So I know its a little late to be replying to stuff but I felt I needed to reply to Joe’s reply from his own HQ post:

Joe said....

I want to focus on something Rob just said, because I think it is illustrative of a key difference between us.

and I said originally....

I would also say that ‘solving’ all the club’s problems in 8 months is probably almost impossible if it ever can be truly done. There will always be problems in some form, the best we can do for STF is minimize the problems from spiraling out of control. To me doing this would take multiple terms by many people in the club.

I disagree with this on many levels.

I disagree completely that the best we can do is “minimize the problems from spiraling out of control.” That’s a really depressing view of things, and I say that as the guy who has spent pretty much the entire campaign saying stuff isn’t working right. It’s pretty bad that the guy who is running for re-election thinks that the best he can do is manage a decline. Who would ever want to do that? Why would you even want to be here in a place like that?

So to me I feel Joe is taking what I said far out of context. My reply originally was that 100% solving all the club’s problems is never going to go away, the club will always have ‘a problem’ in some form this part is true even in places outside of STF, look at one’s own job, or life, or anything. There is always SOMETHING to solve, or improve, etc.

I also was saying about ‘getting things done in 8 months’ that implementing all the work Matt and I wish to do that we feel will IMPROVE the club will likely take more then 8 months. I feel the only part that probably could take more then 8 months is making FAQ style documents to help folks understand and better do their job at the higher points in the club. And what is expected of them, their responsibilities, and getting everyone on the same page of these ideas instead of relying on the current documents we got which often include small details often missed or only gotten by word of mouth or once a mistake is made.

To my minimizing comment again once more I feel Joe is taking this far out of context to what I mean vs how he took it. I mean in my original reply that when problems DO happen we minimize their impact on the club, we look for solutions or improvements and do what is best for the community of STF to have fun, cooperatively write together, and more.

I don’t believe the club is destined to be in decline.

To clarify on this line of Joe’s I do not believe it is destined to decline either.

We don’t have that many problems. They are not unsolvable problems. We do not even have to solve all of the problems in 8 months; we can pick the most important problems that we can actually solve, and focus on those. If we focus on accountability, focus on how leadership is supposed to work around here, focus on getting everyone on the same page about those expectations, and then holding people to those expectations, we will solve the worst of our problems. Then we can focus on the whatever the next most pressing problem is. Then we can make progress.

Joe says there are not that many problems nor that they’re unsolvable, I also agree on this. The club needs some TLC and as Joe has highlighted as a community if we work together and compromise on differing opinions of ‘what is best’ for the club to meet in the middle to move forward with the best interests of the club vs each side digging in their heels thinking only their way is the right way. Then we can make progress to mend the ‘rift’ of perception of differing cliques in the club doing all the work, or controlling things behind the scenes, or whatever, when discussions or issues come up.

Everything Joe has said above is equally applicable to my and Matt’s plans this coming term in our own ways. The difference is what Matt and I feel is the solution to move forward vs how Joe and Steve see it are different. Is my way better then Joe’s I can’t say that for sure I don’t have a future seeing ball, is my way better then Joe’s? Again I can’t say 100% for the same reason. This is a perfect case of what I said above. Two differing views of how to solve something in STF. If elected this coming term, Matt and I will follow the guideline plans we set out to do to the best of our ability, but we equally will be listening to constructive feedback that can improve our ideas and the club as a whole.

[snipping out the WW2 reference]

We don’t need a big grand solution, or a giant audit, or a bunch of instruction manuals that nobody is actually going to take the time to write, or correct every injustice that ever happened between two people six years ago. We just need to focus on what’s important, apply a little extra effort toward getting people to help with those important things, and then check that the results to make sure things are getting better. That’s it. That’s all it needs to be.

This to me sums up again my point above that highlights the difference between Joe/Steve’s platform and Mine/Matt’s platform. Joe has one idea of how to solve the issues the club faces, and I have my own. Who’s is better? Neither of us could say I think, that is up for you the club membership to decide who you trust to do what is best for the club in the next 8 months, who you feel will engage the club membership best, who you feel will work together for the club as a whole.

Matt and I’s plans may seem to some to be ‘grand’ but they really are not if we get the help and support we need. Because STF can not continue to function or exist without cooperation and players willing to help to come together to solve issues as they arise. I hope you the STF members will agree with Matt and I and though it may be too late at present vote for Matt and I this coming term, and no matter who wins will help support the winner in the next 8 months.

Robert Archer