(09-13-2017 09:15 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-13-2017 06:46 PM)TU4ever Wrote:  

(09-13-2017 06:29 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-13-2017 06:07 PM)otown Wrote:  Just my two cents for what it is worth, but by all means, feel free to shout from your soapboxes how bad of a human being I am........ I just don't see why these other options were explored by UCF (or at least give us that info on what "alternatives" were looked at) or Rick Scott's decision when there were many other perfectly good options for him that did not require adversely affecting a University's event and the peanuts they make from their event.

Nobody thinks you are a bad human being. But you don't seem to take incoming very well. E.g., I noted in my last post that Aresco affirmed that other options were looked at but that nothing viable was found.

I'm not sure why that's not good enough for you? Do you really think Aresco and UCF didn't consider the Citrus Bowl?

As for Governor Scott's decision, do you really think the governor owes an explanation to football fans as to why the stadium was the best place to base the National Guard?

Seriously?

Yes he does, you are assuming a lot. The government in all its forms has proven to be incompetent from time to time. While the football game is not a priority, the questions should be asked and answered. It is quite possible that he chose ucf's because it was the first one he thought of, not because it worked best.

The questions are legit. The ansers should be too. If the answers arent legit then it should be gone over to see what mistakes were made and what could be done better. A football game is a little thing, being organized and gettinh the best out of your resources durring a natural disastor is a big thing.

Answering questions pertaining to canceled football is unlikely to tease out inefficiencies in how national guard resources are being deployed. And so far, OTown and others have only expressed concern about football.

Usually, that kind of useful feedback is derived when the logistics employed fail to meet the needs of those in distress efficiently and effectively.

Failure to meet needs of hurricane victims give rise to legit questions about resource use, those about football are a waste of time. If putting the national guard in UCF stadium is hindering their mission, we will know it without answering questions about canceling the Tech game.

No efficiancy is reviewed all the time. If i spend 30 million and could have done it for 20 million then we need to know that for the next instance.

It is reasonable to ask why certian choices were made when other options are available.

A home game is a financial boon for the home team and its community. If there was not a valid reason to choose the ucf stadium over the citrus bowl then its an issue. People play politics at terrible times, sometimes they're incompetent, sometimes they just make dumb mistakes.

The questions should be asked and answered. We may disagree with the purppse of the question but the answer will work for both purposes and both are legit reasons for inquiries, allthough only one is truely important.

(09-13-2017 10:01 PM)TU4ever Wrote:  

(09-13-2017 09:15 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-13-2017 06:46 PM)TU4ever Wrote:  

(09-13-2017 06:29 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-13-2017 06:07 PM)otown Wrote:  Just my two cents for what it is worth, but by all means, feel free to shout from your soapboxes how bad of a human being I am........ I just don't see why these other options were explored by UCF (or at least give us that info on what "alternatives" were looked at) or Rick Scott's decision when there were many other perfectly good options for him that did not require adversely affecting a University's event and the peanuts they make from their event.

Nobody thinks you are a bad human being. But you don't seem to take incoming very well. E.g., I noted in my last post that Aresco affirmed that other options were looked at but that nothing viable was found.

I'm not sure why that's not good enough for you? Do you really think Aresco and UCF didn't consider the Citrus Bowl?

As for Governor Scott's decision, do you really think the governor owes an explanation to football fans as to why the stadium was the best place to base the National Guard?

Seriously?

Yes he does, you are assuming a lot. The government in all its forms has proven to be incompetent from time to time. While the football game is not a priority, the questions should be asked and answered. It is quite possible that he chose ucf's because it was the first one he thought of, not because it worked best.

The questions are legit. The ansers should be too. If the answers arent legit then it should be gone over to see what mistakes were made and what could be done better. A football game is a little thing, being organized and gettinh the best out of your resources durring a natural disastor is a big thing.

Answering questions pertaining to canceled football is unlikely to tease out inefficiencies in how national guard resources are being deployed. And so far, OTown and others have only expressed concern about football.

Usually, that kind of useful feedback is derived when the logistics employed fail to meet the needs of those in distress efficiently and effectively.

Failure to meet needs of hurricane victims give rise to legit questions about resource use, those about football are a waste of time. If putting the national guard in UCF stadium is hindering their mission, we will know it without answering questions about canceling the Tech game.

No efficiancy is reviewed all the time. If i spend 30 million and could have done it for 20 million then we need to know that for the next instance.

It is reasonable to ask why certian choices were made when other options are available.

A home game is a financial boon for the home team and its community. If there was not a valid reason to choose the ucf stadium over the citrus bowl then its an issue. People play politics at terrible times, sometimes they're incompetent, sometimes they just make dumb mistakes.

The questions should be asked and answered. We may disagree with the purppse of the question but the answer will work for both purposes and both are legit reasons for inquiries, allthough only one is truely important.

First, we don't know if other options were available. The governor's office determined that the UCF stadium was the best place to stage the national guard, and you have no basis for thinking they aren't correct about that. Anger about missing a football game isn't a basis.

