IMPORTANT: Registration for MAC Events [Archive]

MNbiker

06-26-2005, 10:58 PM

We have a rather unique situation - registration for all 2005 MOWOG events is now full! While it's gratifying to see the strong interest in MAC's events, we've now reached a point where significant advance planning is required to attend our events. I'd like to highlight several important steps we can make, to ensure MAC events are available to the largest practical number of motorsports enthusiasts.

1. We have been actively encouraging people to pre-register for events. Having people registered in advance dramatically reduces our day-of-event workload, and permits us to get started earlier and provide more runs. However, we are beginning to see a higher incidence of no-shows at events, due to so many people registering for all events early in the season. If you do not plan to attend an event, PLEASE notify us as soon as possible, so we may make your spot available to someone on the waiting list. You may notify us by posting on the appropriate waiting list thread or via email to macregistrar@comcast.net.

2. The current entry limits have been set based on the capacity of the sites we use, and our ability to provide a targeted 6 runs per entrant. The membership could vote to allow more entrants at sites that can handle them. This would allow more participation, at the probable cost of less runs per entrant. This option will be open for discussion at the 06/29 membership meeting.

3. Multiple entries are currently receiving equal priority to single entrants. Some members have proposed we only allow second entries day-of-event, and only if space is available. This would free up as many as 16 entries per event (confirmed count of drivers with multiple entries for MOWOG 8 ). The challenge with this option is that multiple drivers tend to be many of the most active MAC members, who may see the extra seat time as one of the reasons they participate in MAC events. This option will be open for discussion at the 06/29 membership meeting.

4. If the number of no-shows continues to rise, we may be forced to require pre-payment for online registrations. Personally, I'd hate for us to go this route, as it's a hassle for us to provide refunds for online payments, and we do make a bit more money if people pay onsite. However, 20+ no-shows at an event is simply not acceptable with so many people on the waiting lists.

Thanks!

-Steve

StevenMosley

06-27-2005, 09:19 PM

SEStone

06-28-2005, 01:17 AM

I think I'd require a pre-payment if you registered online, but then make it so you couldn't get a refund if you missed/didn't get all of it. You could still get a refund if you cancelled before the event, but afterwards you'd pay the price.

Yes, I'm guilty of not making good on several registrations...when I know I'm not going to be there and I've got a computer handy, I try to cancell out though.

Sam

weidnerpaul

06-28-2005, 04:56 AM

3. Multiple entries are currently receiving equal priority to single entrants. Some members have proposed we only allow second entries day-of-event, and only if space is available. This would free up as many as 16 entries per event (confirmed count of drivers with multiple entries for MOWOG 8 ). The challenge with this option is that multiple drivers tend to be many of the most active MAC members, who may see the extra seat time as one of the reasons they participate in MAC events. This option will be open for discussion at the 06/29 membership meeting.

4. If the number of no-shows continues to rise, we may be forced to require pre-payment for online registrations. Personally, I'd hate for us to go this route, as it's a hassle for us to provide refunds for online payments, and we do make a bit more money if people pay onsite. However, 20+ no-shows at an event is simply not acceptable with so many people on the waiting lists.

Thanks!

-Steve

I was "one of the members" on #3 above. My suggestion was that the multiple car drivers (which I expect to be after the Sprite is sorted out) second registration go on a waiting list. Since you stated in another post that most on waiting lists get in they should still be able to drive 2X, but this would allow more 1 car drivers time to register. This club has been very inclusive and welcoming to new members for at least as long as I've been in it, both at meetings and events. I'd hate to see that end and while personally we'd still be welcoming to new autocrossers I think that having events full with some driving twice while others want to drive is an action that gives the opposite message --- and actions speak louder than words...

I agree with #4 that something needs to be done as ~ 15% no shows is unacceptable, especially when others might not even go on a waiting list if they think it's too long already. My vote would be for a non-refundable deposit, not the full fee. That way we get a commitment from the entrant & we don't pay as much in fees to myautoevents.com. This could be $10 to $15 or we could require a deposit of $10 (member) to $20 (non-member) with the rest collected at the event. Keep the member/nonmember fee difference equal to the $ difference in registration charge. This would stimulate membership** and make it easier at registration day of event --- we'd collect the same amount from all entrants.

** and get the membership dollars into the Club's treasury earlier in the season...
Paul

MNbiker

06-28-2005, 07:05 AM

Great post!!!

Couple questions:
1. How many people have we turned away at events?
2. What is the largest waiting list we have seen?
3. What % do we lose on pre-payment?

I won't make the meeting on Wednesday. My input is to leave everything alone and require a non-refundable pre-payment. It could either be a fraction of the entry fee or the whole amount. I think this is pretty standard policy for other automotive events and it would be a good thing for us to start.

1. We have turned away a few walk-ups, but have thus far not turned away anyone on a waiting list. I am almost certain this situtation will change at MOWOG 5.

2. MOWOG 5 - waiting list currently at 23. (and that's AFTER increasing the entry limit for the event by 20.) As noted above, I believe this will be the first event where we can't accomodate the entire waiting list.

3. A $30 entry costs us $2.40 in processing fees, and a $20 entry costs us $2.10. As you can see, a pretty significant percentage of the fee is fixed. Therefore, I wouldn't recommend requiring only a deposit online. Point of reference - requiring online payment would cost MAC approximately $250-$300 additional for a large Valleyfair event, based on the current percentage of online payments. This extra expense may be worth it, but does need to be factored into any decisions we make.

-Steve

pinhead

06-28-2005, 07:15 AM

I don't like requiring online pre-payment.

Roger no like using credit card on web.

Me go back to cave now.

MNbiker

06-28-2005, 07:18 AM

I just thought of an additional issue that might help with some aspects of this situation:

5. Currently, we're giving anyone who pre-registers online the pre-registration price (typically $5 cheaper). If we were to require pre-payment in order to get the lower price, the following would likely occur:
a. More people would pay online
b. A few people would choose not to pre-register
c. MAC would receive additional revenues from those who pre-register online, but pay at the event. This would likely offset the additional online processing fees for online payments.

I kind of like this approach, as it still allows people the option of pre-registration, but requires a greater cimmitment (payment) to receive the lower price.

Note: I don't believe it would be feasible to implement the above change this year, as event costs have already been set, and there would be a huge logistical problem with existing MyAutoEvents registrations (Once you select a method of payment, it can't be changed).

