1 2 3 4 5
4cylndrfury
4cylndrfury SuperDork
10/11/11 8:01 a.m.

I vote for public shaming...name the team, name the guy, burn the car. I have not yet had the opportunity to attend/participate in the challenge, and I will be PISSED if I lose that opportunity because some mouthbreather started a 1 man toga party that broke the camels back.

I kinda also like the "tear up the check at the end of the challenge if your team remains dignified throughout the event" idea. Intimidate a man, youll only make him want to do whatever it is youre trying to prevent. Take a shot at his wallet, and he will cower in the corner...Im just sayin...

93EXCivic
93EXCivic SuperDork
10/11/11 8:05 a.m.
AutoXR wrote: The cops weren't there for us (Cam), I spoke to Officer Jenkins @ about 2:30 - 3:00 and he said they were called due to someone doing a burnout or reving there motor (noise ordianance as he called it) . This could have been a seperate incident..I don't know.

I don't think the reving and burning out was even by a challenger. There were some guys in a big Dodge Ram with Cox Cable stickers on it acting like complete jackasses as well.

psolver1
psolver1 New Reader
10/11/11 8:13 a.m.

The situation regarding behavior is being made way to complicated. The idea of rules, committees, and other democratic suggestions are irrelevant and moot. The current rule infrastructure already contains all that is necessary to alleviate the issue:

"1. This Challenge is designed and run as an editorial event for a privately owned magazine. As such, the rules and event should be taken with a certain spirit in mind. In other words, all entrants should play well with others. It will make the event much more pleasant for all of those involved. Grassroots Motorsports reserves the right to refuse entry to any individuals or teams. Individuals or teams that behave in a manner that reflects poorly on this event or the magazine will be immediately disqualified and their entries will be removed from the editorial write-up. "

The most interesting aspect is that it is rule number "1."

If it is decided by the editorial staff that a rule needs to be made, a very simple "All decisions by the editorial staff of GRM regarding event participation and coverage are final." will suffice.

I can guarantee the editorial staff will not loose my readership or event participation for defending their livelihood and time investment.

Per Schroeder
Per Schroeder Technical Editor/Advertising Director
10/11/11 8:22 a.m.

Jonathan, thanks both for coming forward and helping us deal with the situation. I trust your team name next year will be "Two Guys from Canada"?

In regards to the Sheriff's visit, there were also staff witnesses to the vehicular jackassery, and that team was also involved with some other issues—We are going to have to deal with that too.

AngryCorvair
AngryCorvair SuperDork
10/11/11 8:43 a.m.
AutoXR wrote: I am the guy who brought the jackass... He won't be back next year - but hopefully you guys will allow me to return...

just curious, is he the same dickhole who got us all yelled at by the track operators for being all fast and furious a couple years ago?

dlmater
dlmater New Reader
10/11/11 8:49 a.m.

My opinion:

I attended the $2008 Challenge with my son, 15 at the time. I was pleased with the 'family type' atmosphere and it also appeared that those who wanted were free to enjoy themselves in a more adult way, responsibly. Thus, it seemed to me everyone had a good time. I was not there this year but agree that if someone is out of control (by GRM's definition, not the offending party's) they should be asked to leave.

GRM is a business. As much as the staff seem to enjoy what they do, their primary goal is to make the magazine a success. They do not exist only as a recreational outlet for us, $20xx challengers. Their reputation is at stake. With today's litigious society and overzealous dramatized media, it would only take one unfortunate event to ruin their reputation in the industry or their financial viability as an ongoing business. As well, I imagine attracting and keeping sponsors for the event is necessary. Sponsors will not want their name associated with a potential problem.

The hotel is also running a business. If we rented out the entire complex, I imagine they would be more tolerant, not that this in itself would excuse certain behaviors. But since we do not, the hotel has to be concerned with the other guests experience and their own liability of hosting the event.

There will always be a debate as to what is acceptable behavior and what is not. The deffinition of acceptable behavior is the sole decison of GRM and the hotel. If participating within that subset of acceptable behaviors is not agreeable to someone, then they should find other events to attend or be asked to leave immediately.

GRM staff should set and enforce the rules as to achieve their vision for the event. I am certain whatever those rules may be, there will be plenty of participants willing to attend and abide by those rules.

aussiesmg
aussiesmg SuperDork
10/11/11 8:50 a.m.

Johnathon was not the person involved, he did remove the offender from the situation and he did not return that night, however Johnathon stayed and became a new friend to many of us.

I would like to say Johnathon's words have shown how much of a man he is and that removing the entire team would be an error as the team did all they could from the moment they were made aware of the situation.The "Jackass" however is another thing all together.

By the by, a $200 threat to this individual would have no effect on him, he is not without more than adequate resources.

Gasoline
Gasoline New Reader
10/11/11 8:57 a.m.

