Rally Chat The 'fairness' of booking to attend rallies (6 Viewers)

[chaser]

We don't do rallies but I don't see why if someone wants to organise one why they can't do it how they want to, if they have enough people willing to attend already why go to the bother advertising it if it's already full.
If anyone is upset at this, organise your own with your friends, simples.

 

[Langtoftlad]

The difference between a meet and a rally ?

 

[Rob Hammond]

Maybe you are on the ignore list of the person organising it

Don't think so I haven't applied

 

[Rob Hammond]

This thread just confirms my view that I wouldn't be seen dead at a rally.

 

[Gellyneck]

The difference between a meet and a rally ?

Was about to ask the same question.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Rob Hammond]

Thought we now lived in a country of inclusivity or is that a myth

 

[Oldrat]

Unfortunately

 

[Detnor]

If I remember correctly, and that is open to doubt, a few unhappy members of another group complained to natural England who issue the exemption certificates, about rallies ran under the certificate that were not open to all members. I don't have the will power to see if I still have the blurb that circulated at the time. It was easily sorted but caused enough grief for me to leave

 

[funflair]

I have organised a few rallies in the past and may even do so again in the future, some have been repeats of previous years but I have not given previous attendees preferential treatment regards booking (unless of course they are helping in some way) to be honest I wouldn't be comfortable with that approach but I can also agree with the comments that say it's their rally to do as they wish as long as no MHF rules are broken, that sounds like me on the fence again

 

[meanders]

I am with Derek Emmit on this, and on the few rallies I have organised do similar. The only exception has been when one or two participants are helping with the running of the rally but I make perfectly clear the who and why.

Personally, my view is that any rally should be open to any paid up Funster and I can't think of a fairer way when space is limited.

Janine raises a valid point though, any it was unfair of those taking up spaces who were completely uninterested in the core purpose of the rally. May be a commitment to spend four hours a day learning the instrument would have deterred although some are just so think skinned, they would still put themselves first.

It's not dissimilar to the problem on a rally where new people can feel excluded. Or indeed when we had the marquee at Warners Shows and the same cliques would form little circles effectively excluding someone new. When we joined, on the first rally we were told (I believe by Jim, but it was long ago), that if we saw a group sitting around, take your chairs anf join them. To be fair, that's not easy to do, but we were never not made welcome when we did. At least we had that choice, but closed rallies to my mind, run against that ethos.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[JJ]

I wouldn't want to attend a rally that would allow people like me to join it...

(Thanks Mr Marx.)



JJ



PS. I hold rallies all the time on QMJ... They are arranged for City supporting, Fray Bentos eating, John Smiths drinking, ukulele hating, heavy metal loving folk who don't have dogs.

 

[meanders]

It's been a while since we were on a rally with you JJ. Stratford about 2009 possibly?

 

[daveandsan]

It is depriving other funsters of attending, it's either a Funsters rally or a private members group.


But it shouldn't already be full should it?


Nope, never knew about it but couldn't say whether I'd have gone or not anyway, so no sour grapes, I just don't think it's fair.

If you feel so strongly about it organise a rally, then you will see how much hard work goes in to it.
Their rally, their rules.

 

[Lenny HB]

If it's a Fun rally it should be open for all members to apply for a place.

If someone is going to organise one only for their friends behind the scenes I'm happy for them to do it providing it is not under the Fun banner and they arrange their own insurance etc.

 

[Gellyneck]

It's been a while since we were on a rally with you JJ. Stratford about 2009 possibly?

Is the therapy still helping?

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Gaston aires]

I have never organised a rally but hats off to them as does. I used to organise many a foreign golf trip, very stressful at times, and there were always people who’d do a much better job “but never did”.
Big ta muchly to all the rally organisers however you do it.
Phil

 

[L' Hobo]

This thread just confirms my view that I wouldn't be seen dead at a rally.

We wouldn't want to see you dead at a rally either!

