Now: Taking Rando related discussions offline. Was: Re: [SFRandon] Re: Just the Juice 420k Permanent

[C. Duque]

Wait take the discussion offline since it conflicts with a SFR brevet? That does not sound good to me. IMO, the discussion of this ride (or any other raundoneuring related one) belongs here as much as any other randonneuring discussion. This goes against the spirit of promoting randonneuring on this forum. How many riders would join Bryan's ride, five at most? If this ride conflicted with a SFR low-attendance ride of the same kind (mixed terrain) that would be a different story and I think common sense would prevent a post. However (again IMO) we should not handpicking the discussion that can happen and/or the times when they are accepted because a conflict with a SFR event... as long as they are rando related.

Any replies to my post, please send them to this list.

Carlos

On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 8:20 PM, Bryan Kilgore <kool...@gmail.com> wrote:

I have been asked to take discussion of this ride offline since it conflicts with an SFR brevet. Email me directly if you would like to ride.

--
--
This message is from the San Francisco Randonneurs list at sfra...@googlegroups.com
Search the archives at http://groups.google.com/group/sfrandon
For SFR's schedule and general information, visit http://sfrandonneurs.org/
To unsubscribe, email sfrandon+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "San Francisco Randonneurs" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sfrandon+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to sfra...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Rob Hawks]

In other words, then, no fair going on the SFR list to disuade riders from doing a ride scheduled long ago if it conflicts with your rides but ok when it conflicts with one you don't plan to ride?

In case you haven't noticed, of the 29 events we listed last year, turnout compared to the previous year (which itself was down vs the previous year) was down for 27 of them, and turnout and signups this year are also down. Are you suggesting that the efforts of the volunteers to host and support the rides on the schedule is not worth it?

Rob 

[C. Duque]

I don't follow your logic Rob, that is not what I wrote. Nothing to do with a rider doing or not an event, nor I am no suggesting that the efforts of the volunteers are not worth it, not sure how you got that from my post. Remember just like you, I am a volunteer and I organize a few of the SFR events so I appreciate volunteering and my comment has nothing to do with not putting value on their /our work.

IMO a conversation inviting riders to a hard 400k ride on the same day as one of our most popular 200ks belongs in this list. Again if the SFR event was a low turn out event (mixed terrain OR paved) I am sure posters inviting to a ride would exercise common sense.

Carlos

[Yogy Namara]

I think we need to clarify what the rules are with regards to posting permanent schedules on sfrandon, and how it may/may not affect SFR calendar/ridership/volunteering/RBA's peace of mind. I proposed a permanent ride last month that was frowned upon because it was deemed too similar to another ride on SFR calendar that wasn't even happening in the same day, not even the same week, not even the same month, not even the same year, and technically it's not even the same route since mine, as always, is a free-route (see: https://rusa.org/pages/freeRoutePerms ).

For example, can Eric Larsen run his Del Puerto Canyon 200m permanent ( https://rusa.org/cgi-bin/permview_GF.pl?permid=3004 ) on the same day as SFR's 200k? My understanding is that in the past he rode the extra miles uncredited since it wasn't yet certified as a permanent (and RUSA doesn't have what Audax UK calls Extended Calendar Event, see: http://www.aukweb.net/diy/ece/ ). But now it is an official certified permanent, so if he does what he's always done in the past and essentially rode from home to the 200k start, do the 200k, and then ride home afterward, and he wants the credit now that it's an official certified permanent, and he invite other people to join him as he has done in the past, is that acceptable or will that bunch someone's panties?

For what it's worth, I suspect that a lot of the issue may be coming from the lost of registration fees, so I propose that permanent organizers/riders must pay the "RBA tax" if the ride is advertised on SFR's list (no tax if it's not advertised on sfrandon). For something like an Extended Calendar Event, paying the event's fee (even though you're not technically riding in that exact SFR event) seems reasonable. Or, if paying money sounds too crass, maybe the "tax" can come in the form of volunteering position, but without any of the usual rewards. Just an idea.