Second, even if choosing the UCF stadium costs the community money from a lost football game seemingly unnecessarily, because in truth, had the governor's office studied the matter a little bit more, they would have realized that another staging area could have been used that would have accomplished the same goal without losing the game, that doesn't matter either. In making the staging determination, it would be absurd to expect the governor to conduct a cost-benefit analysis of various sites, balancing these kinds of economic impacts and the needs of the guard, to select the optimal solution. In a crisis/emergency, what matters are (a) efficacy of action, and (b) speed of action, not optimal money savings. In an emergency, you act first to relive distress as fast as you can and worry about the bill later. If the governor waited two days to deploy the guard such that hurricane victims were suffering because state accountants were conducting cost-benefit analyses of alternative sites to see if they could avoid losing a football game, he would be witheringly criticized and rightly so.

I mean, the whole idea of "balancing" the needs of football fans and the economic boon of a game vs the needs of hurricane victims is absurd on its face, but that's what you seem to be advocating.

I agree that sometimes, third parties have to be active/aggressive in rooting out inefficiencies, because in a particular situation, manifestations might be too diffuse to trigger a natural correcting mechanism. That's not the case here: delivering services to hurricane victims is a high-profile endeavor, if the government screws it up it will quickly be apparent to all and media attention will zero in on it. Just ask Mayor Nagin and President Bush about Katrina.

So no, in this case, answering questions motivated by football frustration is pointless, totally non-functional. That's why nobody is even asking the questions, save for some angry UCF football fans on forums like this one.

(09-14-2017 12:24 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-13-2017 10:01 PM)TU4ever Wrote:  

(09-13-2017 09:15 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-13-2017 06:46 PM)TU4ever Wrote:  

(09-13-2017 06:29 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Nobody thinks you are a bad human being. But you don't seem to take incoming very well. E.g., I noted in my last post that Aresco affirmed that other options were looked at but that nothing viable was found.

I'm not sure why that's not good enough for you? Do you really think Aresco and UCF didn't consider the Citrus Bowl?

As for Governor Scott's decision, do you really think the governor owes an explanation to football fans as to why the stadium was the best place to base the National Guard?

Seriously?

Yes he does, you are assuming a lot. The government in all its forms has proven to be incompetent from time to time. While the football game is not a priority, the questions should be asked and answered. It is quite possible that he chose ucf's because it was the first one he thought of, not because it worked best.

The questions are legit. The ansers should be too. If the answers arent legit then it should be gone over to see what mistakes were made and what could be done better. A football game is a little thing, being organized and gettinh the best out of your resources durring a natural disastor is a big thing.

Answering questions pertaining to canceled football is unlikely to tease out inefficiencies in how national guard resources are being deployed. And so far, OTown and others have only expressed concern about football.

Usually, that kind of useful feedback is derived when the logistics employed fail to meet the needs of those in distress efficiently and effectively.

Failure to meet needs of hurricane victims give rise to legit questions about resource use, those about football are a waste of time. If putting the national guard in UCF stadium is hindering their mission, we will know it without answering questions about canceling the Tech game.

No efficiancy is reviewed all the time. If i spend 30 million and could have done it for 20 million then we need to know that for the next instance.

It is reasonable to ask why certian choices were made when other options are available.

A home game is a financial boon for the home team and its community. If there was not a valid reason to choose the ucf stadium over the citrus bowl then its an issue. People play politics at terrible times, sometimes they're incompetent, sometimes they just make dumb mistakes.

The questions should be asked and answered. We may disagree with the purppse of the question but the answer will work for both purposes and both are legit reasons for inquiries, allthough only one is truely important.

First, we don't know if other options were available. The governor's office determined that the UCF stadium was the best place to stage the national guard, and you have no basis for thinking they aren't correct about that. Anger about missing a football game isn't a basis.

Second, even if choosing the UCF stadium costs the community money from a lost football game seemingly unnecessarily, because in truth, had the governor's office studied the matter a little bit more, they would have realized that another staging area could have been used that would have accomplished the same goal without losing the game, that doesn't matter either. In making the staging determination, it would be absurd to expect the governor to conduct a cost-benefit analysis of various sites, balancing these kinds of economic impacts and the needs of the guard, to select the optimal solution. In a crisis/emergency, what matters are (a) efficacy of action, and (b) speed of action, not optimal money savings. In an emergency, you act first to relive distress as fast as you can and worry about the bill later. If the governor waited two days to deploy the guard such that hurricane victims were suffering because state accountants were conducting cost-benefit analyses of alternative sites to see if they could avoid losing a football game, he would be witheringly criticized and rightly so.

I mean, the whole idea of "balancing" the needs of football fans and the economic boon of a game vs the needs of hurricane victims is absurd on its face, but that's what you seem to be advocating.

