Volunteers

[Rich]

Went down Fradley locks today, from the junction down, and there were NO lockies at all, but we managed.

 

What I did notice that all the boats on the 48hr visitor moorings were nicely spaced one ring apart. Except for the ex working boat that was moored right on the services mooring and locked up. Didn't make much difference to access but just another example of arrogance which I have seen before at Fradley.

[Machpoint005]

Went down Fradley locks today, from the junction down, and there were NO lockies at all, but we managed.What I did notice that all the boats on the 48hr visitor moorings were nicely spaced one ring apart. Except for the ex working boat that was moored right on the services mooring and locked up. Didn't make much difference to access but just another example of arrogance which I have seen before at Fradley.

Does that mean that they weren't sharing mooring rings, or that they were (the second method being correct and far more considerate)?

[mayalld]

Again you are doing just what Allan does...condemning them before they've had a chance to succeed or fail.

 

As you keep saying.

 

However, looking at a proposal and evaluating it prior to implementation is entirely proper. If that didn't happen, every madcap idea would simply be implemented, and would fail.

 

Trying to predict POSSIBLE and LIKELY outcomes is an absolutely fair thing to do.

 

So, let us consider four possible outcomes of volunteer lockkeepers where it has not recently been considered necessary, from my point of view;

 

1) They insist on interfering because they have the authority, and they are actually competent. Result for me = small loss - They haven't impaired my safety, but they have interfered with my enjoyment of boating.

2) They insist on interfering and they are not competent. Result for me = large loss - They have impaired both safety and enjoyment

3) They are happy to step back, and are actually competent. Result for me = small gain - by helping other boaters they may ease queues.

4) They are happy to step back and are not competent. Result for me = neutral - they aren't going to harm me, but they aren't going to help either.

 

I consider that all four options are reasonably possible outcomes, so it is reasonable that I will wish to mitigate against the outcomes that are detrimental to me. That means that either the scheme is very clear about "helping" people who don't want to be helped, or that it is reasonably likely that it will do more harm than good.

[carlt]

So what you are saying is that well trained volunteer lock keepers are a good thing.

 

I'm glad you finally agree with me.

[mayalld]

So what you are saying is that well trained volunteer lock keepers are a good thing.

 

I'm glad you finally agree with me.

 

No, what I am saying is what I said above, and paraphrasing what I said to pretend that I agreed with you doesn't make it so.

 

There are, in my view, two main factors that will determine where volunteers working locks will be beeficial or detrimental to my boating experience, and NEITHER of them is training alone.

 

One of the factors is training AND assessment. No matter how good the training is, without proper assessment (which must include"I'm sorry Mr Smith, but you just aren't cut out for this, and we aren't prepared to let you loose on the public to see how it pans out" as a real possibility) they could be letting people loose who aren't competent.

 

The second, and the one that you repeatedly ignore, is the question of their remit. If that remit includes the authority to compel boaters to accept their services, then they are NEVER going to be a good thing.

 

IF they don't have the authority to compel, IF they ensure that they weed out the excessively keen who are going to try to pretend that they do have the authority because they like playing with locks, IF they are well trained, IF they are properly assessed to ensure that they have thoroughly absorbed and understood that training, IF they ensure that there is a high standard required and that those who don't make that standard are NOT out there, then the scheme is extremely marginally beneficial to me.

 

That is a whole lot of ducks to get in a row for a very small gain. Miss one, and it turns into a loss.

 

Given that people's experiences of volunteer lockies appears to be inconsistent, I think I am being reasonable enough in presuming that they haven't got this sorted.

[carlt]

No, what I am saying is what I said above, and paraphrasing what I said to pretend that I agreed with you doesn't make it so.

Actually I think you do.

 

I agree that volunteers should concentrate on helping those that need it but also keeping an eye on those that say they are experts but are also capable of making mistakes.

 

Properly trained volunteers should be able to do those tasks without irritating even you, however...no matter how well trained they are there will always be a small number of arseholes and my experience with scout leaders and your insistence that they are all adequately trained confirms this theory.

 

I have also met a few professional lock keepers who were complete arseholes too. The voluntary sector does not have a monopoly on idiots.

 

 

The second, and the one that you repeatedly ignore, is the question of their remit. If that remit includes the authority to compel boaters to accept their services, then they are NEVER going to be a good thing.

