Background checks

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp

Yeah, I'm not surprised. I have a cousin with the same first and last name, and I know he has a DUI in Wisconsin. I'd hate to have that count against me. Another person with my name happens to be an accomplished writer, having written a number of naval history books. Maybe that might work to my benefit?

Unfortunately, a couple of times, someone with a similarly-shaped middle initial got a few things on my credit report. And for some reason, my student loan agency decided to send things to HIS address and not mine for no apparent reason. Probably had my SSN on it, too.

The whole damn system is flawed. Terribly flawed. I normally wouldn't be a proponent of National IDs, but at this rate, something's gotta give.

And what makes you think those would not be vulnerable? What has caused this mess is the bleeding hearts and attorneys who have convinced cowardly judges who have turned what used to be a pretty decent country into a socialistic quagmire.

Of course, the moronic electorate is so gullible, I don't believe it will get better in my lifetime.

And AFA background checks are concerned, they are a feel-good joke that is an embarassment to any intelligent human being.

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

And what makes you think those would not be vulnerable? What has caused this mess is the bleeding hearts and attorneys who have convinced cowardly judges who have turned what used to be a pretty decent country into a socialistic quagmire.

Well, one would hope that it would eliminate the confusion over whether which John William Smith. Speaking as someone who designs databases, giving someone a unique identifier is the only possible way to prevent confusion.

This all, of course, hinges upon the proper use of said identifier. If some systems circumvent it, then we're right back to square one.

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Of course, the moronic electorate is so gullible, I don't believe it will get better in my lifetime.

And AFA background checks are concerned, they are a feel-good joke that is an embarassment to any intelligent human being.

Agreed. Background checks prevent nothing.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp

Agreed. Background checks prevent nothing.

They don't prevent those with a shady past who have taken efforts to disguise that past from getting themselves into situations that they should be allowed in. They do, however, prevent those who are making NO effort to disguise their past (and thus probably don't pose any threat) from getting into those same situations. Ironic, really.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

They don't prevent those with a shady past who have taken efforts to disguise that past from getting themselves into situations that they should be allowed in. They do, however, prevent those who are making NO effort to disguise their past (and thus probably don't pose any threat) from getting into those same situations. Ironic, really.

IOW, they only catch those who have already been caught and don't make any effort to hide it.

[okla21fan]

Speaking of ASA and the thread topic:

Is this a requirement for umpires in J.O. Championship play? I don't see it in the Code referencing umpires, only for dugout personnel. My Association makes this mandatory (actually the city does as well) however, others are not.

TIA

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by okla21fan

Speaking of ASA and the thread topic:

Is this a requirement for umpires in J.O. Championship play? TIA

NO

Originally Posted by okla21fan

Speaking of ASA and the thread topic:

My Association makes this mandatory (actually the city does as well) however, others are not.

TIA

An undesirable step. Sooner or later, someone will prove a City or State or other Government doing that is unconstitutional.

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by okla21fan

Speaking of ASA and the thread topic:

Is this a requirement for umpires in J.O. Championship play? I don't see it in the Code referencing umpires, only for dugout personnel. My Association makes this mandatory (actually the city does as well) however, others are not.

TIA

Our local association just started requiring it at the beginning of 2011, but only for those umpires who were going to call any kids' games. Umpires who would only call adults' games would not be subjected to a background check. I don't recall if this was specific to just our local association, or for NC ASA as a whole.

Fortunately, I'd had it in the back of my mind that I might want to make the switch from SP to FP, or at least make myself available to be a backup in case of emergency. So when the sheet came around to write our contact info down to get the background check information, I put my name down anyway.

[okla21fan]

BTW,
Texas UIL also requires a BC for HS games. I really don't see the problem with this, especially (for ASA) if there is the requirement for coaches to have them. (why would/should umpires receive a 'free pass'?)

and yes, I understand that this is no where close to fool proof. (the 'unconstitutional' dealio is something I am not aware of, would need more info)

[txtrooper]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

And what makes you think those would not be vulnerable? What has caused this mess is the bleeding hearts and attorneys who have convinced cowardly judges who have turned what used to be a pretty decent country into a socialistic quagmire.

Of course, the moronic electorate is so gullible, I don't believe it will get better in my lifetime.

And AFA background checks are concerned, they are a feel-good joke that is an embarassment to any intelligent human being.

You got it rite.