Yogy

On Wednesday, January 18, 2017 at 10:48:52 AM UTC-8, C. Duque wrote:

I don't follow your logic Rob, that is not what I wrote. Nothing to do with a rider doing or not an event, nor I am no suggesting that the efforts of the volunteers are not worth it, not sure how you got that from my post. Remember just like you, I am a volunteer and I organize a few of the SFR events so I appreciate volunteering and my comment has nothing to do with not putting value on their /our work.

IMO a conversation inviting riders to a hard 400k ride on the same day as one of our most popular 200ks belongs in this list. Again if the SFR event was a low turn out event (mixed terrain OR paved) I am sure posters inviting to a ride would exercise common sense.

Carlos

On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 10:16 AM, Rob Hawks <rob....@gmail.com> wrote:

In other words, then, no fair going on the SFR list to disuade riders from doing a ride scheduled long ago if it conflicts with your rides but ok when it conflicts with one you don't plan to ride?

In case you haven't noticed, of the 29 events we listed last year, turnout compared to the previous year (which itself was down vs the previous year) was down for 27 of them, and turnout and signups this year are also down. Are you suggesting that the efforts of the volunteers to host and support the rides on the schedule is not worth it?

Rob 

On Jan 18, 2017 9:45 AM, "C. Duque" <cduq...@gmail.com> wrote:

Wait take the discussion offline since it conflicts with a SFR brevet? That does not sound good to me. IMO, the discussion of this ride (or any other raundoneuring related one) belongs here as much as any other randonneuring discussion. This goes against the spirit of promoting randonneuring on this forum. How many riders would join Bryan's ride, five at most? If this ride conflicted with a SFR low-attendance ride of the same kind (mixed terrain) that would be a different story and I think common sense would prevent a post. However (again IMO) we should not handpicking the discussion that can happen and/or the times when they are accepted because a conflict with a SFR event... as long as they are rando related.

Any replies to my post, please send them to this list.

Carlos

On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 8:20 PM, Bryan Kilgore <kool...@gmail.com> wrote:

I have been asked to take discussion of this ride offline since it conflicts with an SFR brevet. Email me directly if you would like to ride.

--
--
This message is from the San Francisco Randonneurs list at sfra...@googlegroups.com
Search the archives at http://groups.google.com/group/sfrandon
For SFR's schedule and general information, visit http://sfrandonneurs.org/

To unsubscribe, email sfrandon+u...@googlegroups.com

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "San Francisco Randonneurs" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sfrandon+u...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to sfra...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
--
This message is from the San Francisco Randonneurs list at sfra...@googlegroups.com
Search the archives at http://groups.google.com/group/sfrandon
For SFR's schedule and general information, visit http://sfrandonneurs.org/

To unsubscribe, email sfrandon+u...@googlegroups.com

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "San Francisco Randonneurs" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sfrandon+u...@googlegroups.com.

[Bryan Kilgore]

It was not my intent to draw riders away from a scheduled event when I posted, I was just sharing a new (well, not really new) route with the group, and that I was planning on riding it on a date that was convenient for me. I actually didn't realize that it overlapped an SFR ride when I first posted, so that was an oversight on my part. I do think that a mixed terrain, night start 400+k in February has pretty limited appeal and wouldn't likely affect Two Rock turnout in a significant way.

With 25 SFR events scheduled this year, I know it is difficult to avoid any overlap between events (rando and otherwise) that draw from the same group of riders. With other regions hosting brevets and creating permanents, some people will inevitably say 'Hey, I've ridden the Russian River 300k three times, maybe I'll try the Fresno 300k this year instead'. But, this is a good thing! We should be encouraging riders to ride in different regions and create new routes. This is how we grow, not by closing down the dialogue.

[Eric Larsen]

Well, since you bring me into the fray, I would never run my Del Puerto 200M, nor allow someone to ride it for credit at the same time as the calendared brevet because it would be rude to the brevet organizer specifically because it violates the space of the brevet. 