Sorry this area needs thought.

GRM management should get together and decide what kind of event they want to host. The mob may have an opinion, but it is not the mob's event.

Entry forms should required by a deadline before the event and all teams/participants sign-off on a general "code of conduct" that GRM expects. This also includes off-track behavior.

Drivers and entrants are fully responsible for the conduct of their team/crew members.

It is a given that unacceptable off-track behavior will not be tolerated, and penalty's/punishment delegated by a specific Event Steward.

The GRM event should not be associated with a host hotel/motel. The participants are reflective when tied/associated to GRM.

If a Host Hotel is designated, it sounds like a curfew might be a good idea the night before the race.

GRM can recommend that fun-lovers find their own tolerant/remote location motel. It is cool to have fun, just don't infringe on others.

If late night wrenching is required, take it away from the sleeping motel guests. I have had to change out a racing transmission (and drank a beer or two) in the 24 hr Advance Auto parking lot. They are pretty cool at 4am.

If someone is out of control, call the law without hesitation.

AutoXR
AutoXR Reader
10/11/11 8:57 a.m.
4cylndrfury wrote: , burn the car.

This is kind of funny - and probably Karma on my Teams part..

Our motorhome caught fire in Georgia.

DirtE30
DirtE30 Reader
10/11/11 9:06 a.m.

On another note, I didn't see any of these events take place, but what I did see annoyed me a little. After waking up and walking down to our vehicle in the stairway I did notice that the covers for the florescent stairway light was broken and the pieces were spread along the stairway and outside.

Now I can see the drunk A-hole type actions but when someone starts to break hotel property that is something that I was upset about. I mean they have been nice to us for many years and they don't give us any problems about the late night poolside drinking lets not start giving them a reason to not let us come back.

Karl La Follette
Karl La Follette Dork
10/11/11 9:26 a.m.

I would think a " Don't be an assjack" waiver should be part of the Red Bag you get at sign in . THis puts everyone on notice . This is turned in to the GRM staff at sign in . Team Captain and crew sign . I gave up my "That Guy " Status . The penalties ? I would let the higher ups figure that out , The team should be DQ d at a minimum and religated to last place

tpwalsh
tpwalsh New Reader
10/11/11 9:45 a.m.

Completely OT reply to Mental:

Both you and the capri had a breakdown in OK? :)

-that random guy who was head and shoulders inside the failvan's engine on the dragon run.

tpwalsh
tpwalsh New Reader
10/11/11 9:48 a.m.

Completely OT reply to JThw8:

I'm not sure that bringing that... thing from OK is maintaining order.. it even bought him some intoxicants in AL.

Sofa King
Sofa King Reader
10/11/11 9:56 a.m.

I didn't make the Challenge this year, but I have participated in two. Obviously the behavior that David is concerned about is offensive to everyone, and should not be tolerated.

But there have also been complaints in this thread about behavior in the presence of wives and kids. The Challenges that I have attended have been my ultimate car guy experiences. Because this is a car guy event for me, I am not walking around with my "Wife and Kids Filter" on. I don't mean that I would intentionally try to be a jerk, but wrenching on a car at 2:00 am in a parking lot, I might not be watching my language, I don't expect to turn around and see your 4 year old. Of course I also shouldn't expect you not to be upset if my behavior can be heard in your room.

I think that the Challenge can be a family friendly event, but I think if you are bringing your kids, or if your wife is easily offended, you also have a responsibility to edit the situations that they attend.

Giant Purple Snorklewacker
Giant Purple Snorklewacker SuperDork
10/11/11 10:01 a.m.

Chris Griffin: Dad, what's the blow-hole for?
Peter Griffin: I'll tell you what it's not for, son. And when I do, you'll understand why I can never go back to Sea World.

Snowdoggie
Snowdoggie Dork
10/11/11 10:10 a.m.

Just crush their car like they do at the 24 hours of Lemons...after a public vote of course.

DoctorBlade
DoctorBlade Dork
10/11/11 10:30 a.m.

You really should allow yourself some leeway in who to ban. Those in charge should be able to ban people or teams, as appropriate. Cutting someone out of the GRM sponsored events/areas might also be a solution.

ZOO
ZOO SuperDork
10/11/11 12:07 p.m.
AutoXR wrote: I really don't know what else to say as I have no excuse for his actions and to say I am embarassed is an understatement. Again I am sorry. I have a great deal of passion for the event and respect for those who hold it, hopefully this can be seen in how far I travel and the effort I put into the car. I take it seriously and it saddens me that my efforts are overshawdowed by my jackass friend. This was my 3rd year in attendance and hopefully not my last. I came 22 hrs to compete and not babysit. Unfortunatley thats what I ended up doing.

Huge kudos to AutoXR for publically stepping up in the forum and taking ownership for an obviously problematic situation. His actions certainly reflect respect for the event, GRM, and fellow competitors.