-Steve

pinhead

06-28-2005, 07:22 AM

weidnerpaul

06-28-2005, 07:29 AM

StevenMosley

06-28-2005, 07:37 AM

rdub

06-28-2005, 07:41 AM

This is exactly what I said would happen earlier in the season!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
People just blanket their entries,and then don't show up!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
thus eliminating "legitimate racers"
And the "driving more than one car needs to change to "if there is room at the event " the day of the race!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And all online registers have to pay NO REFUND
This is the only FAIR way to cover this and not have questions or GRAY areas.

StevenMosley

06-28-2005, 07:47 AM

I was "one of the members" on #3 above. My suggestion was that the multiple car drivers (which I expect to be after the Sprite is sorted out) second registration go on a waiting list. Since you stated in another post that most on waiting lists get in they should still be able to drive 2X, but this would allow more 1 car drivers time to register. This club has been very inclusive and welcoming to new members for at least as long as I've been in it, both at meetings and events. I'd hate to see that end and while personally we'd still be welcoming to new autocrossers I think that having events full with some driving twice while others want to drive is an action that gives the opposite message --- and actions speak louder than words...

I agree with #4 that something needs to be done as ~ 15% no shows is unacceptable, especially when others might not even go on a waiting list if they think it's too long already. My vote would be for a non-refundable deposit, not the full fee. That way we get a commitment from the entrant & we don't pay as much in fees to myautoevents.com. This could be $10 to $15 or we could require a deposit of $10 (member) to $20 (non-member) with the rest collected at the event. Keep the member/nonmember fee difference equal to the $ difference in registration charge. This would stimulate membership** and make it easier at registration day of event --- we'd collect the same amount from all entrants.

** and get the membership dollars into the Club's treasury earlier in the season...
Paul

I can't believe I'm going to say this, but I like what Paul said in the second paragraph, but not so much with the first. The waiting list is extra work and I hate work even when someone else is doing it. :)

In the end we have a supply and demand issue here. Another option is to raise prices until the demand equals are supply. I think that action would only be needed if the pre-payment didn't fix the problem.

MNbiker

06-28-2005, 08:00 AM

How about this...

if someone preregisters and then no-shows, just have Steve go in to myautoevents.com, delete the No-Shower's entry for the next event, and put them at the bottom of the waiting list.

That ought get people attention, and can be implemented right away.

As others have said, you're mighty generous with my time!:lol:

This isn't a good long-term solution. However, I would be willing to implement such a system for the remainder of 2005 - with one change. Anyone who's an upaid no-show gets their registrations for ALL remaining events deleted. This way, we take care of the offenders all at once, and send a stronger message.

My guess is, this policy would dramatically decrease the no-show occurances, after a bunch of entries are deleted for the MOWOG 5 no-shows. ;)

Mark this down as another option to discuss at the meeting.

-Steve

StevenMosley

06-28-2005, 08:17 AM

This isn't a good long-term solution. However, I would be willing to implement such a system for the remainder of 2005 - with one change. Anyone who's an upaid no-show gets their registrations for ALL remaining events deleted. This way, we take care of the offenders all at once, and send a stronger message.

-Steve

I think that would be the only fix we could implement this year and I think it is needed and fair.

914 Dave

06-28-2005, 08:22 AM

I'm a fan of keep it simple. I for one would have no problems with requiring online payment with your online registration. Sorry Roger. (aka Captain Caveman... remember him?) While I'm sure there are risks w/online payments, setting up a paypal acct is not rocket science, I've done it, and I'm far from computer literate. NO refunds. I would expect that most of us who can register on line can pay online. With this plan, a waiting list would exist from day 1 for the 2 driver cars, which would NOT need to be pre pay. While I very much enjoy mooching a second ride, and don't want to give that up, this would allow more folks to play cars with the club. I would vote to limit the # of entries and keep 6 or more runs a priority. If I were putting as much effort in to participating as I am, and only got 3-4 runs and no "instructional" runs, I might have to go back to fishing for the summer.

Would this be a problem for some folks? You bet. Sometimes I think I'm the only car guy in Rice Lake with a computer. I regularly sign up 2-3 other guys. They'd have to get with the show, or its MWFD (more work for dave) to pay for them and collect the money myself.

Would this result in more fees to the club? Sure. Is it worth it? Ask Nikki. I think the smooth running of the event site registration and timing/scoring is worth alot, to me as a participant, and to those who handle those tasks. Hey, we are a "not for profit" organization, right? Not that we should give all our $$$ away, (sure, I'd like to show some of that "profit" stuff and get an updated timing display...) but if addl fees are the "cost of doing business" and make the events go smoother, so be it until we can set up our own online registration/payment system.

How does this help day of event walk ups or folks who decide a week before the event they want to play? It doesn't. As we grow as a club, and our sport grows in the twin cities, it just doesn't seem possible to make this show work for everyone in every situation, as much as each of us would like it to work out that way.

"You can please some of the people some of the time, but you can't please all of the people all of the time."

We've all heard that quote before.

Would I like an auto cross club to exist in Rice Lake? Oh yea!!! I'd much rather drive 10 min each way than 2 hours. But for me, for now, I'm willing to get up at 5am, leave home by 6, plan ahead, mark the calander, attend the board meedings, have my fun. Not that everyone needs to show this level of commitment, but I'm afraid our little car club had grown up, and the days of filling the tank up friday night and heading over saturday are gone.

pinhead

06-28-2005, 08:36 AM

As others have said, you're mighty generous with my time!:lol:

Hehe. Well, I think that if this is actually as effective as we think, you wouldn't have to do it twice ;)

weidnerpaul

06-28-2005, 08:38 AM

I can't believe I'm going to say this, but I like what Paul said in the second paragraph, but not so much with the first. The waiting list is extra work and I hate work even when someone else is doing it. :)

In the end we have a supply and demand issue here. Another option is to raise prices until the demand equals are supply. I think that action would only be needed if the pre-payment didn't fix the problem.

Steve,
Was it hard for you to type "but I like what Paul said "?

As for the waiting list, no easy answers, if we go to putting all 2nd drivers on the list & get popular enough that it fills up anyway we could have two waiting lists. It sounds like you're in favor of the status quo on two driver cars (implied anyway), we'll just have to agree to disagree on that one...
Paul

Shrep

06-28-2005, 08:43 AM

As others have said, you're mighty generous with my time!:lol:

This isn't a good long-term solution. However, I would be willing to implement such a system for the remainder of 2005 - with one change. Anyone who's an upaid no-show gets their registrations for ALL remaining events deleted. This way, we take care of the offenders all at once, and send a stronger message.

My guess is, this policy would dramatically decrease the no-show occurances, after a bunch of entries are deleted for the MOWOG 5 no-shows. ;)

Mark this down as another option to discuss at the meeting.