I agree that sometimes, third parties have to be active/aggressive in rooting out inefficiencies, because in a particular situation, manifestations might be too diffuse to trigger a natural correcting mechanism. That's not the case here: delivering services to hurricane victims is a high-profile endeavor, if the government screws it up it will quickly be apparent to all and media attention will zero in on it. Just ask Mayor Nagin and President Bush about Katrina.

So no, in this case, answering questions motivated by football frustration is pointless, totally non-functional. That's why nobody is even asking the questions, save for some angry UCF football fans on forums like this one.

Listen you''re very committed but your premise is wrong. We should always question the government and you have no proof that the ucf stadium was the best place to stage it. Just because the govenor said so is not a reason.

I didnt say a football game was the reason why, i said these questions need to be asked, it just so happens the answers also inform the football decision.

Your thought process is why we struggled with katrina recovery and had tons of unused wasted resources, donations that were never distributed, campers where people couldnt use them, no respurces where we actually needed them.

Efficiancy is more important than speed in a crisis. If you need water and we ship you blankets and clothing doesnt matter how fast we have those clothes there. If you need a shelter and we send you gas for a generator you dont have you're still screwed.

I get it you trust authority, thats fine. I dont, we have strict rules to check authority for a reason. The authorities should have their feet held to the fire and examined closest in a crisis. Pressure reveals peoples true self and some people take advantage when others are most vulnerable, authority has the most power in a crisis and the more power the higher the chances of abuse of power.

(09-14-2017 12:24 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-13-2017 10:01 PM)TU4ever Wrote:  

(09-13-2017 09:15 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-13-2017 06:46 PM)TU4ever Wrote:  

(09-13-2017 06:29 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Nobody thinks you are a bad human being. But you don't seem to take incoming very well. E.g., I noted in my last post that Aresco affirmed that other options were looked at but that nothing viable was found.

I'm not sure why that's not good enough for you? Do you really think Aresco and UCF didn't consider the Citrus Bowl?

As for Governor Scott's decision, do you really think the governor owes an explanation to football fans as to why the stadium was the best place to base the National Guard?

Seriously?

Yes he does, you are assuming a lot. The government in all its forms has proven to be incompetent from time to time. While the football game is not a priority, the questions should be asked and answered. It is quite possible that he chose ucf's because it was the first one he thought of, not because it worked best.

The questions are legit. The ansers should be too. If the answers arent legit then it should be gone over to see what mistakes were made and what could be done better. A football game is a little thing, being organized and gettinh the best out of your resources durring a natural disastor is a big thing.

Answering questions pertaining to canceled football is unlikely to tease out inefficiencies in how national guard resources are being deployed. And so far, OTown and others have only expressed concern about football.

Usually, that kind of useful feedback is derived when the logistics employed fail to meet the needs of those in distress efficiently and effectively.

Failure to meet needs of hurricane victims give rise to legit questions about resource use, those about football are a waste of time. If putting the national guard in UCF stadium is hindering their mission, we will know it without answering questions about canceling the Tech game.

No efficiancy is reviewed all the time. If i spend 30 million and could have done it for 20 million then we need to know that for the next instance.

It is reasonable to ask why certian choices were made when other options are available.

A home game is a financial boon for the home team and its community. If there was not a valid reason to choose the ucf stadium over the citrus bowl then its an issue. People play politics at terrible times, sometimes they're incompetent, sometimes they just make dumb mistakes.

The questions should be asked and answered. We may disagree with the purppse of the question but the answer will work for both purposes and both are legit reasons for inquiries, allthough only one is truely important.

First, we don't know if other options were available. The governor's office determined that the UCF stadium was the best place to stage the national guard, and you have no basis for thinking they aren't correct about that. Anger about missing a football game isn't a basis.

Second, even if choosing the UCF stadium costs the community money from a lost football game seemingly unnecessarily, because in truth, had the governor's office studied the matter a little bit more, they would have realized that another staging area could have been used that would have accomplished the same goal without losing the game, that doesn't matter either. In making the staging determination, it would be absurd to expect the governor to conduct a cost-benefit analysis of various sites, balancing these kinds of economic impacts and the needs of the guard, to select the optimal solution. In a crisis/emergency, what matters are (a) efficacy of action, and (b) speed of action, not optimal money savings. In an emergency, you act first to relive distress as fast as you can and worry about the bill later. If the governor waited two days to deploy the guard such that hurricane victims were suffering because state accountants were conducting cost-benefit analyses of alternative sites to see if they could avoid losing a football game, he would be witheringly criticized and rightly so.

I mean, the whole idea of "balancing" the needs of football fans and the economic boon of a game vs the needs of hurricane victims is absurd on its face, but that's what you seem to be advocating.

I agree that sometimes, third parties have to be active/aggressive in rooting out inefficiencies, because in a particular situation, manifestations might be too diffuse to trigger a natural correcting mechanism. That's not the case here: delivering services to hurricane victims is a high-profile endeavor, if the government screws it up it will quickly be apparent to all and media attention will zero in on it. Just ask Mayor Nagin and President Bush about Katrina.

