Rescheduling events was Re: Man of Kent 200k, 18th March.

[grams]

... can we please get rid of or make optional the highlighted warning message about "entering two weeks in advance" which appear when the closing date window is set to 0, which is what you would have when EOL is accepted; some possibly many interpret this as meaning entries are closed/unwanted. 

I see the problem.  OK that wording has been altered by agreement with the Events Sec person.

"Enter soon as entries may close early if event is full", for those wondering. Seems like an improvement.

[citoyen]

It's not at all clear to me why a rescheduled event should not be open to new entrants by default.

If I've understood frankie and iddu correctly, it's basically because events need to be published in print and circulated to members a certain amount of time in advance.

The more fundamental question is whether that requirement is still relevant, but that's a matter for the board to discuss.

[Martin]

It's not at all clear to me why a rescheduled event should not be open to new entrants by default. Let's say there's an event this Saturday you want to ride but unfortunately you have to work that weekend, so you don't enter. On the day the Beast from the East MkIII strikes and the event is rescheduled. The new date is a free weekend for you so, great, why not enter? Obviously original entrants should be given places first so this depends on the event having been undersubscribed in the first place, but subject to places being available, why should this not be the default?

It seems to be to do with the current rules, which is that the event is either rescheduled (without the ability to enter new riders) or cancelled with the ability to recreate a new one.

It seems that the rules should be that the event is always cancelled and it's up to the org whether to advertise it with a new date or not (and if they do there should be no additional fee for registration or cards; they simply get a biro out). Offering existing riders (only) the chance to ride it another time seems a bit messy because it creates two classes of entrant. Far better oIMO that anyone who has already entered and can't make the new date gets a free perm entry if there is one or a refund minus event costs (which may be negligible if there are more new entries) and they are then free to do another perm or even calendar event. Yes of course there will be occasions where it was the only 200 / AAA ride the cancelled rider could do that month and there are no local alternatives but the organiser can't be responsible for everything

[citoyen]

Well, the reasoning seems to be that all members should have equal opportunity to ride on the rescheduled date, which depends on the new date being published in the calendar in accordance with the usual rules. You'd also need to allow ample time for new postal entries, not just online entries. That seems fair enough in principle.

In practice, now that most members use the online calendar and enter online, it's possible that the rules need reconsidering.

[Cudzoziemiec]

Okay, so if an event is rescheduled it might appear with its new date in the online calendar but will not get into print, therefore not everyone has the chance to enter it. I see that. But in practice a lot of people will see it with its new date, whether in the official online calendar or an organiser's own website or just hear of it by other means, and might decide to enter with the new date. Could organisers not be given the discretion to accept those new entries, if they want to? Perhaps that's a better expression of what I'm thinking.

[citoyen]

That would be an ecumenical matter.

[Manotea]

AAs noted upthread, the 'no new entrants' stipulation is in the Organisers Handbook; it's a guideline, not a regulation. If it was a regulation it would be a regulation (which is why in the recent past stipulations which the Board and Members would see enforced have been 'promoted' from the Handbook to the Regulations).

As is, it seems a rather pedantic technicality left over from a bygone era. The AUK website - which includes the Calendar listing - is recognised as a primary method of communicating with the membership. As the (re)scheduled events are listed in the Calendar, it follows that all those who are interested in riding the (re)scheduled event or otherwise simply looking for an event to ride that weekend will have the opportunity to become aware of it. Whether they take advantage of that opportunity is up to them. So considerations of 'events being open to all riders' and 'level playing fields' simply don'y apply.

If concerned, there is always the option of joining the event carrying a DIY Perm Brevet (do mail the Org first though), but as Martin says, its messy, needlessly so.

[frankly frankie]

Quite simply, there are still some organisations that prefer not to discriminate against people simply because they do not use the Internet.  In the past, that would certainly have included AUK, but I wouldn't know about the present.  There are enough government agencies, NHS etc, that do now discriminate in this way so there hardly seems any point to it any more.
Allowing new entries to an event that has been timeshifted by a month would be a discrimination of that sort.

[Manotea]

This ship has long since sailed. Exhibit A: Events no longer accepting postal entries (support for which has been implemented in the AUK website*). Exhibit B: complaints regarding events that only accept postal entries.

Use of and access to the web is now ubiquitous. If some chose to live 'off grid' then they must accept the limitations of their lifestyle; it's no reason to discriminate against the majority.

*FWIW I must admit that surprised me as I simply didn't regard it as an issue... my reality is that I get few postal entries anyway.

[citoyen]

I had six postal entries for my event last September, all from under-age riders, who aren't allowed to enter online - another peculiarity of the system that I wasn't aware of until I started receiving entries through the post. I was relieved I had decided against making it online only.

[Ian H]

I had six postal entries for my event last September, all from under-age riders, who aren't allowed to enter online - another peculiarity of the system that I wasn't aware of until I started receiving entries through the post. I was relieved I had decided against making it online only.

I thought they could enter and bring approval on the day.

[citoyen]

I thought they could enter and bring approval on the day.

You may be right. I don’t know. I wasn’t aware it was an issue until I started receiving entries in the post, and even then it was only the fact that they were *all* from under-age riders that I was able to put two and two together.

[frankly frankie]

I had six postal entries for my event last September, all from under-age riders, who aren't allowed to enter online - another peculiarity of the system that I wasn't aware of until I started receiving entries through the post. I was relieved I had decided against making it online only.

I thought they could enter and bring approval on the day.

Members under-18 can enter online and are advised bring a signed form as you say.  That's assuming AUK has a record of their DoB.  Non-members have to enter postally (but of course they can easily cheat their age declaration online and then they could bring a signed form to make it right).

[mmmmartin]

Anyway, Storm Hugo has put paid to my plans for four weeks riding in northern Spain so I'm flying back after less than two weeks. Which means I can enter the MoK. Which is very good news.
(Assuming Real Life doesn't intervene, obvs.)