-Steve
I like the way this works out.

The ultimate problem is the no-shows. The cause is blanketed registration, and lack of cancels. There's a few (probably more than I've got listed) ways to control this:
a) Consider it an offense to no-show on a pre-reg, and delete all remaining entries (stated above).
b) NEW IDEA...Don't allow blanket registration. Open events for Pre-reg, only after the previous event has completed.
c) Force pre-pay for pre-reg, no refunds on cancellation after a certain date. d) Multiple entries must go on the waiting list.

I like/understand a, b and d above, though I have concerns with c, I think it will cause everything to go backward a bit too far. If pre-pay is the largest measure we take, it will only have an effect on blanket registration to a limited extent. With the recent influx of novice participants, I've noticed that many are young, and likely, attentance is dependant more on money that week than time. Of course, they've learned the ropes and have begun to pre-reg to ensure their slot is open, 'just in case'. Requiring a pre-paid pre-reg would cut back on this, but would also shun those who are not comfortable with paying over the internet, and give the advantage to those who can afford to pre-pay.

No refunds? At all? I can't help but think this is a bad idea...things hapen in life unexpectedly...like the cow-car breaking on it's way to an event, or your wife going into labor the night before, or you're working in the garage and somehow injure yourself so that you can not compete, or you step off a curb wrong and sprain your ankle...too many things can happen at complete random. If people are faced losing their money because something happens, even early, people will stop pre-registering, and with walk-ups being turned away, they stop comming too....then what happens?

Even with pre-pay, many will still blanket. Most of us are conciencious enough to know to cancel as early as possible if we're not going to make it, and there are many in the club that could afford to pre-pay the entire season. Should those people have an advantage on their likelyhood to participate simply because they have a larger disposable income?

I think that the best way to control the no-show percentage, withought potentially penalizing the 'innocent', is to impliment 'd' and follow Steve G's plan (a), and if that doesn't work, move on to 'b'. 'c' should be a last resort. It cuts into club revenue and discourages only those who can't afford to pre-pay several events at once.

SUV-ETR

06-28-2005, 08:52 AM

<SNIP>

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

<SNIP>

!!!!!!!!!!!!!

<SNIP>

Randy, we need to get you talking with the Stratus R/T guy...send some of your extra punctuation his way, and we'll all be happier. :lol:

But seriously, Steve didn't actually post the number of no-shows. What are they? With the waiting list, we've still hit our entry caps pretty much dead-on. So it isn't like half the field isn't showing up.

No matter what, this THIS IS NOT A BAD THING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (<--- extra punctuation and emphasis to get Randy's attention :p ) Everyone who has been an active part of this club for the past few years should feel proud of what they have accomplished. There are far worse problems to have than being TOO popular. As a newbie coming in last fall from another region, it has been very impressive to see.

There's always one more option: Have more events.

However, it is unrealistic and unfair to expect that the existing hard-working crew will do this. We would need an influx of even more people to attend the meetings, become dedicated/skilled workers in key positions, and step up to the plate so that we could have more events without burning anyone out. (I'm including myself in this statement, FYI)

Any of us who think this might be a good idea should step up to the plate, volunteer more, and be prepared to run the events. If there is enough demand, and we have enough skilled and trustworthy workers to run events without burning anyone out, there's no theoretical reason we couldn't have events every weekend if we wanted to, all summer long. You could skip 1/3 of the events during the 2007 season, and still get more seat time than you did in 2005.

And let's take this even more into the realm of "big picture" thinking. Think of what that could do to increase quality even more. There's a momentum effect to this kind of stuff. Think of the additional revenue to the club, the extra equipment it could buy, and the better each event could be. Think of all the times we've said "gee, I wish we could have a ___". Nice club air compressor? Additional timing gear? Better tents for registration and such? Better equipment to help speed setup/teardown? Anything's possible with just a little more cash flow. It doesn't take much. And if we've got a club with a following that large, it will help us get more and better sites too.

The #1 challenge is that no matter what we do, we should not sacrifice the outstanding event quality that we've been delivering. (This is one reason I would vote against raising event caps...) We've got some incredible momentum in the club's popularity right now. Let's figure out a smart way to use it. If we become complacent, the momentum will turn the other way, and those of use who have been around a few years know how well momentum works in THAT direction.

Neal

MNbiker

06-28-2005, 08:52 AM

a) Consider it an offense to no-show on a pre-reg, and delete all remaining entries (stated above).
b) NEW IDEA...Don't allow blanket registration. Open events for Pre-reg, only after the previous event has completed.
c) Force pre-pay for pre-reg, no refunds on cancellation after a certain date.
d) Multiple entries must go on the waiting list.

Note: we wouldn't be able to implement C or D until next year.

MNbiker

06-28-2005, 09:06 AM

But seriously, Steve didn't actually post the number of no-shows. What are they? With the waiting list, we've still hit our entry caps pretty much dead-on. So it isn't like half the field isn't showing up.

As I stated earlier, this isn't a huge problem that's deprived drivers the ability to attend MAC events - yet. However, the trends suggest we will have to turn people away from MOWOG 5 - so the problem is getting worse. Both MOWOG 3 and MOWOG 4 ended up significantly under the entry caps, due to 20+ no-shows. I see this as the primary short-term issue to tackle.

Multiple entries are an easy target, and we may decide to change current policies regarding how entries for 2nd cars are handled. However, if we fix the no-show problem, we may be able to leave this alone for '05.

-Steve

SUV-ETR

06-28-2005, 09:11 AM

In the end we have a supply and demand issue here. Another option is to raise prices until the demand equals are supply. I think that action would only be needed if the pre-payment didn't fix the problem.

WHAT PROBLEM? Where is this problem I keep hearing about?

Raising prices might help the club in the short run, but it has many long-term ill effects.

And if the "problem" is that we're not providing service to everyone who wants it, I would argue that raising prices creates a totally new "problem" in the form of price gouging (this club has no legitimate competition here, so the argument of market forces doesn't apply in its purest form) and only penalizes those who actually DO think ahead, register early, and show up to events.

If anything, increase supply. Don't decrease demand!

Neal

SUV-ETR

06-28-2005, 09:19 AM

As I stated earlier, this isn't a huge problem that's deprived drivers the ability to attend MAC events - yet. However, the trends suggest we will have to turn people away from MOWOG 5 - so the problem is getting worse. Both MOWOG 3 and MOWOG 4 ended up significantly under the entry caps, due to 20+ no-shows. I see this as the primary short-term issue to tackle.

Agreed. I do like the idea of requiring pre-registration to pre-pay. However, the issue of refunds is the reason we never did pre-pay for Central Florida events. "No refunds" is a harsh policy on the participants, but administering refunds is a ton of unnecessary work for the club. And if anyone can get a refund, why not pre-pay for everything and demand refunds later?

One potential solution: Only issue refunds to people who cancel X days (perhaps 7?) before the event. No refunds issued after that. This doesn't address the problem of real-life "my car broke down" issues, but I don't know any better solution...

Neal

StevenMosley

06-28-2005, 10:15 AM

Raising prices might help the club in the short run, but it has many long-term ill effects.

And if the "problem" is that we're not providing service to everyone who wants it, I would argue that raising prices creates a totally new "problem" in the form of price gouging (this club has no legitimate competition here, so the argument of market forces doesn't apply in its purest form) and only penalizes those who actually DO think ahead, register early, and show up to events.

If anything, increase supply. Don't decrease demand!

Neal

I personally don't consider the cost of the entry fee as the only cost involved. It is the smallest price I pay for the day. It costs more for me to fill my car with gas to drive to the event. Then I factor in wear and tear and finally the biggie TIME.

I truly think $10 is not going to effect most people doing this and if $10 breaks their bank we might be doing them a favor. Autoxing is not as cheap as some pretend it to be. The club can use the extra funds to keep the cap at a reasonable level and the quality level of the events high. I think the #1 thing that will kill supply is quality; quality of competition and event. If I show up at an event and the hot shots are not there it kind of bums me out. I want to roll with the best. If I get only 3-4 runs I feel like I wasted my day and would have rather spent the money and time doing an event with COM or LOL-SCCA.

As for the refund, It is a headache for the club to manage. If we charge a $5-10 pre-payment fee I think it is fair to keep. We have fixed costs and if the weather sucks or Steve’s Durango craps out and he can’t get to Ohio he is not getting his money back. By pre-registering you are saying you are going to be there and are keeping someone else from being able to plan to attend if the event is full. All in all it is just a small donation to the club if you can’t make it.

Chin

06-28-2005, 10:15 AM

One potential solution: Only issue refunds to people who cancel X days (perhaps 7?) before the event. No refunds issued after that. This doesn't address the problem of real-life "my car broke down" issues, but I don't know any better solution...

Neal

My concern is really with the no refund pre-pay idea... I happen to have a job that requires me to leave town with a little as 2 days notice. While this doesn't happen often, I would feel alienated if I was forced into being in this situation...

My $39.95...

Christian Banks
#202 DSP
'00 Impreza 2.5RS

914 Dave

06-28-2005, 11:01 AM

weidnerpaul

06-28-2005, 11:27 AM

As does my job, but I'm willing to accept the possibility of an event fee "donation" to the club if I need to skip town on short notice. If you buy tickets to a concert, and can't make it, is the $ refunded? Hey..... maybe I could buy a bunch of entries to an event and "scalp" them at the gate the day of the event... just thinking....

Leave it to Dave to figure a way to fund his next car project :-)

This is why I suggested a deposit, not the whole amount. There are lots of good suggestions in this thread but remember:
Go to the meeting tomorrow night to support your viewpoint (or ask a board member to represent your viewpoint) because I'm sure that this will be a big part of the discussions there. That said I think most changes have to wait for next year as the events are filling up/full and MAE setups can't be changed midstream.

This is a high class problem as we have to manage when being successful & having a lot of people wanting to be at our events, that sure beats the opposite (alluded to by Neal) and I think it speaks well of the club that we are having this discussion about it!

Paul

SUV-ETR

06-28-2005, 12:11 PM

I personally don't consider the cost of the entry fee as the only cost involved. It is the smallest price I pay for the day. It costs more for me to fill my car with gas to drive to the event. Then I factor in wear and tear and finally the biggie TIME.

First off, I don't think you have to argue that to me, considering my investment in autocross. I have a good career, so time becomes as important as money in many ways. But I DO feel that $10 does matter to a lot of people who do autocross. If you live in the metro area, drive an N/A 4-cyl in the ST classes, the event fee is easily the highest cost. And while it might for you or me, time does not equal money for everyone, certainly never in the same ratio.

But if I may point this out plainly, your argument doesn't make sense anyway. You're saying that we should increase the cost to decrease demand, but then you're saying that a price increase shouldn't make anyone less likely to attend. Doesn't that defeat the purpose?

And it still doesn't address the core questions: Why not increase supply instead of reducing demand? Everybody wins that way. Also, does increasing the fee serve any other purpose than to weed out the less-committed - and somehow therefore less-desirable - people? IMHO, autocross is precisely FOR less-committed people. It isn't like we're saying a price hike is necessary for the financial viability of this non-profit club...that makes it a gouge in my opinion.

I think the #1 thing that will kill supply is quality; quality of competition and event. If I show up at an event and the hot shots are not there it kind of bums me out. I want to roll with the best.

I agree 100% regarding the event quality. But not so much regarding competition. Of all people, I'm very surprised to hear you say this. If you feel this way, MAC is *NOT* for you. You want to roll with the best? And you want to see people who commit to the sport? Join us in Peru...or better yet, Topeka. I can't tell you how many times I've talked with other people about what would happen if you and Chris showed up at a National-level event in a competitive car. You know, and we know, you have the skills to play in the Big Pond... ;)

And with regard to refunds, the SCCA does issue refunds up to a specified date before the event. And if you sweet-talk them, they'll issue a refund later too. :D I don't mind that approach, or the idea of a non-refundable deposit.

Neal

Shrep

06-28-2005, 12:34 PM

I think we need to focus ourselves and look at what we're trying to accomplish here.

Do we want to discourage people below a certain income bracket from taking advantage of a cost effective way to push themselves and thier cars to the limits, legally?

There are indeed a lot of folks who have a lot of time, effort and money tied up in their autox career, but I think it's important to realize that some folks come and run their cars for fun, when they are able to, financially/lagistically.

It seems that these are the folks that make up most of the newer SI, and a portion of the Stock classes. The are here because it can be inexpensive, is a lot of fun, is safe and is legal.

While I agree that we need to do something about the no-show rate, or at least, how it affects the organization and events...I think that we need to make sure that we are looking at the whole picture, and think about how our decisions are going to affect everyone that is involved. Ultimately, since we allow public participation, we have come to depend on non-members, at least to a point.

We could close the doors to the public...that'd make a big difference. But I don't think that goes with the spirit of the club. Why? I'm a noob to MAC, but from what I've seen, overall concensus indicates that we want the public to come, enjoy themselves, and consider joining. This also provides an opportunity to those who may not be able to afford Private Club dues, or the higher costs associated with lower participation, an opportunity to "go play".