 

[JJ]

It's been a while since we were on a rally with you JJ. Stratford about 2009 possibly?

Yes indeed... I remember it with fondness.

I loved those rallies and wish I could still attend some.


JJ

 

[Two on Tour]

This thread just confirms my view that I wouldn't be seen dead at a rally.

Fun rally's are probably not for you then as we have a good social fun time at them.

 

[gus-lopez]

I don't like the way Emmit does it, far too stressful for an old man!

The last time I tried, I hit the button dead on 1 minute passed ( didn't want to be early and ignored) and I was number 17 on the reserve list!

bit like trying to get a doctors appt in the UK

Thought we now lived in a country of inclusivity or is that a myth

myth

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[hja]

If all rallies were organised like that how would new members to Fun ever get a chance of attending a rally?

 

[Emmit]

I wouldn't want to attend a rally that would allow people like me to join it...

(Thanks Mr Marx.)



JJ



PS. I hold rallies all the time on QMJ... They are arranged for City supporting, Fray Bentos eating, John Smiths drinking, ukulele hating, heavy metal loving folk who don't have dogs.

Will this do then?

 

[Lisa]

If all rallies were organised like that how would new members to Fun ever get a chance of attending a rally?

They're not all run like that

At the end of the day, considering how many Fun members there are, in comparison there are not that many Funsters that run rallies/meets. As long as Jim is made aware of it, he allows the organiser to run it as they see fit. If he wasn't happy or if it didn't comply with the rules, he would say.

 

[bigtwin]

Apologies in advance for the gus-lopez style of this reply.

Is it acceptable for MHF/rally organisers to allow this practice?

IMHO, no it isn’t. It goes against the ethos of Motorhome Fun.

Do others think this type of booking 'favoritism' is fair?

No, it isn’t. However, it would be acceptable for a private ‘meet’.

Should rallies only be available for booking once announced on the forum so they are open to all Funsters equally?

Yes, it should be inclusive otherwise it is inherently divisive.

Personally I think the best solution is for the rally organisers to post a thread advising that bookings will ‘open’ at a specific time on a given date (a weeks notice at least). I know there is at least one that tends to do this.
Imho this gives everyone a fair chance at attending some great rallies.

Agreed.

It's a bit like a private club

Isn’t it just and is fundamentally against the ethos of ‘the club’.

In my view you need to take your hat off to anyone organising a rally it's a lot of hard work and big outlay of time and money and not a lot of people are willing to come forward to organise these rallies.
So I can't see any problems in the organiser running that rally how they find fit, after all it's their rally their rules as long as they are executed within the "fun rally rules"

I agree that we should all take our hats off to the organisers. However, they ate organising a Fun Rally and, consequently, it should be inclusive. A private ‘Meet’ is a different matter.

So a club within a club in a way .

That’s the danger. In the early days of Fun members were super keen to be friendly and inclusive and the danger as the membership grows is that this kind of arrangement creates divisions and negativity starts to form and, before you know it, you no longer have unity within the membership.

Unfortunately, this is a trait that manifests in most clubs and is completely understandable due to a regular core of people who are more active at attending rallies where friendships and relationships form and people are creatures of habit and want to meet with the people they know and in someways make rallies more appealing. Whether this behaviour is acceptable to the overall membership is questionable if they are being excluded and it becomes a private club within a club. The concern is if rules are made to change the way things operate it may lead to a breakaway rally club so the current members can still meet up with long established friends.

I agree with your thoughts but would suggest that if an organiser/group ferls strongly enough about it that they arrange a ‘Meet’ instead of a Rally.

I like the way Emmit does it.
The funsters are given fair warning when a rally booking ability goes live and its up to you to ensure you are able or remember to book it.
This ensures there are no favourites and the event is available to all paid up members to book.
Yes we have missed out on this method but it's still the best method in my honest opinion.

I agree completely.