So no, in this case, answering questions motivated by football frustration is pointless, totally non-functional. That's why nobody is even asking the questions, save for some angry UCF football fans on forums like this one.

The sniff test of the entire process stinks. Honestly, it makes absolutely no sense when so many other viable options were available and would have had no economic and athletic impact on a community and university. Your reasoning that it's an emergency and we should not question the decision making process of our govt is something I could never agree with. In fact, these are very important questions that need to be answered. Would you be as equally trustworthy of the decision if they closed down ray jay for this, damn the bulls and bucs because it was a state emergency? How about shutting down the Tampa airport and using the massive runways for the effort becuase it is an emergency and it was the most efficient? You see, those two options are ridiculous because they have huge economic impacts on the community. Same situation for UCF, but it appears the same courtesy was not given to them when there were countless other options. This is why the AD and or governer should shed light on why UCF was chosen when common sense shows that there were plenty of other options available in central Florida that would have had a neutral impact on the economy. Not asking those simple questions, or more troubling, resisting and ridiculing those who are asking is astounding.

On another note, it would be very interesting to how you along with all the others that are perfectly fine with this decision without asking appropriate questions if UCF gets into the conference championship while playing less games. As it stands right now, Memphis and UCF have an advantage over everyone else as they have one less conference game to play(a challenging one). That game was cancelled by the governor at the last second despite the storm not hitting until 48 hours later. Memphis team wheels touched down already and told to turn around because a 2.5 hour game couldn't be played based on the governors call. Would have had zero effect on storm preps, and let's be honest here, Orlando was more of an evacuation hotel location...... not a place that people were evacuated from.

(09-14-2017 02:18 AM)otown Wrote:  

(09-14-2017 12:24 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-13-2017 10:01 PM)TU4ever Wrote:  

(09-13-2017 09:15 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-13-2017 06:46 PM)TU4ever Wrote:  Yes he does, you are assuming a lot. The government in all its forms has proven to be incompetent from time to time. While the football game is not a priority, the questions should be asked and answered. It is quite possible that he chose ucf's because it was the first one he thought of, not because it worked best.

The questions are legit. The ansers should be too. If the answers arent legit then it should be gone over to see what mistakes were made and what could be done better. A football game is a little thing, being organized and gettinh the best out of your resources durring a natural disastor is a big thing.

Answering questions pertaining to canceled football is unlikely to tease out inefficiencies in how national guard resources are being deployed. And so far, OTown and others have only expressed concern about football.

Usually, that kind of useful feedback is derived when the logistics employed fail to meet the needs of those in distress efficiently and effectively.

Failure to meet needs of hurricane victims give rise to legit questions about resource use, those about football are a waste of time. If putting the national guard in UCF stadium is hindering their mission, we will know it without answering questions about canceling the Tech game.

No efficiancy is reviewed all the time. If i spend 30 million and could have done it for 20 million then we need to know that for the next instance.

It is reasonable to ask why certian choices were made when other options are available.

A home game is a financial boon for the home team and its community. If there was not a valid reason to choose the ucf stadium over the citrus bowl then its an issue. People play politics at terrible times, sometimes they're incompetent, sometimes they just make dumb mistakes.

The questions should be asked and answered. We may disagree with the purppse of the question but the answer will work for both purposes and both are legit reasons for inquiries, allthough only one is truely important.

First, we don't know if other options were available. The governor's office determined that the UCF stadium was the best place to stage the national guard, and you have no basis for thinking they aren't correct about that. Anger about missing a football game isn't a basis.

Second, even if choosing the UCF stadium costs the community money from a lost football game seemingly unnecessarily, because in truth, had the governor's office studied the matter a little bit more, they would have realized that another staging area could have been used that would have accomplished the same goal without losing the game, that doesn't matter either. In making the staging determination, it would be absurd to expect the governor to conduct a cost-benefit analysis of various sites, balancing these kinds of economic impacts and the needs of the guard, to select the optimal solution. In a crisis/emergency, what matters are (a) efficacy of action, and (b) speed of action, not optimal money savings. In an emergency, you act first to relive distress as fast as you can and worry about the bill later. If the governor waited two days to deploy the guard such that hurricane victims were suffering because state accountants were conducting cost-benefit analyses of alternative sites to see if they could avoid losing a football game, he would be witheringly criticized and rightly so.

I mean, the whole idea of "balancing" the needs of football fans and the economic boon of a game vs the needs of hurricane victims is absurd on its face, but that's what you seem to be advocating.

I agree that sometimes, third parties have to be active/aggressive in rooting out inefficiencies, because in a particular situation, manifestations might be too diffuse to trigger a natural correcting mechanism. That's not the case here: delivering services to hurricane victims is a high-profile endeavor, if the government screws it up it will quickly be apparent to all and media attention will zero in on it. Just ask Mayor Nagin and President Bush about Katrina.

So no, in this case, answering questions motivated by football frustration is pointless, totally non-functional. That's why nobody is even asking the questions, save for some angry UCF football fans on forums like this one.