Don't get me wrong...I'm in no way actually suggesting that MAC close it's doors to the public. I'm simply trying to point out that some of the other things that have been suggested in this thread, could ;potential have the same or similar effects.

I like this discussion. It's challenging to try to think of ways to manage the situation, without negatively impacting other aspects. Good brain excersize. :D

Drew

06-28-2005, 12:52 PM

Interesting discussion. However, IMO, an unfortunate aspect of this type of forum is that simple suggestion of a potential concern (Steve thought we may have to turn away some people on event day) seems to trigger a flood of "solutions" (heavy-handed, I'd add) in search of a problem. I'm in agreement with most of what Neal wrote. Is there really a problem here - either current or potential?

First, if we have to turn anyone away, it will be because the event is full, period. Not because someone blanket pre-registered and was a no-show. So I fail to see the need for an increased entry fee, or to summarily delete all of the future registrations of a one-time no-show. I didn't do a search of prior threads, and I may be wrong about this, but I think that blanket pre-registration was encouraged by the club leadership earlier this season. Even pre-registering and being a no-show was suggested as being more helpful to the club than walk-up registration. To suggest punishing those who have blanket pre-registered and may not delete an entry by the time of the cut-off seems pretty arrogant.

If we feel it would be more fair to limit multiple entries to available spots after all single entries, I don't have a problem with that. But I for one am not for requiring non-refundable advance entry fees or deposits.

Second, IMO Neal had by far the most sensible suggestion of this whole thread. If we're so successful in attracting participation, then see if we can increase the supply of events for our members. What if MAC had two fully capable "teams" that could operate an event? What an opportunity to increase member commitment beyond the small core group that seems to carry the burden for the season?

--Drew

SUV-ETR

06-28-2005, 01:52 PM

What if MAC had two fully capable "teams" that could operate an event?

This is exactly what the Central Florida Region SCCA did, and was the inspiration for my point. In 2003 (the last full year I was there) we had over 50 event days in the club. They often did a Saturday practice followed by a Sunday points event. Each team averaged a touch over one Sat/Sun weekend per month (FL = year round autocrossing!), and you can see how things add up real quick.

In CFR's case, the decision to split was a little bit easier because the region is made up of a number of medium-sized cities across the state. We realized many people fell into the category of being committed to the club, going to every event nearby, and being willing to work hard at the event...but not being "hard core competitors" who were willing to drive across the state every month. Orlando was the only city in-between, so dividing into "east" and "west" teams was a natural conclusion and it worked well.

That doesn't all apply to MAC, since geographically, everything is focused around the metro area. But that also allows us to be flexible and maintain a larger single pool of core workers. It also allows us to use one pool of equipment instead of having to buy two sets of everything. Then we have unlimited ways of dividing up the work...

(and thanks for the compliment, Drew!)

Neal

phile

06-28-2005, 02:02 PM

>First, if we have to turn anyone away, it will be because the event is full, period.

True.

>I think that blanket pre-registration was encouraged by the club leadership earlier this season. Even pre-registering and being a no-show was suggested as being more helpful to the club than walk-up registration.

Yes, because it IS more helpful than walk-up registration. And I was probably the most vocal in that camp. Data-entry at an event is darned time-consuming and increases the chance of event-snarling error.

I didn't see coming a problem of too many entrants. I agree with Neal that it may not be a true disaster yet.

>To suggest punishing those who have blanket pre-registered and may not delete an entry by the time of the cut-off seems pretty arrogant.

Well-said. Which is not to say that folks wouldn't help things quite a bit by deleting themselves from the entry list when it becomes clear they can't make the event. But I don't think we need to slap them around too hard if it does not actually cause someone to be turned away from the event. With the existence of a waiting list, I don't see how that's possible, since the event is filled with actual attendance, not reservations. There is no empty space being held on the grid while another driver is sent packing. The administration of a waiting list is annoying, but not fatal to the enterprise.

When all the chips stop flying, no-shows don't cause turn-aways. If there are turn-aways of folks on the waiting list, they have been displaced by double-drivers, not no-shows.

>If we feel it would be more fair to limit multiple entries to available spots after all single entries, I don't have a problem with that.

We agree again.

> But I for one am not for requiring non-refundable advance entry fees or deposits.

I'm not to the point yet where I think non-refundable advance entry fees or deposits are required. I have not reviewed the numbers, but making entrants go onto a waiting list for the second car seems like it may be enough to prevent over-subscription, and seems to me the most fair. "Everybody gets firsts before anybody goes back for seconds" seems like a fairly well-accepted norm in American culture. Double-driving is not allowed in many autocross organizations, for this and for other reasons (and I really hope we can refrain from discussing those other reasons in this thread).

>Second, IMO Neal had by far the most sensible suggestion of this whole thread. If we're so successful in attracting participation, then see if we can increase the supply of events for our members. What if MAC had two fully capable "teams" that could operate an event? What an opportunity to increase member commitment beyond the small core group that seems to carry the burden for the season?

Well, sure, but it's been difficult enough getting one team.

Once again, our problem is really sites. Virtually every difficulty we have finds its roots in the availability of several large parking-lot sites. It's not the size of the course that's the problem, but the paddock and logistics. Otherwise, there would be no reason not to run 150-plus cars at Midway.

pinhead

06-28-2005, 03:05 PM

If there are turn-aways of folks on the waiting list, they have been displaced by double-drivers, not no-shows.

I don't think I agree with this.

I think you're assuming that everyone on the waiting list shows up at the event, and forms a line waiting for someone to "we have 15 no shows, so we'll take 15 of you", but is that how it's really been happening?

Up to now, the dynamic that I've followed is that as entries are cancelled or the entry limit is raised, people on the waiting list are registered - so they know they're in before they make the drive to the event. Presumeably, if you are on the waiting list and not "in" before the event, you don't need to bother driving to the event - I have a longer drive than most, but I know that I wouldn't drive to the event if I didn't KNOW that I was "in" before I left my house.

So imagine there are people on the waiting list that don't get "in" before the event, and thus they decide to stay home. Then some guy decides that even though he's registered, he's not going to show up. Badda bing, badda boom, by not cancelling his entry in advance the no-show just made it so the guy on the waiting list couldn't run.

Mowog 4 had only 98 people run, yet the entry limit was 110 ... 12 no shows. The waiting list thread shows ~7 people that weren't "in". So there WERE empty spaces being held on the grid. Whether or not people were sent packing is hard to say, since some of them may have not shown up in the first place.

