Date:	Thu, 17 Nov 1994 04:02:47 -1000
From:	Mr.Nasty@ix.netcom.com (Frank Kenisky)
Message-Id: <3afnq7$2ms@ixnews1.ix.netcom.com>
Organization: Netcom
Subject: AKA Ranking (Good Try)

I think you (the AKA) is sincerly trying to develop a ranking system
which is in the best interest of it's members. It is painfully obvious
that the undertaking is, as it has been in the past, a duty bestowed
upon one individual. I agree that for one person to take on this task
is not only difficult but also can be nerve racking.

It appears that you have the variables to develop a system which can
not only be tested within a computerized environment but also one which
can be test by the membership. What I mean is that for the system to be
completely accepted by the membership I feel it would be much better to
allow real feed back. What are the numbers?

You have provided this. Now what do others think? Is this information
in kiting for the membership to decide? (Or is space still being taken
up with a bunch of useless crap?) Why not inform the membership? I don't
mean tell them what you are doing. Let them know that this is a 
proposal.
Let them know that you encourage feed back.

Not an ultimatiam question. (i.e. Do you want a system which is 
complicated but accurate or a system which is simple and may not be 
accurate?) This is a loaded question. And I feel the people who have 
responded to it are 1) board of lurking, 2) don't care, 3) usually make 
decisions without knowing all the details.

I hate to think that the respondants fall into number 3.

In creating a system which can be used retro actively you need to 
consider several things which are within the control of the AKA.

First - Consider the membership.

Second - Get the Olympic Committee out of your head!!!

Third - * Cooperation from the other committees (Sport Kite Comittee
        Festivals and Events Comittee, By Laws Comittee and others
        concerned).

Fourth - Enforce the AKA International Sport Kite Rules

Fifth - Find a formula or way to make the results of all events equal.

* Note: Cooperation doesn't mean a bunch of people to pat you on the 
	back and tell you what a good job you're doing. It also doesn't 
	mean a bunch of critics who tell you that something is not right 
	but do not offer a way to resolve the problem.

        If these people are not cooperating then they need to be 	
	replaced.  I realize that there are other issues which haunt the 
	comittees and the board. But the question here is to decide 	
	wheather these people have been doing their job.

        Being a Board member should not be a elite title. It should be a
        responsibility. In the past, and I hope this has ended, it has 	
	only been a title.

        Personally you're title doesn't mean poopoo if you can't get the 
	job done.

I have said it before, I can appreciate your quest to find the best of 
the best. But consider the consequences. When you (the AKA) state that 
you are on this quest (and with a clear consenious [sp]) identify this 
person, in reality are you (the AKA) not conveying a message to the 
membership and to all other potential new contestants that you can only 
be the best if you compete at the largest events?

If you compete at the smaller events then you are not the best?

I think the results of this year proved that to be an inaccurate 
statement.

David Bui and Chris Moore both competed at a variety of events on both 
East and West Coasts but what's interesting is that they also competed 
at very small events within the south central area. They both began 
competing at very small events. They both won the title in Ballet and 
Precision.

Why didn't this make them the best of the best. I feel your intentions 
are sincere but your direction (the AKA) is way off base. I also feel 
because of the interest in submitting the results to the Olympic 
Committee your heart is not in this.

Mr.Nasty



 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =