2013 Proposal Help...

ronaconda · Post by **ronaconda** » Wed Apr 25, 2012 4:46 pm

I think this may be a long shot, but who is 1)FOR SURE attending 2012 AND 2)would want to attend a western Bfest enough that they are willing to sell it to those in attendance at Traverse City???

Post by **Styluss** » Thu Apr 26, 2012 2:21 pm

Possibly me.. If they let me submit two proposals!

DTMAce · Post by **DTMAce** » Thu Apr 26, 2012 3:01 pm

I don't see why they wouldn't Ryan. After all its you. And you do nothing small. LOL

I certainly don't see you having a problem with it. I would offer to help, but I'm already waist deep in the current one, not to mention I may not represent the proposal properly, having no clue about that area.

Post by **3X00-Modified** » Thu Apr 26, 2012 3:12 pm

I still have yet to hear back from Mike on my offer of allowing this to happen, Honestly I don't see an issue with it since the voting weight will still try to get the point across that attendance is important, but we'll see because those numbers aren't even set in stone yet either.

And maybe if Ryan brings back the carrot top hair style we'll let him present two locations

Ozzwoman9 · Post by **Ozzwoman9** » Thu Apr 26, 2012 3:38 pm

Couldn't resist...did somebody say Carrot Top?!?

Also, I know something was mentioned last year, are they going to throw out proposals made from places where it's already been held before (or within "x" amount of years or something)?

I really was set on attending this year, but it's just not going to happen. But I would still like to know what to expect for 2013!

Sent from my iPhone.

Post by **quad4berettagtz** » Thu Apr 26, 2012 4:05 pm

I was possibly not clear in my response Jon LOL...

My personal take on it is that it needs to be submitted at the picnic, and there needs to be someone responsible for it. One of the main reasons for this whole change is that people wanted more accountability out of the person who proposes it. We have had too many people propose, and then do jack squat in the planning, and perhaps even at the event.

My feeling is that the person presenting at the picnic needs to be semi-responsible should something happen unfavorably with the proposer, that they would be able to step up and take the reigns if that proposal would win.

Does that make sense or am I just in my own little world here?!

berettaboi · Post by **berettaboi** » Thu Apr 26, 2012 5:39 pm

that does make sense. but what if the person who has a great proposal, (as ronaconda may have, and will take care of it?) can not make it for whatever reason to the current years bfest? seems pretty unfair that he could not submit a proposal... which needs to be voted in to win anyways

diedemus · Post by **diedemus** » Thu Apr 26, 2012 8:12 pm

Speaking on the fairness aspect, and this isnt directed at ron, It is not really fair to the committee, or the group when someone makes a proposal, wins the vote on it, then is MIA for the rest of the year. In these cases it falls on the committee to either replan the event because the info from the proposal is lacking, or find a new local contact.

From a fairness standpoint there needs to be accountability, and the current system is being discussed by the committee so it may actually change before this years event.

ronaconda · Post by **ronaconda** » Fri Apr 27, 2012 2:27 am

If there is to be accountability from a second person that would 'back-up' the proposer, then this is pointless as the person accountable, according to 2010 proposal rules (http://www.beretta.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=32&t=4221) and 2011 proposal rules (http://www.beretta.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=32&t=4994), NEEDS to be a local of the area being proposed. I know details are still being worked out about the proposal process, but if that is going to be a rule for the 2013 proposal process as well, then there is no way that anything west of the Mississippi would even be considered as i cannot think of one place that more than one person of this forum or the mailing list that lives in or is close enough to be a 'back-up' to the planning.

This new process, whatever it may be, does nothing to curb the propose-and-bail problem. For example, Ryan makes his proposal in person at this years fest and his proposal wins and, God forbid, life happens and he is not able to fulfill his local planning responsibilties...where is his 'back-up'??? The committee would be left in the same position as Chicago and the new proposal process solved nothing.

I can understand the reasoning for the change that was voted on in Indy, but frankly, this upcoming process of in-person proposals is completely unfair to those members (like me) who, because life happened, could not attend Indy but is willing to present a successful proposal and follow through with it if it wins, and who wants to help make any Bfest enjoyable to not only those in attandance, but to the Committee as well.

Post by **Styluss** » Fri Apr 27, 2012 2:05 pm

As Ron has pointed out, we are in a bit of a catch 22 here. My thoughts:

- Do not require a back up person for proposals submitted. As Ron has pointed out, this is nearly impossible for some state's members.
- Allow proposals to be submitted at BFest from people who are not actually in attendance.
* The person proposing for the other state then becomes the backup representative.
* This will create accountability before said representative even agrees to submit a proposal for someone who is not attending that year's Fest.
- Allow dual submissions. For example: I submit for Denver and also submit Ron's proposal for Vegas.
* In this case, I become the secondary person for the Vegas proposal. Although this will break the "must be in state" rule.

