Got a minute for a Chimborazo Playground survey?

Good idea

John Murden, I’ve liked chpn over the years, continue to read, and repost positive threads on facebook, etc, however, I, for the most part, stop participating in conversations b/c at times they have gotten right scary and ugly. No doubt, if people had to post their names with their comments, they would be hesitant to indulge in such nastiness. I have found threads hosting good, intelligent debates out there where identity is made known. I choose to follow those and comment.

As someone who made a joking post under my real name on the FOCP Facebook page only to be stunned that people took it dead seriously, I think everything has just gone too far. Petanque players, you have demonstrated on a regular basis that you do not need four courts. No one is saying “DESTROY the petanque courts,” only “you don’t need four courts.” I love the idea of a sprinkler park, I’d be out there with bells on playing in the water with the kids (and big kids!). Let this be a park that everyone can use. Stop being stubborn and let’s compromise!

#10, sprinkler court is a great idea, you would not have to alter too much, drainage fixed, The petanque folks get what they want, the community kids and familes get what they want.

Survey rigging and questionable handling practices of its members by the Facebook’s user group “Users of Chimborazo Park” leadership has created questions whether this privately handled Facebook page is really the avenue to engage in public discourse about the playground in the wider community.

In the survey, you are supposed to rank the priorities you would like the city to make. But, there is one priority that is out of date. This priority is the restoration of the petanque courts. If a newcomer chooses the obsolete priority as the highest ranking, then the survey will be rigged against them. In addition, a newcomer would be receiving misinformation, and could affect their behaviour on how they perceive the condition and availability of the petanque courts in the future.

The other problem is that the obsolete choice separates the responses to easily identifiable groups between people who play petanque and those who do not by the nature of having an obsolete priority that has been the focus of conflict in the park.

Lets look at the current petanque players, they see that the restoration is still there for the petanque courts, and feel an obligation to include it. In effect, a petanque player that chooses the obsolete priority relinquishes their right to have the rest of the priorities carry the same weight as someone else who does not play petanque.

If the survey had collected any demographics such as age groups, I would guess that there would be older age groups missing from the representation of the highest priorities and over representation of lower priorities. Having a purposely obsolete priority has the affect of rigging the results of the survey against the targeted group who would be most likely to choose it.

On their Facebook page, they claim that the group is an “open group,” in that anyone can see the group, who’s in it, and what members post,” but it’s up to the discretion and whim of the owner of the page Curt Fritts, to decide who can post and who cannot. The purpose of the group has not changed since it was formed to be a collective bargaining unit (as I see it) – which is their right, to a group that now claims impartiality.

The survey by this group is conveyed and misrepresented to be entirely anonymous and a step towards working together, but the survey itself conveys an entirely different story – and a much more accurate one on what this Facebook group is all about.

Thank you, Matt for your feedback.

1) Each item is independent of others is exactly how I filled out the survey. But, if you think about – if everyone filled out the same highest ranking to each of the priorities – the survey would not provide any useful data. I realized this after I filled out my survey. When I re-read the survey and realized that it wasn’t a rating you were asking for but a ranking. I joined and expressed to you on your facebook page that the responses did not enforce any kind of ranking requirement..and your response did not indicate that they were independent of each other. If all the rankings are independent of each other, I can’t imagine any useful information that would come from this survey. Except that you would still be able to see 2 identifiable groups on a survey that claims anonymity.

You asked if I could help with the survey, and I did not respond. The reason is because in order to join your facebook page, I have to associate with a page that has maligned a sport and its players at the playground. Why then, am I forced to join a group that views me differently because of a sport I happen to play at the park? Even now, I look at your mission statement and would never agree in principle to join, because it maligns and slanders a sport that I enjoy playing. Then it has the audacity to say “this group has no animosity toward ….This is why this is a public group and they are included,” in your mission statement. Notice the word, “they” when referring to a sport that encourages people from all walks of life? A sport that closed New York City streets down because of its growing popularity. A sport that is played all over the world. A sport that can be played by the young, disabled, old, and is culturally familiar to engage people including immigrants and new Americans? Sheer strength does not make you better. Luck has a lot to do with it, especially for beginners, and skill develops along side. Everyone can play – and be engaged no matter what the skill level. You can have a wide range of skill and have a very challenging game all the same.