The sniff test of the entire process stinks. Honestly, it makes absolutely no sense when so many other viable options were available and would have had no economic and athletic impact on a community and university. Your reasoning that it's an emergency and we should not question the decision making process of our govt is something I could never agree with. In fact, these are very important questions that need to be answered. Would you be as equally trustworthy of the decision if they closed down ray jay for this, damn the bulls and bucs because it was a state emergency? How about shutting down the Tampa airport and using the massive runways for the effort becuase it is an emergency and it was the most efficient? You see, those two options are ridiculous because they have huge economic impacts on the community. Same situation for UCF, but it appears the same courtesy was not given to them when there were countless other options.

Again, *you don't know* if there were *any* other options, much less "countless other" options. You are using your armchair view, which is a view that lacks facts, and combining that with your frustration to say the situation smells. But think about it, if it smells, why is nobody else complaining but frustrated football fans? Contrary to the idea that the process smells, it has actually occurred in an utterly non-controversial manner: The governor decided he needed UCF stadium, UCF agreed, UCF consulted with Aresco about finding another way to play and none was found, the game was canceled, an announcement was made that the game was canceled by Tech and UCF because of the need for the stadium for the Guard, and ... the whole world immediately accepted that, except for some vocal UCF ticket holders. Nobody else has complained.

As for closing down RJ or the airport, I'd have been fine with both if they were deemed necessary to carry out hurricane related activities. Heck, here in New Orleans, after Katrina, MSY was shut down for a few weeks because they used it to ship in supplies for Katrina relief. Did it suck? Yes. Was there any whining? Nope, because it was needed for Katrina relief, the priority.

(09-14-2017 01:44 AM)TU4ever Wrote:  

(09-14-2017 12:24 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-13-2017 10:01 PM)TU4ever Wrote:  

(09-13-2017 09:15 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-13-2017 06:46 PM)TU4ever Wrote:  Yes he does, you are assuming a lot. The government in all its forms has proven to be incompetent from time to time. While the football game is not a priority, the questions should be asked and answered. It is quite possible that he chose ucf's because it was the first one he thought of, not because it worked best.

The questions are legit. The ansers should be too. If the answers arent legit then it should be gone over to see what mistakes were made and what could be done better. A football game is a little thing, being organized and gettinh the best out of your resources durring a natural disastor is a big thing.

Answering questions pertaining to canceled football is unlikely to tease out inefficiencies in how national guard resources are being deployed. And so far, OTown and others have only expressed concern about football.

Usually, that kind of useful feedback is derived when the logistics employed fail to meet the needs of those in distress efficiently and effectively.

Failure to meet needs of hurricane victims give rise to legit questions about resource use, those about football are a waste of time. If putting the national guard in UCF stadium is hindering their mission, we will know it without answering questions about canceling the Tech game.

No efficiancy is reviewed all the time. If i spend 30 million and could have done it for 20 million then we need to know that for the next instance.

It is reasonable to ask why certian choices were made when other options are available.

A home game is a financial boon for the home team and its community. If there was not a valid reason to choose the ucf stadium over the citrus bowl then its an issue. People play politics at terrible times, sometimes they're incompetent, sometimes they just make dumb mistakes.

The questions should be asked and answered. We may disagree with the purppse of the question but the answer will work for both purposes and both are legit reasons for inquiries, allthough only one is truely important.

First, we don't know if other options were available. The governor's office determined that the UCF stadium was the best place to stage the national guard, and you have no basis for thinking they aren't correct about that. Anger about missing a football game isn't a basis.

Second, even if choosing the UCF stadium costs the community money from a lost football game seemingly unnecessarily, because in truth, had the governor's office studied the matter a little bit more, they would have realized that another staging area could have been used that would have accomplished the same goal without losing the game, that doesn't matter either. In making the staging determination, it would be absurd to expect the governor to conduct a cost-benefit analysis of various sites, balancing these kinds of economic impacts and the needs of the guard, to select the optimal solution. In a crisis/emergency, what matters are (a) efficacy of action, and (b) speed of action, not optimal money savings. In an emergency, you act first to relive distress as fast as you can and worry about the bill later. If the governor waited two days to deploy the guard such that hurricane victims were suffering because state accountants were conducting cost-benefit analyses of alternative sites to see if they could avoid losing a football game, he would be witheringly criticized and rightly so.

I mean, the whole idea of "balancing" the needs of football fans and the economic boon of a game vs the needs of hurricane victims is absurd on its face, but that's what you seem to be advocating.

I agree that sometimes, third parties have to be active/aggressive in rooting out inefficiencies, because in a particular situation, manifestations might be too diffuse to trigger a natural correcting mechanism. That's not the case here: delivering services to hurricane victims is a high-profile endeavor, if the government screws it up it will quickly be apparent to all and media attention will zero in on it. Just ask Mayor Nagin and President Bush about Katrina.

So no, in this case, answering questions motivated by football frustration is pointless, totally non-functional. That's why nobody is even asking the questions, save for some angry UCF football fans on forums like this one.

