StephenParticipantAugust 24, 2004 at 1:11 pmPost count: 759
This thread is so you can post your feedback on signups and make suggestions on how to handle future signups.
I think we can all agree that some things were good (automation) and some weren’t (lockout on the additional hikers).
Please post something more than “It was good” or “it sucked”. Tell us why so that we can fine tune this for the future.
-StephenJaytrek57ParticipantAugust 24, 2004 at 2:29 pmPost count: 263
How about, “it sucked good?” 😉
I think, b/c of the interest a “lottery” type system makes some sense. Whereas people/crews sign-up for the event itself…not specifically the peak. I understand one’s desire to do a certain peak…however, if the demand/interest grows, avenues of including all need to be explored.
This IMO would add to the build-up of the event. “Wow..i got such and such this year” and so on…
It would keep people involved with the boards more. June/July sign ups?? July annoucements??..etc…??
Leave it up to individual people/crews to make plans if they get assigned the same peak. Gets people more involved and closer as a community IMHO.
Having said all that…I think this year continues to be a success. I would be interested to know the number of people who have expressed frustration.
I would suggest as well a debrief meeting in October, much like the planning meeting. This way memories are fresh, momentum still there and an excuse to get together again.
Sorry so long…I love logistics. 😆SilentCalModeratorAugust 24, 2004 at 5:34 pmPost count: 1285
We honestly never expected sign-ups to be so busy right away. I figured we would have been at about halfway after two weeks and we almost got all the peaks covered. We’ve created about 25-30 core groups of hikers and hopefully with a successful event we can bump that up into the 40’s. Last year, i said I was going to take a less visited peak but I got another couple to come with us, so for them, I signed up for a nice summit. Maybe a lottery could be a good idea. But with this many groups you will never be able to please everyone, no matter how hard you try. It’s a memorial. Not a game and that’s what we need to remember. The automated system was great but we need to fine-tune it so that when full coverage is attained that a hiker do not experience a lockout and maybe randomly assigns them to a peak. Just an idea.FrodoParticipantAugust 25, 2004 at 1:33 amPost count: 333
The automated sign-up process definitely made it easy to register for a peak, but IMO, it would have been of greater value if multiple people were allowed to sign up. I understand the concept of trying to deter people to some of the less popular peaks, but some of the people who participated in the last 2 events now feel like they were snubbed, and that does not do us any good, especially if they do not participate…
I am all for uncontrolled sign-ups. I like the idea of people having the freedom to be able to pick and choose what ever peak they want, regardless of whether someone else has already signed up for it. A peak that is already taken is somewhat a deterrent in itself, but IMO we should not limit people’s participation, in any way whatsoever…Jaytrek57ParticipantAugust 25, 2004 at 4:03 amPost count: 263
Frodo raises some valid points.
I like more structure with the ability to be flexible. Boy is that gray or what. 😉
I would be curious to know if the ones that felt snubbed have sought out the crews that have signed up for the peak already and asked if they could help/participate? Have they responded to the “on call” thread?
Just being honest here. Part of me would be upset if I hike a peak with the understanding that my crew’s responsibility is to raise the flag there only to find a flag already flying from another crew. This would probably last all of 12.5 seconds till I meet and greet that crew. I would be further upset, if say a few other peaks weren’t covered that day and perhaps my being or that crew being on-call could have helped remedied that.
Perhaps a peak is not taken till a total of ten sign-up for it? This would allow multiple crews and individuals to sign-up for them. Perhaps somehow forwarding email addresses automatically so those folks can do some planning (flagpoles/meeting times/car pools).
I strongly believe there is room for all. How we all get there is what healthy discussions are for. Boy…. conversations at the bar are going to be great. Don’t forget…I like Guinness! :beer:StephenParticipantAugust 26, 2004 at 8:02 pmPost count: 759
Here’s a thought. It combines a few ideas that have been shared over the past year:
Make signups fully open. Anyone can sign up for anything. one a peak hits a certain number of signups (5 perhaps?) those folks can pick a peak leader who will be responsible for coordinating the effort on that peak (flag, pole, journal, pictures, etc).
Have 5 or 6 people who will coordinate with the peak leaders. Divide the peaks into manageable groups, perhaps geographically. Each coordinator will be responsible for following up with the team leaders to make sure they are going to be there and that the peak will be covered. The coordinators can also be on a team, or can serve as a back-up if a peak in their area loses coverage.
The coordinators will also be responsible for providing any human interest stories that would be interesting to media (ie, scout troops participating, affected family members, etc.)
The coordinators and anyone else interested in helping lay the groundwork for the event will make up the steering team that meets before the event next year.
Here’s a quick diagram:
-StephenMichaelJParticipantAugust 26, 2004 at 9:22 pmPost count: 839
Good point – we never did have the peak coordinators, which we’d discussed last year to do this year. People who’d coordinate geographical sets of peaks.kenParticipantAugust 26, 2004 at 11:55 pmPost count: 84
>>I think, b/c of the interest a “lottery” type system makes some sense. Whereas people/crews sign-up for the event itself…not specifically the peak. I understand one’s desire to do a certain peak…however, if the demand/interest grows, avenues of including all need to be explored.<<
lottery isn’t such a good idea – if i live on the south west side, and get stuck with a peak on the northeast side i wouldn’t bee too happy about the extra 1.5 hours that i would have to travel – – you could break it up by area and have a lottery for each area to keep from makeing a shot trip for some into a long trip.kenParticipantAugust 27, 2004 at 12:13 amPost count: 84
>>I think we can all agree that some things were good (automation) and some weren’t (lockout on the additional hikers).<<
so that there are no “lockouts” if more want to do the same peak they could be numbered 1st alternate, etc., etc. when they sign up – if the first one backs out for some reason – the first alternate can become the “leader” (etc. etc.) – they would all be part of the “team” for that mountain to participate for that day, but there would at least be some way of being able to tell who is next in line to get it all together if someone can’t make it – – – also you would have thier e-mails on file to try to persuade some to go for un-covered peaks if they all don’t get covered – with the signups the way they are now if someone’s favorite peak is taken, you might lose them, you don’t even get thier e-mail address to contact them next year etc.Jaytrek57ParticipantAugust 27, 2004 at 1:53 amPost count: 263
Good points. My reasoning for the lottery is to make it more about the event than the actual peak. Also…the lottery would be somehow broken up, easy, moderate, hard..etc. I am not explaining myself well…perhaps it will sound better at the Mooseland. :beer:
I think I am thinking along the lines of Stephen. “Lock” when there is 10 people signed up for a peak…keep people posted on how many “slots” are left for each peak.
Part of me is just thinking basic LNT. Another part is saying hey man if 20 of us meet at the trailhead and space ourselves out…”That would rock.”
Whatever is decided…it only makes us stronger.
PeaceDirtSeptember 7, 2004 at 3:00 amPost count: 54
I just had an 💡 not for the signup of peaks for ’05, but for the journal I will have on Wildcat D. Many others I believe will have a journal at each summit for others to sign and share their thoughts, but what happens to this the following year? My suggestion is that separate journals be created for each peak, passing from group to group each year…and perhaps we could collect these from each team to be mailed to the coordinator of that same peak the following year..any thoughts or suggestions???
- The forum ‘2005 Signups & Status’ is closed to new topics and replies.