It’s not to say that your group is bad, it’s evident that many of you feel powerless to the petanque players for whatever reason. This group gives you leverage at the negotiation table. That is totally cool, as long as you get your power back at the negotiating table and not at the expense of the petanque players themselves.

My impression of people that are against petanque, is that they don’t want anyone outside their ethnic background to play the park. It’s strikes me as xenophobic. I could start a Facebook page to protest against the “Users of Chimborazo Park that are xenophobic.” It is my opinion and like you, I have the right. Just because a page is created on Facebook, doesn’t make it fact, it’s just people who have the same opinion.

2) You’re the second person in your group to claim that I don’t know how facebook works, except you are a little more polite about it. But, in spite of the accusation – neither of you have explained or made any efforts to inform me what I do not understand. Here though is what I do know:

When I was engaged in a discussion on your page. I was thrown off. After I refreshed the screen, I was no longer able to post comments because my membership was dropped.. A removal of a membership can only occur voluntarily or by an owner or admin of the Facebook group. Curt Fritts and I were debating whether I should be on this group since I did not agree with their principles as I understood them.
I invited him to throw me off,and seeing how my screen turned white and then after a refreshing it, I was no longer a member – I supposed Curt did exactly that. He also said that I didn’t know how facebook worked.

Another problem with these private facebook pages, is that after you kick someone out, the leadership doesn’t claim any accountability for the action. There was no notification to the the members that I was engaged with, that I was kicked out and could no longer respond to their postings, although I could read them. Without this knowledge, the members could misread the situation, by seeing that I stopped posting and assuming that I had lost interest.

Perhaps, I could have begged to join again, but how could I do this without compromising my integrity? I decided since there is no avenue to express myself internally to this group, I would have to go outside and express it. We are lucky to have such media outlets in our community that allows us the freedom to express ourselves and I am truly grateful for it.

Why should any of the targeted members of just one club that uses the petanque courts be intimidated to admit wrongdoing without evidence of an audit, investigation, or trial? Have they been proven guilty by any credible sources? If so, can you provide it?

You are making unsubstantiated accusations against a single club under a hidden identity. Your actions are as cowardly as the City Officials who are hiding behind a group on Facebook that seem to have carte blanche permission to spread false accusations against one sport club. On the other side, you have succeeded in intimidating sport club by creating a hateful atmosphere in the park itself towards your targeted club. At least one Petanque player has felt physically in danger while playing there. I hold the City Officials responsible for the atmosphere of the City Park because of their support of a Facebook group that is hateful towards a group of people who play a sport they do not understand or know.

I have never seen such a concerted effort to destroy and/or damage the reputation of one single sport club and/or the individuals associated with it with such brazen abandon without any concern of consequences by use of defamation, libel, and slander without justification by one iota of evidence. Not only that, you claim that the 4 pentaque courts are “bad planning,” I do not agree. Are families that come out to play on the petanque courts not considered a family in your community? Are the clubs of bocci players that use the petanque courts not part of your community? Is this really about just one club, if you are against the number of petanque courts? What about other petanque clubs?

Here is the definition of Defamation, Libel, and Slander according to the http://www.expertlaw.com site:

Typically, the elements of a cause of action for defamation lawsuite include:
1. A false and defamatory statement concerning another;
2. The unprivileged publication of the statement to a third party (that is, somebody other than the person defamed by the statement);
3. If the defamatory matter is of public concern, fault amounting at least to negligence on the part of the publisher; and
4. Damage to the plaintiff.

1) Members in the “Users for Chimborazo Park” Facebook group have made false and defamatory statements concerning an existing sport club and associated members and the sport itself. The libel is plainly included in their published mission statement. This mission statement can be seen by members and non-members alike who have access to the internet.

2) Members in the “Users for Chimborazo Park” Facebook group have made false and hateful statements and accusations towards a targeted group to the public since anyone can read what members post. Further, a condition of being part of this group (the privilege of being able to post comments) is that you consider the hateful opinion expressed as fact. Existing members have an implicit agreement with the statement. Members who know the difference between fact and opinion are assumed not be on this list. A member that states that they don’t agree with its hateful mission will be kicked off the group and no longer be able to post comments.