I am ignoring it because, though I don't disagree with you, I believe it is highly unlikely to be the case so you are inventing a potential problem, just like the other conspiracy theorists.

[Paul C]

As you keep saying.

 

However, looking at a proposal and evaluating it prior to implementation is entirely proper. If that didn't happen, every madcap idea would simply be implemented, and would fail.

 

Trying to predict POSSIBLE and LIKELY outcomes is an absolutely fair thing to do.

 

So, let us consider four possible outcomes of volunteer lockkeepers where it has not recently been considered necessary, from my point of view;

 

1) They insist on interfering because they have the authority, and they are actually competent. Result for me = small loss - They haven't impaired my safety, but they have interfered with my enjoyment of boating.

 

Remember they'll be helping others too. So where's the small loss? Do you enjoy queueing for locks?

 

2) They insist on interfering and they are not competent. Result for me = large loss - They have impaired both safety and enjoyment

 

The training and other measures should be able to identify these kinds of people.

 

3) They are happy to step back, and are actually competent. Result for me = small gain - by helping other boaters they may ease queues.

 

This is BY FAR the most likely scenario, given that they'll receive training.

 

4) They are happy to step back and are not competent. Result for me = neutral - they aren't going to harm me, but they aren't going to help either.

 

I consider that all four options are reasonably possible outcomes, so it is reasonable that I will wish to mitigate against the outcomes that are detrimental to me. That means that either the scheme is very clear about "helping" people who don't want to be helped, or that it is reasonably likely that it will do more harm than good.

 

Once again, the training should raise them from not competent, to competent.

 

Just as an aside, how have you gained your competance on boating?

[Chris Pink]

1,000 hours a year sat on his mooring.

[mayalld]

1,000 hours a year sat on his mooring.

 

Unlike Pinky who spends around 2,000 hours a year looking for opportunities to add NOTHING to the debate, because he wants to have a pop at me.

 

Remember they'll be helping others too. So where's the small loss? Do you enjoy queueing for locks?

 

The small loss is that we enjoy operating the locks, as a team. part of what makes it enjoyable is that we work well together and know how to work though efficiently and safely. Somebody, no matter how competent upsets that process, and it isn't nearly so much fun.

 

The training and other measures should be able to identify these kinds of people.

 

 

 

This is BY FAR the most likely scenario, given that they'll receive training.

 

 

 

Once again, the training should raise them from not competent, to competent.

 

Training can POTENTIALLY give you competent people. Assessment can make it more likely. A proper remit can ensure that they keep well out of areas where they have the potential to do more harm than good.

 

Thus far, I see vague claims that they will be trained. Nothing about assessing them, or about declining peoples services if they aren't up to the job, or about their actual remit.

 

Coupled with a variable experience of volunteer lockies that people are reporting, I think I am right to be concerned.

 

 

Just as an aside, how have you gained your competance on boating?

 

Experience, and not gained by appropriating other people's boats into my toyset to practice on.

[Paul C]

Experience, and not gained by appropriating other people's boats into my toyset to practice on.

 

So just to 100% confirm, you've not undertaken any formal training? No recognised qualifications in boating?

[luctor et emergo]

Just woken up, and catching up.

 

I'd love to see Dave arrive at a lock, crewed by an equally formidable lock-keeper, and the ensuing argument.

 

 

 

I will treat volunteer lock keepers one step higher than "other boaters", their help is immensly appreciated, but before I entrust myself, and my boat, to them, I engage them, to acertain their competency. Common sense really. As a permanent single hander, who takes pride in working locks properly and efficiently, I do appreciatte every bit of help that I get.

[fuzzyduck]

I will treat volunteer lock keepers one step higher than "other boaters", their help is immensly appreciated, but before I entrust myself, and my boat, to them, I engage them, to acertain their competency.

 

I have a exam sheet for them. It's multiple choice, but education standards are slipping horribly.

[mayalld]

So just to 100% confirm, you've not undertaken any formal training? No recognised qualifications in boating?

 

I have indeed undertaken formal training (as has already been mentioned in this thread - CCBM).

 

You asked where I gained my competence, not what formal training I have undertaken.

 

I gained knowledge from formal training. That knowledge, alongside other knowledge gained elsewhere were valuable tools in gaining competence.

