14/03/07

 

Bryan Wells's Opinion about the NZPC Blog

 

Below is part of Bryan Wells's statement to PNZ (you can find the full text HERE). It is disappointing that Bryan is so ill informed and that he found it necessary to give his distorted and untrue picture of our Blog, and the people who have made contributions to it. To insinuate that these people are somehow not upfront, or hiding in cyberspace, is an insult and definitely not the Kiwi way. (see also update at the end of this page) -Tom.

 

"I want to tell the entire petanque world out there that the management of this organisation is not a spectator sport. If you have spent any time looking at the so-called NZ Petanque Club blog site you will see that some people have a lot to say about various officials, and the administration of our sport, and the complaints outnumber the accolades by about three to one. Well, that is fine, and it is a free country, but it would really do a lot more good for the sport, which they profess to be worried about, if these same people came forward, volunteered their services and helped fix the things they believe to be wrong.

 

So, I will say this to those who frequent the blog and all those members who feel unhappy about some aspect of PNZ: "Come in, the water is fine, fix the problems you believe exist from inside the organisation". It is much easier to join us than to try and fix the problems from outside. You will not fix any of the real or imagined problems in the sport from the anonymity of a blog site in cyberspace. By all means, get it off your chest on the blog, but then do it the Kiwi way.

 

I will not respond to any postings on this blog site, but I will respond very positively to all signed communications sent to me personally. If you want to remain anonymous, do not expect an answer from me, and your communication will end up in the trashcan, before I read it!!"

---

Reply

 

Bryan Wells's Statement to the PNZ Council and Executive Meeting, 24 & 25 February 2007 heralds a new beginning and a way forward. Bryan's dogmatic approach may well be what is needed at this time. Most of all it gives us a direction and leadership. I am especially happy about the changes to the management structure. People on this Blog and NZPW have been arguing against the undemocratic and unworkable structure for some time now. This structure was often referred to as "the tight 3" or "the tight 4". Key issues raised by Bryan have also been documented on this Organisation SWOT Analysis page during 2006. All of this is good news.

 

I am however disappointed that Bryan Wells insinuates that postings on the NZPC Blog are from petanque players who want to remain anonymous (he may be confusing the infamous CYFSWatch site with the NZPC blog). The truth is that all postings are signed. They are signed by me. Comments to these postings have all been signed by the various authors, with the exception of around three. Two comments have recently been removed within an hour - as they had not been signed. All this is documented on our NZPW. Most people would understand that I do not require a name of an author if this person congratulates a team on their win.

 

Two things here: Firstly, people do not necessarily always want something fixed. In many cases they just want to make a comment, provide an idea or another way of looking at things. Secondly, the NZPC Blog is upfront and open, no one is hiding in cyberspace except this PNZ person. These are modern times, and information on the Web is no different from information in a newspaper, radio, newsletters, TV, magazine, etc. - it's just a different medium.

 

And of course they have. What Bryan does not know is that these services offered where often not appreciated. I will make links to various examples soon (here are TWO to start with). Ironically (and in support of my argument), in the same document Bryan contradicts himself by saying:

HERE you can read about an offer to set up a Petanque DVD library service. HERE you can read about my promotional work for the PNZ magazine. HERE you can read about my promotional Trans Tasman work during 2005. It also shows what happened to my suggestions and offers of help for the 2006 Trans Tasman.

 

Surely this does not mean that we are not to take an interest, or not able to provide feedback - either through the Web, or direct to PNZ.

 

Any organisation must be careful that the running of its affairs does not become a spectator sport. Our New Zealand parliament is from time to time guilty of turning the running of parliament into a spectator sport, through irresponsible and bad behaviour. An organisation needs to earn respect from its customers / stakeholders through proper conduct and good service. A bad job is a bad job, regardless of whether it was done by a volunteer or a professional - a burned cake is a burned cake.

 

Bryan also states that "the complaints outnumber the accolades by about three to one" on our Blog. This one really takes the cake. I do not know how this figure was arrived at - out of thin air, perhaps?. What I do know is that nothing could be further from the truth. Regular visitors to our Blog know that the overwhelming majority of postings are of a positive nature - one only has to look at the current 16 posts: nzpc_blog_march.pdf (20 pages 280KB). People who know me, know that I am continually talking our game up. I often give positive spin far in excess of the reality. I can also be a serious person and I do not hesitate to comment on matters I believe to be important. This Blog is exceptionally popular. One only has to look at the international statistics for our Blog (http://mastertonpetanque.blogspot.com/) on the respected petanque.org website to see how popular it is. Visitors would turn their backs if indeed the "complaints outnumber the accolades by about three to one". Petanque players would not be interested in such an avalanche of negativism.

 

I do realise that Bryan's statements about our Blog are merely his personal opinions. These opinions however do take on a different dimension when they are (as in this case) from the PNZ CEO, preceded by an impeccable and impressive set of credentials consisting of five paragraphs. It is always an advantage to argue from a position of authority (this concept is known as "Deference Authority"). Bryan knows this, and he uses it well. I beg the question however; how could he get it so wrong?. Was it out of ignorance, or was it a deliberate misrepresentation of the facts?. Was he informed by others?. Who provided the information to him?.

 

 

Bryan has continued in the same negative style in his first Newsletter on this PAGE (12/06/07).

 

Update: 29/03 I have allowed a posting without it being signed by the author. The problem with this is that people take this as a sign that they can do likewise in their replies. I allow this also, as in this case the two unsigned comments are not of an "unacceptable" nature. It is interesting that one of the unsigned comments has these lines in it:

The style of writing (claiming ownership) clearly indicates that this person has a position on the "PNZ Executive". The actions of one (sheltering behind anonymity), has cast a cloud of suspicion over the entire executive. PNZ is big on being upfront, signing off and doing things the Kiwi way, etc. So much for maintaining the moral high-ground. The quote above has now got its own permanent PAGE. -Tom.

---

This page has been viewed times

 

Top

 Create your own free wiki!Support CommunityPublic, Platinum wiki Privacy Policy RSS