Ownership of the incident also ends specualtion about who is being talked about. That doesn't mean everyone else gets a "free pass" however. I would hope that if you were a particiapnt who may have "pushed the limits" that you reflect on what you bring to the day and the evening, and perhaps make sure they are aligned with the spirit of the event.

ultraclyde
ultraclyde HalfDork
10/11/11 12:45 p.m.

I haven't made it to a challenge...yet. But I look forward to doing it in the future. I would give the team members the first shot at handling a problem. If the problem recurs, ban the team. I would hate to see a team get the shaft because some member put on his/her asshat when none of them were around. The team leader should be contacted and told to go handle the situation.

Of course, knowing how the members of your team handle themselves before the event would seem key to me, but weird things happen.

Dr. Hess
Dr. Hess SuperDork
10/11/11 2:00 p.m.
bravenrace wrote: I obviously wasn't there. But I would agree that the whole team should be disqualified and banned. Under a couple conditions: One - That the rules of conduct are made extremely clear to everyone up front. You can't can't hold someone to your expectations if you haven't made your expectations clear. Two - That there be one warning to the team in the case that one person gets out of line when no other team members are around. They can't do anything about it if they aren't there. In general, banning the whole team will become a strong deterent at future events, giving the team members much more incentive to police their own.

As an impartial third party here, having never been to a challenge, but not without desire to attend one, I think bravenrace has about the right idea. Teams have team leaders, right? Or should anyway. That person would be responsible for his team. If one acts inappropriately, the leader should have a warning, and if it happens again or is not otherwise satisfactorily addressed, then the team should be sent packing at that point. As in "your out, no racing, concurs, nothing, out. We're keeping your entrance fee and AMF." As for whole team banning from future events, I really don't think it would be a problem, as anyone sent packing from one event is unlikely to show up at a future event, I would think. If they did, I would assume they would present a "we're real sorry and That Guy won't be here" story.

I would also think that the warning would be optional, depending on the severity of the incident. I think everyone understands The Mag is a business that we all would like to see continue to succeed, and the Challenge Motel is not Buffalo Chip campground during bike week.

cwh
cwh SuperDork
10/11/11 2:06 p.m.

Team is responsible for members activities. Every team has a leader, nature of the beast. Team leader is in charge, and must insure members are acting appropriately. If team leader tells a member to leave, so be it. If team leader is ineffective, the team should be ejected. I think that is an effective and mature way to handle the situation.

SVreX
SVreX SuperDork
10/11/11 2:21 p.m.
Sofa King wrote: I didn't make the Challenge this year, but I have participated in two. Obviously the behavior that David is concerned about is offensive to everyone, and should not be tolerated. But there have also been complaints in this thread about behavior in the presence of wives and kids. The Challenges that I have attended have been my ultimate car guy experiences. Because this is a car guy event for me, I am not walking around with my "Wife and Kids Filter" on. I don't mean that I would intentionally try to be a jerk, but wrenching on a car at 2:00 am in a parking lot, I might not be watching my language, I don't expect to turn around and see your 4 year old. Of course I also shouldn't expect you not to be upset if my behavior can be heard in your room. I think that the Challenge can be a family friendly event, but I think if you are bringing your kids, or if your wife is easily offended, you also have a responsibility to edit the situations that they attend.

You are making assumptions that are incorrect.

When my 9 year old is playing Forza4 on the public big screen TV in the banquet room and a drunken azzjack bodily stands between him and the screen intentionally trying to interrupt his game and asking him (multiple times) if he knows what the word "f*ck" means, it's not me or my kid who have overstepped the bounds.

The staff handled themselves well. Fortunate, because I was inches away from being the guy who got arrested for my efforts to "edit the situation" by force.

It's a family event not because I want it that way, but because GRM has defined it that way. I choose to participate because they have chosen what the event will be like. If they change their direction, I will make whatever decisions I need to.

David is addressing things that are beyond what GRM wants this event to be. Don't excuse inappropriate behavior because it is a "car guy event".

Per Schroeder
Per Schroeder Technical Editor/Advertising Director
10/11/11 2:28 p.m.

Hadn't heard that part..who was the azzjack?

SVreX
SVreX SuperDork
10/11/11 2:29 p.m.
Per Schroeder wrote: Hadn't heard that part..who was the azzjack?

Talk to Scott. I don't know him by name.

93EXCivic
93EXCivic SuperDork
10/11/11 2:30 p.m.
Per Schroeder wrote: Hadn't heard that part..who was the azzjack?

Same one that decided a plant in the hotel would be a good toilet.

1 2 3 4 5
Our Preferred Partners
CzeLNkC7D1DjeRPwELTL0sxpq7BLjGUGYhK5oDAWE5ZwkVHug6uTMKFarOHarF99