Quote:
>Rastus has been suggesting that ACE reps should have some sort of term limits
>bacause he claims that they get all sorts of "perks", including cash
>kickbacks
>from parks. I've been wondering about the effects of his proposal, and how
>it
>would make a difference in the organization, even if his claims were true.
Rastus/Jason is trying to make some points but keeps hashing a point in a
irrational manner and skews them any way he deems fit to get his point
accusations seen.
First off, He says Paul Rueben gets kickbacks and pay for being a ACE MEMBER!
Rastus fails miserably to inform everyone that Paul Rueben is a writer and
possibly owner of Park World Magazine and it is in a parks best interest to
have a possitive review placed in the Media. Therfore it is possible that he
gets paid or all expenses paid trips to a park for a review in the magazine.
THIS IS NOT ACE! He is a member and dose do things for Rollercoster and ACE
news but the pay for play should not be skewed into being ACE perk at least in
Ruebens case and Rastus has failed to show proof of any ACE wrong doings.
Quote:
>I'd honestly like to see him and others repsond to this.
Lets see, You pay your $50 and you get invites to media days, ert's, cons,
solaces, 6 issues of a magazine that shows pics of coasters you can only dream
of getting to ride, Ace News complete with flyers to many Ace and Non Ace
events.
So what, some people have a few extra free visits or whatever, I think his
point is moot providing the Reps are doing their respective jobs. I know
serveral non reps and non club members who also recieve several perks and it's
mainly because they have a long standing friendship with somone at a park and
not club related at all!
>Let's just say that he actually could provide evidence of cash kickbacks. I
Quote:
>admit that this would create some ethical issues for the group. Is the
>problem
>that people are getting those
>kickbacks, or that HE is not getting them?
Who would give him those kickbacks even if they were available? He has
personally IMHO defamated and tried to destroy a club in HIS own best interest.
He has also been very critical to several parks.
Quote:
>How
>exactly would allowing a few more people to get those kickbacks change the
>problem that people are getting those kickbacks in the first place?
I mentioned above what the benifits of the club are and you are not
guaranteed anything reguarding a pre media ride or anything like that in the
clubs brochure. It states simply that they have all kinds of events and
meetings and that as a member you are able to attend them if it is a official
club function. Rastus/Jason seems to think that because you are a member you
should get benifits that are not a function of the club. Most of those perks
are earned and not a right!
>And as to these supposed perks that ACE reps and EC members get. How many
Quote:
>people represent ACE officially in total? Maybe 40, if you include the
>regional reps, their assistants and the entire EC? I believe that at last
>count ACE had 8000 members. 40 reps would account for about one half of one
>percent
Because a park invites a rep to get a private tour of construction in the
offseason or something is not a club event at all and is possibly a PERK but
ususally that rep post pictures of the action that UNDER ANY NORMAL
CIRCUMSTANCE is not available. I am thankful for parks allowing this and just
because it was a rep and not everyone under the sun being invited to a session
where either 1. it is a safety concern for not inviting many or 2. is simply a
preview of things that normally wouldn't be seen by anyone.
>Let's say for a worst case scenario that the
Quote:
>average rep stays in his or another position for 20 years.
If he is doing his part effectively then I have no problem with how long a rep
has the possition.
Quote:
>Let's say we put term limits in place for all postions, and let's even assume
>that people would not move from role to role. Of course, this would
>not
>happen, but let's take a best case scenario, ok? Let's say that the term
>that
>they are limited to is just 4 years. In that 20 year period, there would be
>200 officers in ACE. That would
>account for two and a half percent of ACE
>members now having access to those aleged perks. And that's assuming the the
>group's membership does not grow, and that there is no turnover in the
> in the club's
>membership in a long 20 year period! (And the group has grown from 6000 to
>over 8000 members in the past 3-4 years.)
And that to me means they are doing something right and not slighting everybody
over everything as Rastus/Jason would have you believe.
Quote:
>Am I the only one who doesn't see increasing the exclusivity of these alleged
>perks from .5% of the membership to 2.5% of the membership as
>basically doing
>anything to change any alleged unfairness here? I mean, the average member
>still would not have access to those perks, so how is this any better?
Again the unfairness issue arrises, Whats unfair about a park inviting
someone to a NON CLUB EVENT? It is a privledge that is more than likely
earned. Show proof before accusing and so far Rastus/Jason has shown very
little proof despite his thousands of post on the matter.
Quote:
>But I do find it very likely that ACE as a whole would LOSE perks. After
>all,
>we get all sorts of bonuses because of the relationships that our reps have
>formed over the years with the people at the parks. I could easily
>ee the
>prices of events going up more, food getting worse, and ERT sessions being
>not
>quite as good. And I could see fewer local parks doing events as a result.
EXACTLY!
Quote:
>In summary, 2% of the members would get more perks. 100% of the members
>would
>lose perks.
>So how would letting a slightly larger -- but still tiny -- percentage of ACE
>members get these alleged perks help the membership at large if we ALL lose
>the
>perks that these reps get us as a result? I fail to see the logic here.
If a Rep gets a invite and shares the information given by pictures, ace news,
rollercoaster or web pages it is a benifit to all club members IMHO as you or
even the Rep would not normally been invited at all!
Quote:
>And all of this assumes that we could find 200 members of ACE willing to do
>the
>hard work that the EC and the reps do. I tend to doubt it. ACE had so much
>trouble getting volunteers to help out that we now have to pay a professional
>firm to do some of the club's work. So, who's going to fill those
>positions
>and make sure that we all get the "perks" that we're used to simply for being
>ACE members?
Thats one major point exactly, There are a few people doing the majority of
work and I am thankful for those who are hardworking for the benifit of all
8,000 plus members. $50 for all this? THATS A STEAL! A movie coaster about $20
to go to with refreshments now days!
>It seems to me that this "solution" would only make things worse for the
Quote:
>average member.
The only solution I see is ignoring Rastus/Jason for several reasons. I have
not censored anyone on this board and will not do so. A plonk by me is mearly
a statement that I totally dissagre with a persons views on a subject.
Several of the reasons I will give to ignore Rastus/Jason are listed below.
1. This is a rollercoaster disscussion newsgroup and 98% of his post are not
rollercoaster related.
2. This is not in any way a official ACE forum. (Although I kind of wish they
had one)
3. He continues his tyraid to the point of people, (Many of them great and
quality ROLLER COASTER Lovers and sharer's of information and experiences) JUST
LEAVING!
Just forget the fact that many people including me enjoy reading the post of
Sean, Mark,Gary, Dana and many, many others who have simply left because of
repeated personal attacks by Rastus/Jason and a few others that they have NO
proof of.
I personally would love to see all of them come back, RRC isn't a club but it
was a well liked community of posters. Some remain but many, many are
choosing not to contibute do to harrassment.
Charles Nungester.
2 cents.
Charles Nungester
SOB rides 157 Papa 1019
Count now 148 coasters.