Listen you''re very committed but your premise is wrong. We should always question the government and you have no proof that the ucf stadium was the best place to stage it. Just because the govenor said so is not a reason.

I didnt say a football game was the reason why, i said these questions need to be asked, it just so happens the answers also inform the football decision.

Your thought process is why we struggled with katrina recovery and had tons of unused wasted resources, donations that were never distributed, campers where people couldnt use them, no respurces where we actually needed them.

Efficiancy is more important than speed in a crisis. If you need water and we ship you blankets and clothing doesnt matter how fast we have those clothes there. If you need a shelter and we send you gas for a generator you dont have you're still screwed.

I get it you trust authority, thats fine. I dont, we have strict rules to check authority for a reason. The authorities should have their feet held to the fire and examined closest in a crisis.

First, the situation you describe of blankets arriving when water is needed is a problem of effectiveness, efficacy, not efficiency. Efficacy pertains to whether a need is met or not, efficiency refers to the cost incurred to meet the need. As my discussion above indicates, I think efficacy is the most important thing, because I said that in an emergency what matters most is efficacy, followed by speed. If people need water, we need to get them *water* (not blankets) as fast as possible. You, on the other hand, emphasized efficiency. You implied that it's a big problem if the national guard in Orlando is getting needy people water, but at the cost of losing the all-important football game. I correctly noted that in a crisis, the overwhelmingly important thing is to meet the need, not to worry about cost. If there's been an auto accident and someone is hemorrhaging on the street, you rush the patient to the hospital NOW, you don't let them bleed out on the sidewalk while arguing over whether the ambulance ride is going to stop traffic and cause some commuters to lose money by making them late for work.

I also made it clear that I don't "trust authority" and do think leaders should be questioned. It's just that in this case, football questioning of the governor isn't needed, because the media is already riveted to the issue of how effective the government is in meeting the needs of hurricane Irma victims. If staging the Guard at UCF stadium was a bad move in that it has hampered efforts to distribute water, we'll know as fast as it is possible to know. So asking football-motivated questions is pointless.

I mean, if someone actually asked Governor Scott in a press conference "Governor, why was the UCF stadium used as a staging area when doing so caused the cancellation of a football game"? Everyone in the room, including reporters who hate Governor Scott, would look at them like they were crazy.

(09-14-2017 06:39 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-14-2017 01:44 AM)TU4ever Wrote:  

(09-14-2017 12:24 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-13-2017 10:01 PM)TU4ever Wrote:  

(09-13-2017 09:15 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Answering questions pertaining to canceled football is unlikely to tease out inefficiencies in how national guard resources are being deployed. And so far, OTown and others have only expressed concern about football.

Usually, that kind of useful feedback is derived when the logistics employed fail to meet the needs of those in distress efficiently and effectively.

Failure to meet needs of hurricane victims give rise to legit questions about resource use, those about football are a waste of time. If putting the national guard in UCF stadium is hindering their mission, we will know it without answering questions about canceling the Tech game.

No efficiancy is reviewed all the time. If i spend 30 million and could have done it for 20 million then we need to know that for the next instance.

It is reasonable to ask why certian choices were made when other options are available.

A home game is a financial boon for the home team and its community. If there was not a valid reason to choose the ucf stadium over the citrus bowl then its an issue. People play politics at terrible times, sometimes they're incompetent, sometimes they just make dumb mistakes.

The questions should be asked and answered. We may disagree with the purppse of the question but the answer will work for both purposes and both are legit reasons for inquiries, allthough only one is truely important.

First, we don't know if other options were available. The governor's office determined that the UCF stadium was the best place to stage the national guard, and you have no basis for thinking they aren't correct about that. Anger about missing a football game isn't a basis.

Second, even if choosing the UCF stadium costs the community money from a lost football game seemingly unnecessarily, because in truth, had the governor's office studied the matter a little bit more, they would have realized that another staging area could have been used that would have accomplished the same goal without losing the game, that doesn't matter either. In making the staging determination, it would be absurd to expect the governor to conduct a cost-benefit analysis of various sites, balancing these kinds of economic impacts and the needs of the guard, to select the optimal solution. In a crisis/emergency, what matters are (a) efficacy of action, and (b) speed of action, not optimal money savings. In an emergency, you act first to relive distress as fast as you can and worry about the bill later. If the governor waited two days to deploy the guard such that hurricane victims were suffering because state accountants were conducting cost-benefit analyses of alternative sites to see if they could avoid losing a football game, he would be witheringly criticized and rightly so.

I mean, the whole idea of "balancing" the needs of football fans and the economic boon of a game vs the needs of hurricane victims is absurd on its face, but that's what you seem to be advocating.

I agree that sometimes, third parties have to be active/aggressive in rooting out inefficiencies, because in a particular situation, manifestations might be too diffuse to trigger a natural correcting mechanism. That's not the case here: delivering services to hurricane victims is a high-profile endeavor, if the government screws it up it will quickly be apparent to all and media attention will zero in on it. Just ask Mayor Nagin and President Bush about Katrina.

So no, in this case, answering questions motivated by football frustration is pointless, totally non-functional. That's why nobody is even asking the questions, save for some angry UCF football fans on forums like this one.

Listen you''re very committed but your premise is wrong. We should always question the government and you have no proof that the ucf stadium was the best place to stage it. Just because the govenor said so is not a reason.

I didnt say a football game was the reason why, i said these questions need to be asked, it just so happens the answers also inform the football decision.

Your thought process is why we struggled with katrina recovery and had tons of unused wasted resources, donations that were never distributed, campers where people couldnt use them, no respurces where we actually needed them.

Efficiancy is more important than speed in a crisis. If you need water and we ship you blankets and clothing doesnt matter how fast we have those clothes there. If you need a shelter and we send you gas for a generator you dont have you're still screwed.

I get it you trust authority, thats fine. I dont, we have strict rules to check authority for a reason. The authorities should have their feet held to the fire and examined closest in a crisis.

First, the situation you describe of blankets arriving when water is needed is a problem of effectiveness, efficacy, not efficiency. Efficacy pertains to whether a need is met or not, efficiency refers to the cost incurred to meet the need. As my discussion above indicates, I think efficacy is the most important thing, because I said that in an emergency what matters most is efficacy, followed by speed. If people need water, we need to get them *water* (not blankets) as fast as possible. You, on the other hand, emphasized efficiency. You implied that it's a big problem if the national guard in Orlando is getting needy people water, but at the cost of losing the all-important football game. I correctly noted that in a crisis, the overwhelmingly important thing is to meet the need, not to worry about cost. If there's been an auto accident and someone is hemorrhaging on the street, you rush the patient to the hospital NOW, you don't let them bleed out on the sidewalk while arguing over whether the ambulance ride is going to stop traffic and cause some commuters to lose money by making them late for work.

I also made it clear that I don't "trust authority" and do think leaders should be questioned. It's just that in this case, football questioning of the governor isn't needed, because the media is already riveted to the issue of how effective the government is in meeting the needs of hurricane Irma victims. If staging the Guard at UCF stadium was a bad move in that it has hampered efforts to distribute water, we'll know as fast as it is possible to know. So asking football-motivated questions is pointless.

I mean, if someone actually asked Governor Scott in a press conference "Governor, why was the UCF stadium used as a staging area when doing so caused the cancellation of a football game"? Everyone in the room, including reporters who hate Governor Scott, would look at them like they were crazy.

Any politician, including president and governor, in times of emergency or not, should look at all viable options that can achieve the exact same outcome and efficiency with the least effect on the local community. Driving by an empty fairgrounds, convention center, and citrus bowl appears on the surface that this was not the protocol used. If it was, the citizens of the local community that it is adversely affecting do deserve answers and explanations why the other sites were unacceptable. We should not be afraid to question elected officials because it was an "emergency." Using your bleeding out patient example is not the type of emergency that we were having. Your example is when you have seconds to decide........ its quite obvious that they had much more time to arrange the recovery efforts s/p IRMA in Central Florida.
As for the AD and Aresco, they should provide the UCF community answers as to what other options were considered and why the Citrus Bowl was unavailable to them for the GT game considering their next event is not until Nov 10th. If Florida Citrus Sports refused, I think the community should know.

(09-14-2017 06:39 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-14-2017 01:44 AM)TU4ever Wrote:  

(09-14-2017 12:24 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-13-2017 10:01 PM)TU4ever Wrote:  

(09-13-2017 09:15 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Answering questions pertaining to canceled football is unlikely to tease out inefficiencies in how national guard resources are being deployed. And so far, OTown and others have only expressed concern about football.

Usually, that kind of useful feedback is derived when the logistics employed fail to meet the needs of those in distress efficiently and effectively.

Failure to meet needs of hurricane victims give rise to legit questions about resource use, those about football are a waste of time. If putting the national guard in UCF stadium is hindering their mission, we will know it without answering questions about canceling the Tech game.

No efficiancy is reviewed all the time. If i spend 30 million and could have done it for 20 million then we need to know that for the next instance.

It is reasonable to ask why certian choices were made when other options are available.

A home game is a financial boon for the home team and its community. If there was not a valid reason to choose the ucf stadium over the citrus bowl then its an issue. People play politics at terrible times, sometimes they're incompetent, sometimes they just make dumb mistakes.

The questions should be asked and answered. We may disagree with the purppse of the question but the answer will work for both purposes and both are legit reasons for inquiries, allthough only one is truely important.

First, we don't know if other options were available. The governor's office determined that the UCF stadium was the best place to stage the national guard, and you have no basis for thinking they aren't correct about that. Anger about missing a football game isn't a basis.