Permanent routes are not intended to replace brevets. They are subordinate and meant to provide alternatives when brevets, for whatever reason, are not available.

The following are my thoughts on 'appropriate' posting:

Promoting ridership in club events, which fosters community and relationship building is a core principal of randonneuring. The regional randonneuring clubs go to great lengths to avoid running conflicting events in order to be inclusive of both ridership and respect for the volunteers who put a lot of time and energy into hosting brevets. 

In order to avoid conflict when announcing a group ride, it is good etiquette to first check the calendar and then to include "please reply off list". 

e.

To unsubscribe, email sfrandon+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "San Francisco Randonneurs" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sfrandon+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[C. Duque]

Shouldn't we just use common sense and be flexible? We all should be able to publicize perms or even simple rides in the same day as a SFR event as long as is obvious the perm/ride does not take away a considerable amount of riders form the SFR event. Last year the 2 Rock Valley Ford had 95 finishers, even if this year's Brevet attracts one third of the riders from last year, how much say 5 riders would hurt that event? If the SFR event attracted 10 riders and the perm/ride appealed to the same crowd, I don't think anyone would try to take away riders by posting an invitation to a competing perm/ride... common sense.

Like randonneuring needs more rules :)

Carlos

[Greg Merritt]

On Wednesday, January 18, 2017 at 3:02:45 PM UTC-8, Bryan Kilgore wrote:

'Hey, I've ridden the Russian River 300k three times, maybe I'll try the Fresno 300k this year instead'. But, this is a good thing! 

Four times. And Bass Lake was awesome!! Highly recommended.

~

I've helped out with a high school mountain biking at various levels over the past decade or so. When I first started, like others new to the scene, I was so excited about it that it seemed to make a lot of sense to try to get more & more & more kids onto the team. More-seasoned coaches knew that trying to manage a doubled or tripled team roster would dilute the quality of the program. I came around to understanding that the measure of success for a high school mountain biking team was not the length of the roster.

To be sure, rando ride events are a different beast, but what are the metrics for success? Length of the roster? Number of riders doing the route for the first time? A new course record? Number of riders coming from a different region? Number of DNFs? Number of Ensures consumed? Statistical variance of RUSA numbers of participants? (Ok, that would be a cool stat!!)

-Greg

[SFRandonneurs List Admin]

Hi All,

I think I’m caught up on the discussion from yesterday.  Let me recap to ensure I am understanding the issues correctly:

* I’m hearing that there is concern over creating and publicizing an unofficial/personal ride event that conflicts with an official SFR event, because of the possibility it might draw participants away from the SFR event.

* New rules were proposed to dissuade people from posting about conflicting events on this list.

* I’m also hearing frustration about potentially adding more rules.

I can add a new rule to the group rules at the SFR list page.  How many people have actually read that page?

Should we limit discussion of rides to only those that are official SFR events?  After all, there are already other lists (e.g. randon) for discussion of non-club rides.

Let me know your thoughts.

Thanks,

-Jim G

--

jimg at yojimg dot net

[Massimiliano Poletto]

Please no.

--

--
This message is from the San Francisco Randonneurs list at sfra...@googlegroups.com
Search the archives at http://groups.google.com/group/sfrandon
For SFR's schedule and general information, visit http://sfrandonneurs.org/

To unsubscribe, email sfrandon+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "San Francisco Randonneurs" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sfrandon+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[Eric Walstad]

On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 11:18 AM, SFRandonneurs List Admin
<lists...@sfrandonneurs.org> wrote:

> How many
> people have actually read that page?

grep the logs (or whatever the equivalent is with Google Groups)?

> Should we limit discussion of rides to only those that are official SFR
> events?

No, #footgun

Eric

[Rob Hawks]

I'd like to just stop this right here and point out that *no one* ever said that discussion on this list should be limited to SFR events only. Not me, and not anyone else so I feel it is disingenuous to describe the issue that way. For the record, I asked Bryan to take the discussion off list *at the point where the thread had become a discussion of Froste's knee*.