Pre booked is not new and not friendly.
Those old enough will remember all of the things that happened at ' facts ', exclude new members joining in and things go very wrong.

It isn’t and it’s a salutary lesson for all.

Also if there's a core group will they form a clique leaving others feeling like they aren't wanted

Indeed.

Have you supported any "open" rallies not seen you supporting any so why think it's not fair

That's cheap shot; Play the ball and not the player.

The difference between a meet and a rally ?

Perhaps.

It's not dissimilar to the problem on a rally where new people can feel excluded. Or indeed when we had the marquee at Warners Shows and the same cliques would form little circles effectively excluding someone new. When we joined, on the first rally we were told (I believe by @Jim, but it was long ago), that if we saw a group sitting around, take your chairs anf join them. To be fair, that's not easy to do, but we were never not made welcome when we did. At least we had that choice, but closed rallies to my mind, run against that ethos.

To some extent, that’s inevitable and it very quickly becomes a disincentive for newbies to come along/join in. Once that happens it’s a valid question to ask if it’s still ‘fun’?

If it's a Fun rally it should be open for all members to apply for a place.

Agreed.

If someone is going to organise one only for their friends behind the scenes I'm happy for them to do it providing it is not under the Fun banner and they arrange their own insurance etc.

Agreed.

Ian

Closing Credits
I’d like to thank gus-lopez for the inspiration for this response style.

 

[Jenben]

Anyone who organises a rally has my utmost respect and in my humble opinion can organise it as they wish .

I would be worried if a particular rule of how a rally must be published/organised/filled be put in place led to some rallies organisers simply giving up .

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Ditcha]

Apologies in advance for the gus-lopez style of this reply.

IMHO, no it isn’t. It goes against the ethos of Motorhome Fun.

No, it isn’t. However, it would be acceptable for a private ‘meet’.

Yes, it should be inclusive otherwise it is inherently divisive.

Agreed.

Isn’t it just and is fundamentally against the ethos of ‘the club’.

I agree that we should all take our hats off to the organisers. However, they ate organising a Fun Rally and, consequently, it should be inclusive. A private ‘Meet’ is a different matter.

That’s the danger. In the early days of Fun members were super keen to be friendly and inclusive and the danger as the membership grows is that this kind of arrangement creates divisions and negativity starts to form and, before you know it, you no longer have unity within the membership.

I agree with your thoughts but would suggest that if an organiser/group ferls strongly enough about it that they arrange a ‘Meet’ instead of a Rally.

I agree completely.

It isn’t and it’s a salutary lesson for all.

Indeed.

That's cheap shot; Play the ball and not the player.

Perhaps.

To some extent, that’s inevitable and it very quickly becomes a disincentive for newbies to come along/join in. Once that happens it’s a valid question to ask if it’s still ‘fun’?

Agreed.

Agreed.

Ian

Closing Credits
I’d like to thank gus-lopez for the inspiration for this response style.

Wow give the guy a medal is that a record on quotes

 

[MR BLO]

I was always taught as a kid "if your not fast your last" l am afraid

This weekends évidence that you (allegedly) left outside Steve’s van suggest that you ain’t that fast Dave

 

[Terry]

Sometimes when you organise a rally word of mouth overtakes the size of the rally. PMs/calls get sent etc, hence it’s full before you have even finished organising the details of said rally. Small rallies can often fill before it goes on the forum.
What does one do? Say to those who got in touch, no you cannot come?

 

[trophychap]

I am afraid that I have to agree with Minxy on this. It would seem that all funsters are created equal just that some are more equal that others.
We have only attended one fun rally that's by choice, as neither Jenny or myself want to keep attending shows. However we do attend quite a lot of Suntrecker rallies and by the end of the season we will have run three rallies this year so we do know what's involved.

 

[Langtoftlad]

What does one do? Say to those who got in touch, no you cannot come?

Get a bigger field

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}