Mike G wrote:Sigh, I knew I'd be accused of suburb-bashing sooner or later.
The GNR committee will review recent posts on each restaurant up for renewal, both on the renewal threads and the forum at large, and will ratify each renewal based on the consensus of the board... To determine this we look for a number of members to confirm that they continue to dine there and find the place as good as or better than 2 years ago.
Mike G wrote:Guys, the question isn't convincing me, my opinion of the restaurant is of no particular importance, the question is...The GNR committee will review recent posts on each restaurant up for renewal, both on the renewal threads and the forum at large, and will ratify each renewal based on the consensus of the board... To determine this we look for a number of members to confirm that they continue to dine there and find the place as good as or better than 2 years ago.
So it'd be nice to hear from people who don't have a drink named for them there, although as heavy as the GNR committee has come out to lay down the line on this one, hard to imagine that happening now.
Mike G wrote:Why would anyone speak up honestly at this point?
nr706 wrote:I might question whether or not Skokie Blvd is a neighborhood....
nr706 wrote:I might question whether or not Skokie Blvd is a neighborhood, but I enthusiastically support the renewal (as, apparently, many others do, too).
Santander wrote:Mike G wrote:Why would anyone speak up honestly at this point?
Free will. I don't see the conspiracy, or any fear of retribution or rebuke (from who?). Those that wish to participate can and will, regardless of what is posted before them. I don't think this is idealistic; having been observing the process for three years, and coming into it with no stakes in the board's origin or history, the GNR process is the exact opposite of suppression; it in fact does everything possible to stimulate posts, re-evaluations, and perspectives. I look forward to your posts (and everyone's) in other threads, based on firsthand data!
happy_stomach wrote: The hesitation to post is not any fear of retribution but I would say of rebuke because of the few very prominent, influential LTHers who have gotten behind PGC. I think it's quite sad that there is a much wider range of very thoughtful opinions about PGC that are not being voiced on the board.
jesteinf wrote:People should post what they think, otherwise this program is meaningless. GNR's are determined based on the feelings of the community. If the community isn't expressing itself (online), then this doesn't work.
jesteinf wrote:Is there some LTH Illuminati out there that I'm not aware of?
stevez wrote:I'd like to see any and all opinions about PGC voiced here. I think it's sad that anyone should feel that their opinions are not important enough to post. Sure, I like PGC and feel it's GNR worthy, but that doesn't mean that I don't want to hear differing viewpoints. If people who feel negatively don't speak up, the renewal of PGC is a foregone conclusion.
happy_stomach wrote:There are no individuals at fault; I just think it would serve the community and help us evolve if we more readily acknowledge 1) power dynamics that can be at play and 2) when micro-climates are created that in fact discourage open discussion.
turkob wrote:Also, it's in a fairly remote location. If it doesn't stick out as a exceptional, then most people won't make the effort.
Darren72 wrote:happy_stomach wrote:There are no individuals at fault; I just think it would serve the community and help us evolve if we more readily acknowledge 1) power dynamics that can be at play and 2) when micro-climates are created that in fact discourage open discussion.
I wonder what you are asking people to do differently here, either now or next time there is a renewal process. Can you point to a post or something that you think was not appropriate?
Mike G wrote:I have never eaten there and have no opinion one way or the other, but respect what I've heard about Stegner's approach and am eager to try Prairie Fire one of these days.
That said... there's such an undercurrent of "Well, it's good for the suburbs" in the posts by its supporters that I start to wonder. The GNRs have graded on a curve for the burbs in terms of quantity of mentions, nobody expecting Chaihanna to have as many posts as Kuma's, but they've never graded on a curve for quality based on being in the land of malls and chains-- except possibly in this one case.
Certainly with the only comparable suburban high end GNR, Vie, there's no suggestion that it is being ranked against anything other than the finest restaurants anywhere in Chicago. I don't think that's how things read here, and I think that's a serious issue for the committee to consider— in a different location with serious competition, would you take this restaurant as seriously as a contender for one of the best, most distinctive ones in the area? Or rather-- since personal feelings and ties are not what voting is supposed to be based on-- would you say that LTHers on the whole would?
happy_stomach wrote:Mike G asked a legitimate question about the nature of the discussion around PGC and suddenly he's someone who should not be speaking up because he has not eaten there.
dicksond wrote:- Regarding Steve's choice of words when he said the renewal of PGC was a "foregone conclusion," let me be clear that his point was that this is the case if none of the people with negative opinions of PGC chose to post.