have to wade through many levels before any idea is turned into reality. For example, your club doesn't have to present your idea to MA (or worse still, they can present it in a half-hearted manner and virtually ensure its demise), etc etc. Having watched a very similar process in action in the CAMS world, I've seen how easily it is corrupted by personalities and how the sport's "politicans" will get their way, often contary to the sport's interests.


In the case of Col Metcher's recent submission, I didn't submit anything because I agree entirely with it and therefore my input would have been completely redundant.

The commissions' decision making process is not meant to be a democracy - the commissioners are appointed because they are knowledgable and reasonable people who are capable of making the correct decisions for their branch of motorcycle sport.
They are not simply vote counters! If that's all it was about, you wouldn't bother looking for people with knowledge, you'd just find the best looking, largest breasted 18yo to do the job...
If the commissions were pretending to be democratic, then they'd make Robert Mugabe look good!

So... Public statements (including those on this forum) CAN make a difference. We've seen that a grand total of 17.4% of respondants think that the Commission's change to the Nationals split was a good one - this is a strong statement that the majority of the punters think that the Commission were wide of the mark on this!
Yeah, there's a heap of arguments about the value of polls on internet forums ("Not every competitor is on the forum", "What about the 'silent majority'?*" etc), but when the forum is non-hostile like this one, and the trends are so clear, they're all pretty redundant.

The whole act of hiding behind "But they can only act on submissions received" is actually wrong (well, it is wrong in the CAMS world, and I suspect in the MA world - if the Commissioners have no opportunity to make change without a submission then we actually want the smart people to NOT be on the commission!).

I can go on... I've seen the way things work in the CAMS world, and following The Process is usually a road to nowhere, and usually takes a hell of a lot of effort to try to walk down.


NB: The Commissioners I've met are good blokes who definitely making decisions in the sport's interests. I think they've gotten it wrong this time, but overall I reckon they get it right most of the time, and I really appreciate the fact that they are willing to listen. I consider at least one of them to be a mate.
My ranting is directed at the idea that The Process is the only (or even the best) way to make changes.

*I'd be amazed if I heard the VMX Commission tried anything as stupid and transparent as "silent majority" line, which is always bullshit.

[Mike]

Regardless of the pros and cons of the current system, it is the system.  If people wanted to they could have followed the process to be heard as outlined by worms.  The poll on the forum is irrelevant, should the commission listen to the "forum posters" or clubs affiliated with MA that legitimately put forward proposals.  I don't really mind the split either way and for those that want to ride their pre 78 class bikes at a nationals, I'm sure they still will regardless of where they sit.

[Nathan S]

The Commissioners will act upon whatever they think is reasonable, no matter where they hear it from.
A formal submission only ensures that the commission has heard your point of view.

[firko]

In the case of Col Metcher's recent submission, I didn't submit anything because I agree entirely with it and therefore my input would have been completely redundant.

That's not quite correct Nathan. If you had submitted a proposal with a similar content to Cols, it would have shown the commissioners that there is some support 'on the shop floor' for Cols ideas. If more 'shop floor' guys backed Cols submission or submitted something they themselves believed was right, the commissioners would get a solid idea of what's needed.

I suspect that the commission is swaying towards a pre '75 cutoff because those who favour that particular philosophy (Western Australia) have made more submissions, simple as that.
It's a bit like not voting in an election because you don't think your vote counts for anything and then whinging that you don't like the election winner. Every vote (submission) counts.

[Mike]

That's my point Firko, also if a submission is received from a club you would assume the commission don't just see it as one vote but as a representation of it's membership.  Nathan I would also suggest the commission are required to listen to affiliated clubs, since they are a part of MA, rather than a web forum which is not.

[firko]

Nathan I would also suggest the commission are required to listen to affiliated clubs, since they are a part of MA, rather than a web forum which is not.

Precisely. While the opinions on this and any other forum might give us an idea of what the punters desire, it has no bearing whatsoever on any decision made by the commission and nor should it.

[Nathan S]

Oh fudge me, did either of your read my posts?

Submissions should sink or swim on the value of their arguments, not on their number.

Here's a simplistic example:  I reckon I could get twenty other people to send in a submission that recommends an '81 Maico 490 is made pre-75 legal as a carry-over bike. If we kept it quiet, there would be no other submissions to oppose this.
But your reasoning, the Commission would have to approve it.
 
Another simplistic example would be if I specifically wanted to have the 1975 DT125 added to the list of eligible pre-75 bikes (it is a 100% legitimate carry-over model, in case anyone is wondering). If I put in a submission that detailed the similarities with the 1974 model, and provided evidence to convince the commission, then that should be plenty to make it float.
And twenty opposing submissions that lacked any technical evidence to support the opposition, should not be enough to sink my submission.

I repeat: MA Commissions are not supposed to be any form of democracy (bastradised or otherwise).
A formal submission ensures that the Commission looks at, and considers a particular issue while including an arguement one way or another.
The Commission's decision will still be based on the commissioners' total knowledge. There's no limitation to how that knowledge is obtained.

[Mike]

I did read your post and understand what you are saying. Your simplistic examples are based on existing rules in the Moms and are pretty black and white and I would imagine the commission would just apply them.  The pre75 and 78 split was a new issue and yes, I understand your point about numbers, but given that there are pros and cons both ways don't you think logically the number of proposals would have an influence.

[firko]

Oh fudge me, did either of your read my posts

Of course I read your posts Nathan, understand what you're saying but respectfully still tend to disagree. You can't assume that the members of the commission have an opinion either way. They have to react to the number of submissions favouring one philosophy or the other. To think that Cols excellent submission is all that they needed to make a decision so important for our sports future is wishful thinking. The fact that the commission is favouring a pre '75 split is purely down to there being more submissions favouring that particular cutoff, mainly from Western Australian clubs and individuals.
Surely that's evidence enough to show that no matter how good Colin Metchers submission is and how much we agree with it, if the individual competitors and clubs don't follow Cols lead and contribute submissions favouring a pre '78 cutoff, it ain't going to float.