Post by **3X00-Modified** » Fri Apr 27, 2012 3:02 pm

Boner broke the must be in state rule already.

ronaconda · Post by **ronaconda** » Fri Apr 27, 2012 3:08 pm

Boner didn't break the rule...someone allowed the proposal to be submitted and voted on...

Ozzwoman9 · Post by **Ozzwoman9** » Fri Apr 27, 2012 4:41 pm

Doesn't matter how it's done, someone somewhere is going to complain and there will always be issues that will have to be worked out no matter what.

Personally, I think the USA should be divided into 3 groups...East, Middle, West. At the bfest picnic a number should be drawn (1 thru 3) and only proposals from that region may be accepted the following year, and then that chosen region should be taken out of the hat the following year. That way we won't have so much whining about it being unfair for the same people driving so far each year.

Sent from my iPhone.

DTMAce · Post by **DTMAce** » Fri Apr 27, 2012 8:05 pm

As far as being local to the proposed site.... Technically, I am not local to the site we are going to for 2012, outside of living in the same state. I'm still around 3 hours from TC, even here. Granted that's closer than most of you but my point is I don't think the proposee (is that a word?) doesn't have to live in the location, but at least within visiting distance... Anyway.

I think seeing Las Vegas proposed again would be cool. Most of the preliminary work for that is already done too. Just has to be updated, etc.

Post by **quad4berettagtz** » Fri Apr 27, 2012 10:05 pm

ronaconda wrote:If there is to be accountability from a second person that would 'back-up' the proposer, then this is pointless as the person accountable, according to 2010 proposal rules (http://www.beretta.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=32&t=4221) and 2011 proposal rules (http://www.beretta.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=32&t=4994), NEEDS to be a local of the area being proposed. I know details are still being worked out about the proposal process, but if that is going to be a rule for the 2013 proposal process as well, then there is no way that anything west of the Mississippi would even be considered as i cannot think of one place that more than one person of this forum or the mailing list that lives in or is close enough to be a 'back-up' to the planning.

This new process, whatever it may be, does nothing to curb the propose-and-bail problem. For example, Ryan makes his proposal in person at this years fest and his proposal wins and, God forbid, life happens and he is not able to fulfill his local planning responsibilties...where is his 'back-up'??? The committee would be left in the same position as Chicago and the new proposal process solved nothing.

I can understand the reasoning for the change that was voted on in Indy, but frankly, this upcoming process of in-person proposals is completely unfair to those members (like me) who, because life happened, could not attend Indy but is willing to present a successful proposal and follow through with it if it wins, and who wants to help make any Bfest enjoyable to not only those in attandance, but to the Committee as well.

I just wanted to touch on a few things that have been put up, but specifically from your post Ron.

We have had success in the past with people who worked as local contacts for a proposal as a team. A personal example (even though I know you personally didn't make it) was 2011 in Indy. Myself and Doug Blair proposed Indy. I did most of the work from my home near Green Bay, WI - some 7 hours from Indy. I utilized Doug as a local "gopher" who scoped out the park and some other tidbits. Working as a team fulfilled the "local" need, but from an accountability standpoint I knew I was going to be there

. As it turned out, Doug had a family emergency and could not attend, however I was still in attendance to speak for everything involved in the itinerary of the event.

Last I heard feedback from people Indy was a rather large success as far as Bfests are concerned.

Opposite from that is what we all know happened in 2010. I accepted the Chicago proposal originally (even though I did have reservations at that time - ironically) because even though I know Boner was in NC, he has close ties to Chicago, and if that didn't work out, I know of more than a few people in the Chicagoland area who could (and did) step up and fill the void. Annoying - yes. Successful in the end - also yes.

I believe that a proxy presenter would work just fine. All I meant by taking responsibility would mean that if things fell through, we could count on this person as a fill in. This comes with the understanding that a fill in is no proper replacement for the original organizer... Ron, I know that if your proposal won you would be "all in" (sorry I needed a vegas term somewhere:) ).

We all understand that there are flaws with the new system (as with any system really), however we are going to play with the hand dealt. I want to personally find a viable way to keep the idea of what was proposed and voted on, AND accomodate those who cannot make it.

Someone mentioned that technology could perhaps bridge this gap. If the proxy presenter idea would not work, then seriously - videoconference? We can and will make this work.

Beretta.net