Subject:
|
Re: A BricksWest Critique?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.events.brickswest
|
Date:
|
Thu, 11 Jul 2002 14:35:55 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
951 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.events.brickswest, Mark Papenfuss writes:
> Wow, not sure exactly what post to reply to, there is alot of good points in
> this thread. But I will reply to this one but still touch upon everything.
>
> First off I want to say that Matt did an AMAZING job, there were alot of
> people trying to dictate how things should go but none were willing to step
> up to the plate and shoulder everything untill Matt came along. If it was
> not for Matt there would not have been a BricksWest, so I thank him for
> that, and I think all of us should thank him for being the only person
> willing to take such an enourmous chance and risk.
There are always people willing to sholder responsibility and step up. They
need to be encouraged and led so that they finish the tasks they take on.
Matthew did a great job but took to much on himself. There were plenty of
people like Dan, Steve, Tim, and others that took charge of certain aspects of
the event. I think Matthew could have delegated more and allowed himself more
opportunity to enjoy the event himself. Honestly, I don't think Matthew got a
chance to enjoy the very event he took so much responsibility in.
As for the risk, Matthew took on way too much to be sensible in this day and
age. He left him self financially vulnerable at a time when he has a wife, an
addorable little girl, and a newly born son to take care of. This level of risk
is way beyond sensible, in my humble opinion, when their lives are factored in.
Kudos to his wife for enabling Matthew to accomplish what he accomplished.
>
> Sure there were things that went wrong - but I do nto see how they were
> Matts fault. The shirts were lost in shipping - not Matts fault. The Luau
> got lost in the employee shuffle at Legoland - not Matts fault.
>
> I want to touch upon this a little more as I have seen some hints that Matt
> could have done more about the Luau. When you deal with Legoland you have to
> deal with one person (and AFIK its like that in all of Lego). There is one
> person that is in charge of working with you, and thats what happened to
> Matt. ANd Matt did call to check up on it often. Some things happend within
> the staffing at Legoland and his contact was gone. The person who took over
> was not filled in by the Lego employee so the Luau was lost. This was what
> was told to me, and from what I know about the employees with Legoland this
> is very much true and possible. And this is the story of what happend as
> best as I remember it. So this was not Matt's fault - he was playing by
> Legoland's restrictive rules and he got burned by the shuffle. Not Matt's
fault.
I completely agree that Legoland dropped this ball and they are %90 why the
Luau didn't happen. But Matthew had so many balls in the air that his attention
was elsewhere when the changes and loss of paperwork occured. Had Matthew
delegated this resonsibility to one person then there would have been 2 sets of
eyes on this, Matthew's and the event coordinator. I find no fault in Matthew
that the event didn't occur only that the event was of such importance to those
that had planned to come that it deserved the attention of a single person, the
event coordinator.
> I am not sure I agree with this. As long as Matt is willing to be *the* man,
> i say let him. He has delt with these people before, and has a working
> knowledge of what to do and what not to do. Making a different person the
> leader would be a hassle, even with the help of the leader from the year
> before. So as long as Matt wants to do it, let him. Why would we not want
> him to? I really do not like the idea of a commitie or team or whatever -
> that will lead to confusion and the more possibility of a ball being dropped
> in the hand-off.
I respectfully disagree with this position of Mark's. It is common that the
head of an event becomes the assistant or the "past president" of the
organization the next year. This is so that one person is never stuck with the
job. I don't know Matthew's feelings on this, but he hardly got to do or
participate in anything. I felt bad that he was stuck at the registration table
all day. This should have been delegated to others so that he could do his
"presidential" duties. Making a different person the leader would not be a
hassle for anyone other than the next appointed leader. In fact I submit to you
for the BricksWest thing to keep going and be successful it would be best if
one person is not solely in charge every year but that responsibility is moved
around. As for a committee doing it I think, despite what others assert,
committees can get stuff done. They do in the business world everyday. Don't
use your city council as basis for committees not getting work done. Committees
are typically not working on their re-election hours after being elected.
> I think this is more of an in-club area. It is not up to Matt who will be
> watching your trains and such, its the clubs deal. This is something your
> club needs to work out within its walls.
>
> Perhaps there needs to be hours on the tent, like it will be open 12-4 or
> something. this way people are not stuck over there all day long. But this
> is more of a club decision I would think. I was under the impression that
> the temt would only be open certian hours last year - I was surprised to see
> it was open all day, every day. But I am sure the Legoland guests
> appreciated this as the tent was prettymuch filled the entire time.
>
> Once again, I think this is more of a club area. I have only seen Lego in
> that tent 2 times, and it was a LUG event both times. AFIK Legoland does not
> have barriers that would keep hands off of the display. I am sure the clubs
> would have something for when they display at events. The clubs should be
> incharge of protecing their dispaly as they see fit. It is theirs afterall.
That's fine if more than 2 members of the club show up. What I heard from most
people in the tent last year is that they felt stuck there. If you were
bringing your own models and had no security or means of keeping people off of
them, would you want to leave hours and hundreds of dollars at the mercy of 5
fingers? As it was Dan never left the tent. What did he get to participate in
at BricksWest?
Besides, if Legoland opens up a tent for the MOCs and train displays then we
need to have that tent open during the hours the park is open. Put yourself in
the shoes of the park manager for a second. An attraction is open the whole
time the park is open, you don't open it for select periods.
>
> This was supposed to happen last year. And AFIK this was the only area in
> which a "ball" was dropped. I was really looking foward to the DVD of the
> event, but after the event I did not see it mentioned ever again. I would
> have at least liked a "Sorry, but this is why it did not happen" post or
> something (and if there was one I miissed it). This is the one area I was
> dissapointed about.
What are you refering to here? The DVD was mentioned as an idea. It never
materialized because of the following reasons:
1) DVD's in Feb 2002 cost $15.00 per blank
2) DVD burning computers cost $2500
3) DVD burning drives cost $600
4) DVD studio rental time $1000 per hour
5) No one and I mean no one provided permission to me to place their video on a
DVD and sell it. True no one was solicited because of reasons 1 thru 4, but
after seeing the videos obtaining copyright clearance for even half of the
videos would have taken 2.8 years
6) Because BricksWest was not incorporated as even a LLC, there is no way I was
going to place other people's videos on a DVD, sell it (with or without their
permission) and go through the work and trouble of creating a DVD. If the
group decideds to create a LLC and produce a DVD of the events and animations
then I would be happy to participate. But there is no way in heck that I am
going to open myself up to the legal Tsunami that that crap will open up
without an LLC to hide under. I own way too many LEGO's ;-)
(I know this sounds or reads like I was on the defensive, but go back and read
it with some humor in mind and that's how I meant it).
Todd
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: A BricksWest Critique?
|
| (...) Agreed. Another variation is that this years vice chairman is next years chair. I have also seen combinations of both where you have a chair (who was last years vice chair), a vice chair (next year's chair) and a chair emeritus (las year's (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.events.brickswest)
| | | Re: A BricksWest Critique?
|
| In lugnet.events.brickswest, Todd Thuma writes: <snip to save web trees> (...) Yes, I agree 100%. It was mentioned elsewhere that there be actuall and factual "employees" (read -> volunteers). It would be nice to have someboy man the reg. table for (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.events.brickswest)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: A BricksWest Critique?
|
| Wow, not sure exactly what post to reply to, there is alot of good points in this thread. But I will reply to this one but still touch upon everything. First off I want to say that Matt did an AMAZING job, there were alot of people trying to dictate (...) (22 years ago, 10-Jul-02, to lugnet.events.brickswest)
|
60 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