Had Bryan let me know he wanted to use the SFR list to recruit riders I would have told him it was fine, that as a common courtesy he make it clear he wasn't trying to poach any riders who would otherwise be doing the SFR brevet and that he ask interested parties to contact him off list.

I also find it disingenuous to admonish others for trying to add rules to list behavior when that admonition immediately follows a description, essentially a set of rules, of a process at arriving at what should be safe and what is fair game for undermining the effort that has gone into scheduling and supporting an event. 

We will need to disagree as to what constitutes common sense, and I will need to accept that I may be alone in expecting any understanding of common courtesy.

rob

--
--
This message is from the San Francisco Randonneurs list at sfra...@googlegroups.com
Search the archives at http://groups.google.com/group/sfrandon
For SFR's schedule and general information, visit http://sfrandonneurs.org/

To unsubscribe, email sfrandon+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "San Francisco Randonneurs" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sfrandon+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[Kimber Guzik]

Hi Rob,

I'm not sure if you are replying to any one comment, or the thread in general, but I want to say:

1. I'm Very Glad that you never said this list should be limited to SFR events only,  and,

2. I want to clarify that my comments were specifically in response to the list admins question "Should we limit discussion of rides to only those that are official SFR events? ", and at his request for feedback. 

Best, 

Kimber

[SFRandonneurs List Admin]

On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 1:05 PM, Rob Hawks <rob....@gmail.com> wrote:

I'd like to just stop this right here and point out that *no one* ever said that discussion on this list should be limited to SFR events only. Not me, and not anyone else so I feel it is disingenuous to describe the issue that way. For the record, I asked Bryan to take the discussion off list *at the point where the thread had become a discussion of Froste's knee*.

 

I know that no-one suggested this.  I asked this partly as a rhetorical question, and also because — for those who may remember when this list was hosted at Yahoo — we actually had two lists: one was an “ SFR announce only” list, and one was a general discussion list.  I was pondering whether there was any desire to move back to that model.  Probably not.

I will amend the list-etiquette guidelines with information discouraging people against posting about conflicting rides.  Let’s otherwise consider this matter closed.

[jack holmgren]

Hi Jim,

First of all thanks again for all your work!

SFR is so successful that I vote for official ride related posts only. We have the internets, the Book of Faces, and pigeons to handle the other stuff. People of my advanced age appreciate resources that are focused.

I have not read the rules page but that's probably because I've only been an SFR since 2005. Is it a long page?

Best,

Jack Holmgren 

--

[Yogy Namara]

Actually I'd like to still explore the Extended Calendar Event subtype of 'conflicting' events, which is arguably not a full-on conflict (the keyword here is 'extended'). Here's an excerpt from Audax UK's ECE program ( http://www.aukweb.net/diy/ece/ ):

"[ECE] grew out of a desire to encourage riders to ride to/from events [...;it] means that if you live, say, 50km from a 200km Calendar event HQ, you can ride out and back from home and claim the day as a 300km outing [...] You still have to ride the whole way but at least now you can have some company from other riders by being part of the calendar event."

I realize RUSA is not Audax UK, and I understand that ECE in Audax UK is a subtype of DIY permanent, which RUSA doesn't have. However, I think the ECE spirit embodies randonneuring principles at its core, and should at least be allowed, if not outright endorsed and encouraged.

To be clear, I used Eric Larsen as an example, because his is as good an example as it gets (on a personal note, he's one of my rando heroes, and this one time he gave me his very own SFR vest, blood sweat and tears and all, which I still proudly wear even today).

So in this case, for the SFR Del Puerto Canyon 200k, Eric has been doing an unofficial ECE starting/ending in Berkekey in the past years, inviting others to join him (e.g. in 2015: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sfrandon/84NXxhozPLg/3JSNhiQrCAAJ ). He signed up for the brevet with SFR, and happily enough did the extra miles uncredited. Eventually he turned the whole ride into a 318k permanent ( https://rusa.org/cgi-bin/permview_GF.pl?permid=3004 ), so now one can get the full credit if one so desired.

A few posts earlier Eric said that he would never run the 318k permanent on the same day as the SFR 200k, because doing so would be rude in his opinion. I think this is rather unfortunate, because I think this is the perfect opportunity to lay the ground work for our own ECE!

Why is it rude if the prospective 318k rider pays SFR the 200k entrance fee? Heck, maybe we can add the stipulation that the 318k must also volunteer at the start of the 200k or something like that for good measure. Anything to make the RBA happy, to show that no rudeness was implied, because the rider just wants to have a longer ride for full credit (because why not?), with SFR camaraderie for a 200k part of it.

Anyway, I realize that this is a very specific case of 'conflicting' rides, but I think it's worth exploring, precisely because (i) Eric has been doing it in the past, and (ii) this scenario is recognized and encouraged by Audax UK. It would be ashamed if we shut the whole thing down because it's perceived to be rude without at least discussing if some sort of mutually happy compromise can be agreed upon.

Yogy

[Bankshot]

Yogy, 

Not a bad exploration, but larger than our local discussion, perhaps. Bump it up to the RUSA Board.  

My .02, 

Deb

From the RivetPhone

--

--
This message is from the San Francisco Randonneurs list at sfra...@googlegroups.com
Search the archives at http://groups.google.com/group/sfrandon
For SFR's schedule and general information, visit http://sfrandonneurs.org/

To unsubscribe, email sfrandon+u...@googlegroups.com

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "San Francisco Randonneurs" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sfrandon+u...@googlegroups.com.

[SFRandonneurs List Admin]

Hi All,

Here are the updated SFR List rules.  You can always find these at https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/sfrandon...

1. Participants are expected to be civil and respectful towards each other, SFR volunteers, RUSA officials, and anyone else participating in our branch of randonnepuring.

 

2. Inflammatory/disparaging personal remarks, off-topic posts, and unsolicited commercial email (spam) will not be tolerated and should not be posted to the group.  

3. While we encourage private sales between active members (e.g. those who participate in group rides and events), do not join and post to this group with the sole purpose of selling something.  If your first post is a for-sale post, you will be removed from this group immediately.

4. Promoting ridership in club events, which fosters community and relationship building is a core principal of randonneuring. The regional randonneuring clubs go to great lengths to avoid running conflicting events in order to be inclusive of both ridership and respect for the volunteers who put a lot of time and energy into hosting brevets. In order to avoid conflict when announcing a non-SFR group ride, it is good etiquette to first check the calendar and then to include "please reply off list" in your message.

5. At the discretion of the group administrators, non-compliance with these rules may result in either a private warning or immediate removal/banning from the group.

Thanks,

-Jim G

To unsubscribe, email sfrandon+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "San Francisco Randonneurs" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sfrandon+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to sfra...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

--
This message is from the San Francisco Randonneurs list at sfra...@googlegroups.com
Search the archives at http://groups.google.com/group/sfrandon
For SFR's schedule and general information, visit http://sfrandonneurs.org/

To unsubscribe, email sfrandon+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "San Francisco Randonneurs" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sfrandon+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to sfra...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Kimber Guzik]

Excellent! Well done Jim. 

Sincerely, 

Kimber

[Robert Cauthorn]

Thanks for posting that Jim!

I'm kind of scratching my head at the level of debate here.

I feel common sense and common cause should provide all the guidance we need. Encouraging SFR participation is a central interest of this group. All kind of good things spring from high participation levels.

Ergo, it's reasonable for SFR members to do what they can to *not* draw riders away from events. I don't think this is about registration fees at all -- I think it's about encouraging a vital organization with an active membership and thus focusing a lot of energy on the events.

It strikes me as simply a cooperative (and reasonable) goal, not some kind of infringement on freedom. 

Bob