3) Members in the “Users for Chimborazo Park” Facebook group include people that have no history or knowledge of what happened in the past to make their own judgements and will read the defamatory and libelous statements as fact because they have no other information available to them otherwise.

4) The scapegoating that has been endorsed by and therefore given credibility by City Officials has not only seriously damaged the reputation of the targeted club’s sport but the individuals that are associated with it. Identifiable photos of individuals have been posted on their Facebook page in context of what is wrong with Chimborazo Playground. The sport of petanque in Richmond has been seriously damaged as a result of the misinformation provided by the Facebook group that could affect future attendance, popularity, and other tournaments and promotions as a result. The effect will potentially sabotage previous investments made by the City of Richmond.

In giving this Facebook group credibility and interfering with democratic processes, City Officials appear to be abusing their discretionary funding to this playground as an exchange to absolve themselves of responsibility and accountability of past costly mistakes such as shoddy construction work on petanque courts that had to be redone as a result of poor draining. http://www.transparency.org defines abuse of discretion to be one of the many definitions of political corruption. This usually occurs, according to http://www.transparency.org when there are few oversights or accountability structures present.

There is evidence, in my view of one sport club being unduly intimidated, and the Facebook group being emboldened at the same time. This doesn’t benefit the park or either group, but it most certainly benefits City Officials, who would like to be not accountable for past mistakes. This cycle if left unchecked will destroy the park and undo the good work, financial investments that has been made to this date.

The “Users of Chimborazo Park, ” made the group even more hostile after my attempts to defend myself and against the targeted sport club by publishing libel statements against the targeted club at the top of their page serving as their mission statement.

I hope my actions, will not result in further retaliation against the targeted club, than what has already occurred. Although, I do fear the corruption of City Officials have put the targeted club at serious risk. I hope the City of Richmond will take the responsibility to protect the club and the individuals targeted and take needed measures so that we can have our democracy back in our parks.

@Dear Neighbor:

I myself rent a garden plot from the playground. Many members of the Facebook group we created are also gardeners in the playground. Also, many members of the group have family, and joined the group so that they could ensure family/children safety are considered.

I also urge you to JOIN so that you can include your thoughts and become a part of the community discussion.

In fact, the only activity group I am aware of that HAS NOT joined the group are petanque players. However, they did join us for a meeting a few months back, and it was a very peaceful, pleasant discussion.

Are you concerned that improving the basketball courts will increase crime in the playground? Bring it to the group and we can discuss this!

Amy – your input was received and parts included in the survey. Please keep in mind that we also previewed the survey to the group 2 weeks prior so that feedback could be included and changes could be made prior to distributing.

Our goal with the group is exactly as one thing you stated – “make the park a nice place for people of all socioeconomic, age, and ethnic/racial backgrounds.”

The only instance of disgusting chatter I am aware of on the FB group is relative to Eileen Murphy’s comments. Her approach can often times be very offensive. I think the group has done quite well otherwise of being very respectful, and polite to all groups.

The perception that we are “hating” on Friends of Chimbo is not far off. This FB group was formed because many felt that the Friends of Chimbo did not do a very good job of representing all users of the park. This is why we have 122 members and counting. Your ideas for a water splash area are brilliant, and I think we should absolutely bring this to the next meeting!

Matt and Curtis, I think you’ve done a pretty good job of tempering some of the other comments and you’ve certainly done a great job of communicating with Larry. However, the survey really should have included usage and demographic data. (I was on vacation during the comment period). Nonetheless, I continue to read comments that are disparaging to Petanque Players (i.e. “shame works”) or that are negatively directed towards the “Friends” who were the first people to get things moving in a positive direction. Many people in the group and those filling out the survey are interested in their own narrow niche, I live in a historic, economically and racially diverse neighborhood in part so that I don’t have to just hang around with other people like me.

Keep in the mind, the purpose of this survey wasn’t to determine future development of the park. We’re asking each survey participant to simply rank importance of the remaining work items to be completed. That way, we could communicate to Larry what the community would like to see fixed first.

I don’t think we need to know who is black or white, old or young, for this purpose.

A ‘smoke screen’ to deflect the primary issue here…minority is holding the majority hostage with a ‘tax dollar wasted’ development that the majority do not want, did not approve and are now burdened with.