 

However, anybody who imagines that formal training actually makes them competent is a fool. Competence comes largely from experience.

[luctor et emergo]

I have a exam sheet for them. It's multiple choice, but education standards are slipping horribly.

 

 

Indeed,

It's "an" exam sheet....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ahh, theirs my coat

[carlt]

Experience, and not gained by appropriating other people's boats into my toyset to practice on.

 

Ah, the conspiracy theorists convention is in session.

 

To be honest Dave I'm amazed at the shallow view you take, of your fellow volunteers.

[fuzzyduck]

Ahh, theirs my coat

 

Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone.

[Guest]

I have a exam sheet for them. It's multiple choice, but education standards are slipping horribly.

 

Indeed Fuz...

 

it's 'an exam sheet' by the way...

[luctor et emergo]

Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone.

 

Indeed Fuz...

 

it's 'an exam sheet' by the way...

 

Keep up at the back...

[mayalld]

Just woken up, and catching up.

 

I'd love to see Dave arrive at a lock, crewed by an equally formidable lock-keeper, and the ensuing argument.

 

 

Dave had been around long enough to see off a fair few formidable intermeddlers.

[luctor et emergo]

Dave had been around long enough to see off a fair few formidable intermeddlers.

 

I'm sure you are, just love to see it..

[mayalld]

To be honest Dave I'm amazed at the shallow view you take, of your fellow volunteers.

 

Why would that be.

 

As a volunteer myself (in a number of capacities), I am all too aware that motivations for volunteering vary from the truly altruistic, through varying degrees of "what's the payback for me", through to people who volunteer only for what they can get.

[carlt]

Why would that be.

 

As a volunteer myself (in a number of capacities), I am all too aware that motivations for volunteering vary from the truly altruistic, through varying degrees of "what's the payback for me", through to people who volunteer only for what they can get.

What a shame you seem to dismiss the volunteers who may just keep our system open for us as the latter two.

 

It would seem to me, from what you have posted in this thread, that you are firmly in the "What use are these volunteers to me?" camp, rather than "What use are they to the whole of the waterways network?"

 

Totally negative, totally dismissive, just like the conspiracy theorists you criticise so openly.

 

Just another naysayer trying to do down the fledgling organisation.

 

Shame!

[mayalld]

What a shame you seem to dismiss the volunteers who may just keep our system open for us as the latter two.

 

It would seem to me, from what you have posted in this thread, that you are firmly in the "What use are these volunteers to me?" camp, rather than "What use are they to the whole of the waterways network?"

 

Totally negative, totally dismissive, just like the conspiracy theorists you criticise so openly.

 

Just another naysayer trying to do down the fledgling organisation.

 

Shame!

 

People playing with locks aren't going to keep the system open.

 

People playing with locks who are prepared to accept that when somebody else wants to use their toy, they should go away are tolerable, but aren't going to keep the system open..

 

I shall await your reaction to them bringing in dozens of volunteer enforcement assistants to deal with all overstaying with great interest. I'm sure that you won't want to be negative and dismiss it without trying it.

[carlt]

People playing with locks aren't going to keep the system open.

Naysaying conspiracy theory

 

People playing with locks who are prepared to accept that when somebody else wants to use their toy, they should go away are tolerable, but aren't going to keep the system open..

Again, pure negativity, no better than me saying all scout leaders want to do is play with the toys and shove right wing christianity down impressionable kids throats.

I shall await your reaction to them bringing in dozens of volunteer enforcement assistants to deal with all overstaying with great interest. I'm sure that you won't want to be negative and dismiss it without trying it.

Not at all as long as they are appropriately trained and have the authority to actually perform the task.

 

I have always said that BW required the necessary legislation and staffing to do the job but they never managed it.

 

I hope that the new regime, obviously relying on volunteers, will be better at it than the last shower who relied on untrained curtain twitching busybodies, rather than a trained team of volunteers and poorly written law.

Edited May 16, 2012 by carlt

[Chris Pink]

Unlike Pinky who spends around 2,000 hours a year looking for opportunities to add NOTHING to the debate, because he wants to have a pop at me.

 

 

 

 

Odd then, that I should agree that you should do your locks yourself.

 

Under the eagle eye of a volunteer lockkeeper.