Drew

06-28-2005, 03:06 PM

Once again, our problem is really sites. Virtually every difficulty we have finds its roots in the availability of several large parking-lot sites. It's not the size of the course that's the problem, but the paddock and logistics. Otherwise, there would be no reason not to run 150-plus cars at Midway.

No disagreement there.

And after I wrote my post, I was thinking about the site aspect of event expansion. While I'm well aware there are no simple solutions, the increased participation MAC is attracting with its very well organized, high quality events could ultimately aid the cause of securing better sites. As MAC grows, we could be be seen with more interest by large site owners we approach. Popularity of an activity often breeds more acceptance. For example, if we were seen as the considerably larger group we are becoming, maybe Canterbury would find a way to accomodate us. (I'm sure if they REALLY wanted to, they could arrange an empty lot for us.) I think the last time we had any contact with them, we were getting around 70 to 90 entrants per event. That site was last used by MAC before I started autocrossing, but could it handle an event of 200+ entries?

Guess I'm getting off-topic here, but one more thing. A new Vikings stadium in Blaine is still a possibility. If it gets built, I'm sure the owners will want the parking revenue from huge parking lots (like Miller Park's). A strong local car club with a few hundred active members and frequent events will have a better chance to rent those lots during the non-football season, than a small organization will.

Yeah, there's a lot of "maybe this could happen, or maybe that could happen" in what I wrote. But I think we'll provide ourselves with more opportunities by capitalizing on our recent success, rather than focusing what restrictions we could place on event entries.

--Drew

MNbiker

06-28-2005, 03:22 PM

First, if we have to turn anyone away, it will be because the event is full, period. Not because someone blanket pre-registered and was a no-show. So I fail to see the need for an increased entry fee, or to summarily delete all of the future registrations of a one-time no-show. I didn't do a search of prior threads, and I may be wrong about this, but I think that blanket pre-registration was encouraged by the club leadership earlier this season. Even pre-registering and being a no-show was suggested as being more helpful to the club than walk-up registration. To suggest punishing those who have blanket pre-registered and may not delete an entry by the time of the cut-off seems pretty arrogant.

I think you're missing the real problem that's being caused by excessive no-shows. The "blanket" registrations have caused organizers and members to over-estimate the number of people that will be showing up at events. While we haven't been turning people away, I'm 100% certain that the appearance of full events and the long waiting lists have kept a number of drivers away. As a result, we had 111 (130 limit) entrants at MOWOG 3 and 98 (110 limit) entrants at MOWOG 4. Assuming we could have filled both events, that's a minimum in $610 in lost revenues for MAC and 31 people who could have attended but didn't. THAT's the real problem.

As for penalizing the no-shows, there are measures we can take to make the process as fair as possible. We can EASILY send blanket emails to all registrants a few day before each event, advising them to delete their entry, if they can't make it to the event. Frankly, if we notify drivers shortly before each event and they still aren't considerate enough to delete their entry, then no-shows shouldn't complain if they lose the privilege to pre-register.

BTW - I clearly recall Phil exhorting people to blanket register. However, I don't recall anyone recommending that people register, then not delete if they won't be attending. I know I've been asking people to manage their entries since Day 1. In any case, we have an emerging problem that will increasingly inhibit MAC's ability to fill events, if we can't shift entrant behavior.

While we may indeed decide to make changes in the mutiple entry process, I see little difference in "fixing" things at the expense of multiple entries, versus no-shows. In both cases, we'd be changing processes, in the face of expectations that were set at the beginning of the season.

-Steve

weidnerpaul

06-28-2005, 03:22 PM

Another thought on the waiting list:

We only know the ones that sign up. I'm sure that some get discouraged and don't sign up because they think that they won't get in anyway (see the MOWOG 5 waiting list). Plus we've completely taken the day of event walk on registration away with the new demand and that would added some more that we don't see either.

What is our paid membership count right now? If it's less than 125 then we probabally have less members than last year at this time. That might be another way of looking at how the entrants see the club...

Paul

SUV-ETR

06-28-2005, 03:55 PM

What is our paid membership count right now? If it's less than 125 then we probabally have less members than last year at this time. That might be another way of looking at how the entrants see the club...

Hmmm...hadn't thought of that one. Good point to bring into the discussion!

And Drew fleshed out nicely the tiny half-sentence at the tail end of my earlier post regarding better equipment and such. A larger, well-run club that can show a history of good attendance at our events with little or no problems can wield more persuasive power in site negotiations.

It's all about MOMENTUM. And we've got great momentum right now...

Neal

Spooling

06-28-2005, 08:25 PM

First off, I am one of the people who upon seeing that events were full, with sizeable wait list didn’t show up to MOWOG 4. I imagine that there other members out there like me who couldn’t tell in advance if they would be able to attend and after seeing the size of the wait list before the even decided not to even try.

Suggestions for what can be done going forward:

Well for this year the idea of sending everyone who is registered an email a week or so before the event reminding to cancel if they can’t show up sounds like it would be good, assuming this isn’t a lot of work to do. Hopefully this would allow better visibility for people who are on the waiting list to know if they should show up.

Next Year and beyond

Well as everyone says if somehow we could have more events and or larger venues to accommodate more drivers that would be best.

Absent that, I do think we need to have a pre-registration / cancel policy with some teeth. Not necessarily monetary for reasons already discussed, but something like not canceling a week or 2 before the event means you loose your spot at the next 1/2/3/N number of events if you don’t show up. It may sound a little harsh but maybe that is the way it has to be. I think in a club the size of MAC there will always can/should be a little wiggle room for true emergency situations like my car blew up on the way to the event.

I also would be in favor of requiring payment 1-2 weeks in advance that if you no show would be kept by MAC. It would be a good additional reminder for people to make sure they really want to attend the event.

Oh and I don't think I ever thanked everyone for a great MOWOG 2 event where 3 or 4 of those yummy hot dogs weighed me down enough to just miss 1st in STX :)

Drew

06-28-2005, 08:55 PM

I think you're missing the real problem that's being caused by excessive no-shows. The "blanket" registrations have caused organizers and members to over-estimate the number of people that will be showing up at events. While we haven't been turning people away, I'm 100% certain that the appearance of full events and the long waiting lists have kept a number of drivers away. As a result, we had 111 (130 limit) entrants at MOWOG 3 and 98 (110 limit) entrants at MOWOG 4.

I wasn't aware that we had less than the entry limit at those two events. The blanket registrations may or may not have caused that result. Although you may be correct, I think you're still making a presumption with your conclusion.