Second, even if choosing the UCF stadium costs the community money from a lost football game seemingly unnecessarily, because in truth, had the governor's office studied the matter a little bit more, they would have realized that another staging area could have been used that would have accomplished the same goal without losing the game, that doesn't matter either. In making the staging determination, it would be absurd to expect the governor to conduct a cost-benefit analysis of various sites, balancing these kinds of economic impacts and the needs of the guard, to select the optimal solution. In a crisis/emergency, what matters are (a) efficacy of action, and (b) speed of action, not optimal money savings. In an emergency, you act first to relive distress as fast as you can and worry about the bill later. If the governor waited two days to deploy the guard such that hurricane victims were suffering because state accountants were conducting cost-benefit analyses of alternative sites to see if they could avoid losing a football game, he would be witheringly criticized and rightly so.

I mean, the whole idea of "balancing" the needs of football fans and the economic boon of a game vs the needs of hurricane victims is absurd on its face, but that's what you seem to be advocating.

I agree that sometimes, third parties have to be active/aggressive in rooting out inefficiencies, because in a particular situation, manifestations might be too diffuse to trigger a natural correcting mechanism. That's not the case here: delivering services to hurricane victims is a high-profile endeavor, if the government screws it up it will quickly be apparent to all and media attention will zero in on it. Just ask Mayor Nagin and President Bush about Katrina.

So no, in this case, answering questions motivated by football frustration is pointless, totally non-functional. That's why nobody is even asking the questions, save for some angry UCF football fans on forums like this one.

Listen you''re very committed but your premise is wrong. We should always question the government and you have no proof that the ucf stadium was the best place to stage it. Just because the govenor said so is not a reason.

I didnt say a football game was the reason why, i said these questions need to be asked, it just so happens the answers also inform the football decision.

Your thought process is why we struggled with katrina recovery and had tons of unused wasted resources, donations that were never distributed, campers where people couldnt use them, no respurces where we actually needed them.

Efficiancy is more important than speed in a crisis. If you need water and we ship you blankets and clothing doesnt matter how fast we have those clothes there. If you need a shelter and we send you gas for a generator you dont have you're still screwed.

I get it you trust authority, thats fine. I dont, we have strict rules to check authority for a reason. The authorities should have their feet held to the fire and examined closest in a crisis.

First, the situation you describe of blankets arriving when water is needed is a problem of effectiveness, efficacy, not efficiency. Efficacy pertains to whether a need is met or not, efficiency refers to the cost incurred to meet the need. As my discussion above indicates, I think efficacy is the most important thing, because I said that in an emergency what matters most is efficacy, followed by speed. If people need water, we need to get them *water* (not blankets) as fast as possible. You, on the other hand, emphasized efficiency. You implied that it's a big problem if the national guard in Orlando is getting needy people water, but at the cost of losing the all-important football game. I correctly noted that in a crisis, the overwhelmingly important thing is to meet the need, not to worry about cost. If there's been an auto accident and someone is hemorrhaging on the street, you rush the patient to the hospital NOW, you don't let them bleed out on the sidewalk while arguing over whether the ambulance ride is going to stop traffic and cause some commuters to lose money by making them late for work.

I also made it clear that I don't "trust authority" and do think leaders should be questioned. It's just that in this case, football questioning of the governor isn't needed, because the media is already riveted to the issue of how effective the government is in meeting the needs of hurricane Irma victims. If staging the Guard at UCF stadium was a bad move in that it has hampered efforts to distribute water, we'll know as fast as it is possible to know. So asking football-motivated questions is pointless.

I mean, if someone actually asked Governor Scott in a press conference "Governor, why was the UCF stadium used as a staging area when doing so caused the cancellation of a football game"? Everyone in the room, including reporters who hate Governor Scott, would look at them like they were crazy.

How many straw mans do you want to put up? Why dont we start with the english language?

efficient
[ih-fish-uh nt]
adjective
performing or functioning in the best possible manner with the least waste of time and effort; having and using requisite knowledge, skill, and industry; competent; capable:
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/efficient

So no, i used the right word.

Second your analogy is wrong because a) we knew this was coming b)that isn't what i suggested.

What i said is if you have a badly infected finger there is no reason to cut off the whole hand, unless the doctor tells you he had no other choice.

I already addressed your fixation about the football issue. Quit looking at the trees so you can see the forrest. Football isn't a reason why its an also.

You clearly do trust authority your assumptions are always giving them the benifit of the doubt. After numerous botched natural disaster responses and at least what appears to be very workable alternatives the indication would be they didnt think this through. Is losing a game overall that big of a deal? No, not in the larger scheme. If they could have not lost a game and maintained effectiveness would that be better? Yes. If staging at the citrus was more effective and efficient and it cost them a game, is that bad? Yes, but not a high crime. If it would have been better at citrus or the fairgrounds, they lost a game, and turns out they just picked a place with no thought, is that worst? Yes, it shows a lack of planning and just throwing reaources at a problem in hope of solving it. As any good er doctor will tell you that will only lead to trouble. That is why they have protocols, multiple plans of action and triage, to be as effective and efficiant with care to achieve the best result.