Replacement Umpires, Being Successful, and Getting What You Deserve

[3afan]

good stuff .....

[BretMan]

Has the newsletter been published yet? The only reason I'm asking is because, if it hasn't, I would like to make one suggestion before it sees print.

I'm not one to be overly-sensitive about these things, but I would consider removing your line about "playing the race card".

"Race" can be such a hot issue that the very hint of a racial overtone- deserved or not- is likely to take your message down a road other than the one you intend. Some are likely to read that phrase- in the first paragraph, no less- and, BAM!, the red flags are raised, the alarms go off and the rest of your message is lost, no matter how valid.

Using that phrase is bound to obscure your message: We deserve what we get based on our work and effort. If one of your points is that race plays absolutely no role in the decisions, the best way to get that point across is no make no mention of race whatsoever.

Rather than uniting your audience, you have now divided them. Rather than addressing real, observable, measurable issues (uniforms, training, mechanics) you have pushed a hot-key button that is likely to move the discussion away from your main point.

That is my comment from an editorial, "how to win friends and influence people" standpoint. Otherwise, I wouldn't change a word.

[IRISHMAFIA]

While I can appreciate your views and stance, remember that this is not for general publication, but for an association news letter with a specific target audience. Sean just chose to share it with the board.

If it is an issue, and has been in many states to the point of lawsuits to get a slot in a state HS tournament for an official, ignoring it simply perpetuates the problem. If it takes over the conversation, then it was obviously an issue worth discussing.

The issue isn't with the subject, but certain persons who are not capable of having a simple discussion based on fact and/or beliefs instead of negative emotion, whether real or perceived.

[SRW]

Originally Posted by BretMan

Has the newsletter been published yet? The only reason I'm asking is because, if it hasn't, I would like to make one suggestion before it sees print.

I'm not one to be overly-sensitive about these things, but I would consider removing your line about "playing the race card".

"Race" can be such a hot issue that the very hint of a racial overtone- deserved or not- is likely to take your message down a road other than the one you intend. Some are likely to read that phrase- in the first paragraph, no less- and, BAM!, the red flags are raised, the alarms go off and the rest of your message is lost, no matter how valid.

Using that phrase is bound to obscure your message: We deserve what we get based on our work and effort. If one of your points is that race plays absolutely no role in the decisions, the best way to get that point across is no make no mention of race whatsoever.

Rather than uniting your audience, you have now divided them. Rather than addressing real, observable, measurable issues (uniforms, training, mechanics) you have pushed a hot-key button that is likely to move the discussion away from your main point.

That is my comment from an editorial, "how to win friends and influence people" standpoint. Otherwise, I wouldn't change a word.

I 'hear' ya... and to a point I agree with you.

However, I think that people are too sensitive and too damned PC nowdays. People are too afraid of upsetting someone's feelings, or what others will think of them... tough. When I feel strong about a topic, I'm not going to mince words just to make someone feel warm and fuzzy.

Any time someone discusses a protected class, whether it's race, gender, religion, whatever - it's going to make people pay attention... because, "what if he says something that offends me? I'd better pay attention!" If I don't want you to lose interest in the message I'm trying to get across, I'd better enthrall you right from the beginning. This is just one method in doing that.

Instead of race, I could have said something similar about gender...something like, "umpires complaining about the women in their association moving up too fast just because they're women." Using the term "race card" like I did was intended purely for its shock value and attention-grabbing effect. Look, it worked on you! Your instinct said "that ain't right" - yet you continued to read the article (more than once I'd bet) then made a point to comment that you wouldn't change anything else in it.

Getting you to read it, understand it, and think about it... that's all I wanted. If it works on you, think what it'll do on the people in my target demographic!

[BretMan]

Shock value or not, I would have read the entire thing anyway, just as I would read any other post on this forum, and certainly would read it if presented in a newsletter from my local association. So, to say that the addition of this term "worked on me" isn't a valid assumption.

Of course I have absolutely no knowledge of the internal workings of your association, or any history they might have on racial issues. Perhaps this has come up before and been a point of contention. Maybe it really is something that needs to be addressed.

But my experience is that such issues are best dealt with by taking them up with the individual making the charge. By leading off your message with with a "shock value" term or phrase, you can tend to immediately polarize your audience, whether that is your intention or not.

Game assignments based on rule knowledge, mechanics, meeting attendance, attitude or availability are all valid points that cut across any racial or gender boundries and are at the core of your message. Why drag in a potentially distracting issue that, in reality, has absolutely nothing to do with getting your main points across?

Starting off your message by proclaiming (in effect), "We're not racists!", tends to put the focus on that one subject alone, which detracts from all of the other valid points throughout your message.

Political correctness and sensitivity aide, from a standpoint of effectively communicating a message you should cut any "static" that might get in the way of your core points.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by BretMan

Starting off your message by proclaiming (in effect), "We're not racists!", tends to put the focus on that one subject alone, which detracts from all of the other valid points throughout your message.

Political correctness and sensitivity aide, from a standpoint of effectively communicating a message you should cut any "static" that might get in the way of your core points.

Sorry, but you are taking a very over-reactionary view of this. If anything, I see your response to likely be more of an incendiary comment than anything even close to what Sean stated.

That is not the manner in which the editorial began. He raised the issue once in a very matter-of-fact manner and move on.

[THREE]

PC??? Please don't offend any particular group/sect. Just sweep it under the rug or ignore it and "maybe" it will go away. Yea...Sure it will !!!!