As for penalizing the no-shows, there are measures we can take to make the process as fair as possible. We can EASILY send blanket emails to all registrants a few day before each event, advising them to delete their entry, if they can't make it to the event.

That seems like a reasonable thing to do.

Frankly, if we notify drivers shortly before each event and they still aren't considerate enough to delete their entry, then no-shows shouldn't complain if they lose the privilege to pre-register.

Steve, people were encouraged to blanket pre-register. You're now making a presumption that blanket pre-registration is causing a significant number of people not to bother asking to be on a waiting list once pre-registration is full, and therefore no-shows should be punished if they aren't "considerate" enough to delete their entry before the cut-off.

I think I can make a valid presumption that not all no-shows are the result of being inconsiderate. Stuff happens.

The club's leadership set up the present pre-registration system without a penalty for being a no-show. I don't think it's a good idea to talk about officially proposing effectively punishing members for using the system as it's been set up. Rather, why not emphasize that you think blanket pre-pregistration in its present form had an unintended consequence, and then keep beating the drum for cancelling entries that aren't going to be used? Keep pointing out the underfilled events that you believe resulted from combination of blanket registration and no-shows. I believe you'll get more cooperation than you think.

--Drew

MNbiker

06-28-2005, 09:30 PM

The club's leadership set up the present pre-registration system without a penalty for being a no-show. I don't think it's a good idea to talk about officially proposing effectively punishing members for using the system as it's been set up. Rather, why not emphasize that you think blanket pre-pregistration in its present form had an unintended consequence, and then keep beating the drum for cancelling entries that aren't going to be used? Keep pointing out the underfilled events that you believe resulted from combination of blanket registration and no-shows. I believe you'll get more cooperation than you think.

--Drew

I've been encouraging drivers to cancel if they don't plan to attend for at least the past 2-3 events, and the no-show rate has gotten worse, not better. For one of the events, I even sent out a mass email to all registrants.

I can guarantee that every single registrant for MOWOG 5 will be informed clearly, multiple times, that registering but not attending is a problem and why it's a problem. If that doesn't change the current trend, then we'll have to consider more drastic measures.

I'm not exactly sure why you feel blanket registrations are sacred. Yes, we encouraged people to sign up - but we certainly didn't encourage them to fill up the events, then not show up. Yes, we made a mistake in not putting controls in place at the beginning of the year to limit/prevent the current situation. But doesn't it make sense to correct the problem before it becomes worse?

-Steve

Drew

06-28-2005, 10:07 PM

I'm not exactly sure why you feel blanket registrations are sacred. Yes, we encouraged people to sign up - but we certainly didn't encourage them to fill up the events, then not show up. Yes, we made a mistake in not putting controls in place at the beginning of the year to limit/prevent the current situation. But doesn't it make sense to correct the problem before it becomes worse?

-Steve

Ha! Sacred?! Not quite.

If you're sure there's really a problem, and you know the cause, yep, it makes sense to address it in a reasonable manner.

The one thing I'm really against, and am trying to discourage, is the earlier suggestion that you would remove existing legally registered entries of those who may not comply, or may not be able to comply, with some new rules you might want to set up mid-season. (Your post #13) Such a step would seem like an abuse of authority to me. I don't think it should even be an option for discussion at the meeting.

Good luck dealing with the issue. I hope you make some progress at the meeting. I may not be able to make this meeting, even though I'm very interested in the issue. I hope that's adequate notice if I'm a no-show. ;)

--Drew

shane86

06-28-2005, 10:40 PM

i know there have been a ton of plans laid out, and i figure it wouldn't hurt to throw one more in the pot. i'm mainly doing this so i wont forget it for the meeting tonight. :oops:

1) Continue to allow fully paid pre-registrations. this is an obvious. Refunds will be available, but only if canceled 3 weeks prior to the event. with good reason (Judgement left to either Registrations or EM) a credit may be applied to a future event in the case that they are unable to run.

2) Allow a Deposit based Pre-Registration, but very low price (like $5) and the deposit does not count toward your entry fee. Person may cancel registration at least 3 weeks in advance, and receive credit for a future pre-registration deposit. within 3 weeks, the deposit is not refundable.

3) Two weeks prior to the event, open up free pre-registration. at this short of time, the majority of people will know their schedule enough to be sure they are coming to the event. if this method is used standard fee plus the $5 pre registration fee will be collected at the event.

This system i feel should prevent flaky people from blanket registering, but still be low priced enough to keep the serious people pre-registering. With 8 MOWOG Events, the blanket registration would only be $40. it will also allow people who need to back out, if they have pre-registered a chance to not throw their money away and give them a good reason to inform us of the inability to attend. The final phase, the open pre-registration will insure we have full rather full events, and the majority of entrants data on file.

that's my take on it anyway.
feel free to tear it apart.

weidnerpaul

06-29-2005, 04:45 AM

One more thought:

This is the first year that we've had caps on the "regular" events & we're still learning how the dynamics of it work. We seem to be guessing as to the reason for the no notice no shows and actually running under capacity. The reason could be blanket registration, bad things happening to good people or ??? This is also the first year we haven't had day of event registration due to the full cap and waiting list. In the past the full grids we had (120+ at Midway) were a combination of prereg/paid, prereg and day of event (DOE) registrations. Eliminating DOE helps the events run smoother since there are no DOE entrants being inputted into the timing system but takes away one type of entrant that we had in the past.

If we think we're going to have the no show issue why not increase the cap? If we want 120 at an event and figure that for one reason or another that there will be 20 no shows why not increase the cap by 10-15 entrants?
There is another way we could fill the no show slots:
We could instead post that we WILL accept 10-15 DOE entrants but with the stipulation that it's first come, first served and that they be there by 8:00 so that there is time to get them into the T&S system.

Either one of these might be a compromise that we can live with as a mid season adjustment.

Comments?

Paul

MNbiker

06-29-2005, 07:07 AM

If we think we're going to have the no show issue why not increase the cap? If we want 120 at an event and figure that for one reason or another that there will be 20 no shows why not increase the cap by 10-15 entrants?

If we could count on a set percentage of no-shows, I'd agree with this approach. The problem is, the numbers have been increasingly unpredictable. If we can change entrant behavior to be more predictable, I'd agree this is option requires the least administrative overhead.

There is another way we could fill the no show slots:
We could instead post that we WILL accept 10-15 DOE entrants but with the stipulation that it's first come, first served and that they be there by 8:00 so that there is time to get them into the T&S system.

