>>The problem I see is just 'how' to
>>organize, promote and judge it
agreed. but more. motivation is key, has been on the other things we've done and is proving so again here.
>>I posted some ideas but they generated
>>no response so I just dunno.
silence is a response too - and not always negative.
>>by having some kind of open voting system
votes don't work. period. Sorry, but they don't. I could go on at length, and I will in an email if you'd like, but suffice it for here that they are not a practical criteria.
>>Another idea: perhaps we should approach
>> this as a simple "event"
That's okay by me. I can see at least four people going for that and probably a couple more too. That would be enough for the general idea to carry across.
>> This idea may be lame, and would be
>>worthless if 'winning' is a required
>>incentive to get track makers to perform.
no idea is lame when you're trying to give shape to something that has none. but "winning" is part of the key. If your aim is to get as many people involved as possible, then incentives are crucial. If not, then winning is the irrelavent term.
>>"car shows"
are motivated by something entirely different than anything we're talking about here, or likely to ever talk about here.
The MTM straight-a-way Expo 2000ding ding ding, we have a name for this thing!
>>I'm probably being too simple minded in an
>>attempt to make this all as do-able and
>>painless as possible.
That's okay, but if something is to happen, somebody has to do something someplace along the line. There's no avoiding some things. The word of the paragraph is something, in case you didn't pick up on it.
>>To me, the whole point of this exercise is
>>to show that straights don't have to be
>>flat or boring
sure, in the same way four tracks can share the same terrain yet be entirely different. There is more to track making than this or that....uh...thing.
>>I am open to anything.
Anything?, hehehehe.
>>we can still contract out to some judges
>>who are not directly involved. People
>>like... KC??
We've come full circle - back to judging. Judges must/should be people others will respect. I'm sure kc will join us.
>>That may be the real solution, gives US the
>>opportunity to share the workload, and
>>still compete, all fair and square.
Sharing the workload and competing are fine, but if it's to be fair and square, a participant cannot be a judge.
Lastly, I've been extremely busy and have not been able to work on the site (much) this past week. Looks like I got a few more days ahead of me too. When I'm caught up, I'll give this fuller attention. I'm not too worried that we can make something work out. In the meantime, I've got the poll up. Let's see if there is any response there, and if any news ideas surface.
------------------
- Phineus