We've been doing this already. For each event thus far, we've been informing those on the waiting list a couple days in advance - indicating we can get them into the event. In fact, we've even pre-loaded their registrations for two events.

MNbiker

06-29-2005, 07:08 AM

......I may not be able to make this meeting, even though I'm very interested in the issue. I hope that's adequate notice if I'm a no-show. ;)

Nope, we'll be sending you to the woodshed!:p

pinhead

06-29-2005, 07:24 AM

I don't really think over-booking the events in anticipation of no-shows is a great idea.

If I drug myself out of bed, drove to the event, did everything as I was supposed to, and then was told, "well, everyone showed up, so we don't have space for you" I would be seriously upset.

Shane's idea seems pretty reasonable, but I don't think we could implement it mid-season (for reasons Steve pointed out).

MNbiker

06-29-2005, 07:48 AM

Shane & others have mentioned one change that I recommend we implement next year. In MAE, it's very easy to post an event at the beginning of the year, but not allow registrations until a set date - 3 weeks before an event, for example. This is a relatively painless way to eliminate blanket registrations and incrementally decrease the no-show count for next year.

-Steve

Drew

06-29-2005, 08:48 AM

Nope, we'll be sending you to the woodshed!:p

I was afraid of that. ;)

BTW, opening registration for a three-week window before any particular event is an excellent idea, IMO. Other than for unforeseen, last-minute reasons, most people will probably know by that time whether they can really make it to an event or not.

--Drew

Shrep

06-29-2005, 09:12 AM

Point of curiosity...

Have we analized the lists of no-shows to find any patterns? Club members? Common no-shows? Etc..

To add to what Paul said (since he beat me to it :D), I'm also in favor of increasing the cap on registration, but I think the participant cap should remain. Anyone pre-reg'd that shows gets in, any space left until the participant cap, can be filled by the wating list. I know it sounds like it could turn out to be a nightmare, but what are the odds (see above) that every entrant will show? We've already learned from experience that more than likely, the waiting list will be allowed to participate.

I remember reading early on in the season, that the event had filled (Mowog1) but inevitably, no-shows typically allow for the waiting list to participate. We had a hard cap of 150, plus a waiting list of 22 for a total of 172, but 137 actual entries. That means 35 people "no-showed", though many of you will likely argue that the waiting list shouldn't be counted...okay, taking away the wait list, that leaves 13. Let's not fool ourselves, the waiting list has essentially become the raised registration cap, but with a nice name so that we don't look bad if there's really no no-shows. How about MOWOG 4? I can't find the cap, but that filled, then 7 on the waiting list, yet only 98 participants.

My point is, we've learned to expect many no-shows. Increasing the registration cap for an event by 15 is not so many registrants that would cause a major logistical issue (that I can think of) should everyone actually show up...chances are, they will not. If we can find any MAC event that has ever not had a significant number of no-shows (recently) then I guess there's a chance...but it's not happened this season.

Based on that, I think it's safe to say, increasing the cap by 15 would actually only affect the likelihood of waiting list participation. This will help no-shows to a degree, in that being people are more likely to show knowing they're registered, rather than on a waiting list (Pat's? earlier point).

If the registration cap is increased, then we start looking at the waiting list as exactly that...you're on the list, show up at X:00, and you will be entered, space permitting. This will allow for shorter waiting lists, of those who are actually likely to show up. It sounds harsh, but it might work.

I think in addition to that, Shane's idea of a $5 pre-reg fee is great. Though it benefits the club if people pre-reg, lower prices for pre-reg just invite problems if they're not pre-paid. People see the opportunity to save by pre-reg, plus they didn't have to make a commitment. I'd personally be willing to pay the extra $40 for a complete season's pre-reg because it's a reasonable price.

Another option could be to limit unpaid blanket registration to MAC members, if of course MAC members aren't making up a large percentage of the no-shows.

I have to say that I agree with those saying that they don't see the event popularity as a problem. The problem is not the popularity, but the no-shows. Unfortunately, these are inevitable. In every business that I've worked, where there must be arrangements made for so a certain number of people...we always overbooked. Airlines do it...busses do it...concerts do it...why? People are notorious for changing their minds at the last minute, even if they've paid money. In this case, if they don't show to the event...it's not like they're loosing a shot at a purse or anything.

magicsammy

06-29-2005, 09:25 AM

we might be getting a bit ahead of ourselves on this issue.

remember that MOWOG 4 was on Father's day - I'm sure that had something to do with some no-shows.

MOWOG 5 should be filled to the max. Let's see how it goes.

MNbiker

06-29-2005, 09:47 AM

Have we analized the lists of no-shows to find any patterns? Club members? Common no-shows? Etc...
I'm hoping to get this done before the meeting tonight.:)

-Steve

p.s. I sent the first reminder email out for MOWOG 5 this morning, prompting people to A) sign up to volunteer and B) cancel if they won't be attending. I'll send out another reminder next Thursday, regarding cancellations. We'll see how it goes......

MiataAndy

06-30-2005, 01:20 PM

Meeting was last night. Really wanted to attend. Instead had to watch GF's 3 year-old niece. Didn't think she would much care to attend the meeting.

What, if anything, was discussed of this issue? What solutions were proposed and was anything actually agreed upon that will go into affect?

Rex Jr

07-11-2005, 10:08 PM

So now that MOWOG5 has come and gone, and the last meeting was a week ago... What new ideas or discussion points do we have on this.

I was able, through sheer luck it seems, to get myself registered for all the events (and only the events) that I plan/want to attend. Not knowing first-hand the frustration this is causing, I can only make assumptions. However, the problem, as I see it, is that we've become such a popular passtime (a good thing) that we are attracting people who may not take it as seriously as others (not always a good thing). Obviously things are going to come up and plans change at the last minute, but also, just as obviously, people are calling dibs on an event slot without really committing to attending the event, they just want to cover their bases as it were.

We need to find a low-maintenance way to weed out those unwilling to commit to attending an event they signed up for. All this talk about deposits and "reasonable cause" and bumping to the end of the list, etc. is all fine and good in discusion. Who's going to police it? Who's going to decide what qualifies as reasonable cause?

If I absolutely had to throw my $0.02 in on any variation of the many suggestions already flying around, I'd have to say that the time-delayed access to pre-reg. combined with a partial pre-payment (not a deposit) would be effective and low-maintenance. MAE events can provide both and the software does all the work.

Partial pre-payment: If you register the morning of, you cough up $20, if you pre-reg you pay $10 via PayPal (sorry Roger) and then cough up $10 when you check in the morning of. No refunds. Period.

The word "deposit" is rank with potential problems and I would go to great length to avoid it.