More bad news for BCA modernisers
- Thread starter Badlad
- Start date
MarkS
Moderator
mikem said:
This perception is a real shame. The owners (and moderators etc.) presumably all have views on issues discussed here, and this would be the case whoever owned/ran a caving forum, BCA or otherwise. The important thing is not who owns the forum, or who moderates it. It is whether people are welcome to put forward their views here, and anyone who does so within the forum acceptable use policy is welcome to do so.
Since becoming a moderator I have never seen any moderation (or any other decision else for that matter) based on anything other than these rules.
Ian Adams
Active member
The BCA has no dominion over UKc or the right (offered by the forum owners) of visitors to read posts and/or make contributions. There is no apparent justifiable argument to concede UKcaving to "A.N.Other forum" based on some people choosing not to avail themselves of this one.
Back on topic .....
I can see there is a conflated argument against simply voting down the CSCC/Cookie proposals at the next meeting but I cannot understand it ... is there a "simple" explanation as to why that action is not practical to defeat the proposals?
Apologies if I am being a bit dim
Ian
Back on topic .....
I can see there is a conflated argument against simply voting down the CSCC/Cookie proposals at the next meeting but I cannot understand it ... is there a "simple" explanation as to why that action is not practical to defeat the proposals?
Apologies if I am being a bit dim
Ian
Because they don't have content control over meetings, whilst they do have the means to edit posts, even if they rarely do.PeteHall said:
MarkS - you should have been here when it was run by UKClimbing, quite a few of the protagonists were & it could be quite nasty then.
Ian - I don't think there's any argument about members being able to vote against the proposals, but some people suggested that further blocking of progress is likely to follow.
Pitlamp
Well-known member
Trying to step back from current issues of obvious concern - and trying to think from a disinterested perspective (admittedly difficult) . . .
One advantage of BCA business being discussed on a BCA forum is that a simple password system can be used to ensure that only BCA members participate. Although I can see a reasonable argument that this may not be universally advantageous, I suspect the pros would outweigh the cons.
Another tiny niggle in my brain is that I think (but I'm not sure) that one or two folk who might otherwise participate in this healthy discussion have been banned from this forum. I've no wish to explore why this happened here and I've also no wish to suggest here that this wasn't the right thing to do. (I honestly don't know the details of the circumstances and I'm not asking.) But if they're BCA members and they're excluded because of a different forum's rules that means they then can't exercise their right to participate in the discussion as a BCA member. That would then leave BCA open to criticism and potentially cause bigger problems further down the line.
It was mentioned above that very few people currently use the BCA forum. But this just flags up the challenge of encouraging folk to use it in parallel with this one. It doesn't mean the BCA forum shouldn't be used.
I really don't want to rock the boat folks; I'm just trying to think outside the proverbial box. I still think it would be better for everybody if BCA's forum is where BCA business is done.
One advantage of BCA business being discussed on a BCA forum is that a simple password system can be used to ensure that only BCA members participate. Although I can see a reasonable argument that this may not be universally advantageous, I suspect the pros would outweigh the cons.
Another tiny niggle in my brain is that I think (but I'm not sure) that one or two folk who might otherwise participate in this healthy discussion have been banned from this forum. I've no wish to explore why this happened here and I've also no wish to suggest here that this wasn't the right thing to do. (I honestly don't know the details of the circumstances and I'm not asking.) But if they're BCA members and they're excluded because of a different forum's rules that means they then can't exercise their right to participate in the discussion as a BCA member. That would then leave BCA open to criticism and potentially cause bigger problems further down the line.
It was mentioned above that very few people currently use the BCA forum. But this just flags up the challenge of encouraging folk to use it in parallel with this one. It doesn't mean the BCA forum shouldn't be used.
I really don't want to rock the boat folks; I'm just trying to think outside the proverbial box. I still think it would be better for everybody if BCA's forum is where BCA business is done.
PeteHall
Moderator
mikem said:
I think this is the point. And perhaps even the point Cookie and co. are trying to make. The new rules mean everything goes to a public vote if it gets a base level of support, so there is nothing stopping any individual and 10 of their mates submitting hundreds of proposals, then voting for them and overwhelming the BCA business while frustrating the membership. Perhaps they are trying to demonstrate that the new system has its problems?
Rather than working together to make the system work, this seems to be an attempt to prove the system doesn't work. While the proposals will almost certainly be voted down at a national ballot, do we really want to keep going to a national ballot, just because a handful of members have an axe to grind?
Currently, there is nothing to stop anyone holding the BCA hostage, by overwhelming the agenda with crap and forcing a national ballot to clear it out again, only to do the same thing again.
Perhaps there should be a fee to submit a proposal to and AGM. Enough to put off casual trouble-makers, but small enough not to inhibit an individual or club making a genuine proposal. ?10 would probably be about right. You'd think twice about submitting half a dozen pointless proposals if it cost you ?60! Maybe I'll submit this as a proposal
JoshW
Well-known member
PeteHall said:I would have thought, that any member with a decent proposal would be able to find enough support from fellow cavers, or their club to cover a small fee, but would likely receive no such support for a dozen crap proposals designed to upset progress. One would hope so at least
maybe the fee would be returned for proposals that got put through or are at least close to getting through?
In reply to Pitlamp some posts back... I can't keep up
BCA council meetings and BCA AGMs are where BCA business is done. An officer ignoring the will of an AGM and the instruction of council is, in part, the reason we are discussing it all here. There are very few mediums where such issues, which ultimately effect all of us, can be discussed. BCA council has an email list where more private discussions can take place or views explained but few council members use that medium. I can tell you that none of the CSCC motions have been further explained to council members by any medium, nor do I think they will be. The intention appears to be purely disruptive.
Let's just make it clear, very few people are banned from this forum. There are over 6000 BCA members and I guess about four of them are banned. I suspect they would be banned from any forum if they behaved like they did on here. I'll give you one example of why a person might be banned - making very rude and unsubstantiated remarks about the sexual orientation of a prominent caving landowner. That sort of thing will get you banned. Those few people aren't banned because of their views they are banned because of the way they have behaved. Trying to suggest that people are banned because of their views panders to the belief that they aren't allowed to speak themselves. From the point of view of a moderator I think MarkS has put it succinctly in his post above. Cheers
BCA council meetings and BCA AGMs are where BCA business is done. An officer ignoring the will of an AGM and the instruction of council is, in part, the reason we are discussing it all here. There are very few mediums where such issues, which ultimately effect all of us, can be discussed. BCA council has an email list where more private discussions can take place or views explained but few council members use that medium. I can tell you that none of the CSCC motions have been further explained to council members by any medium, nor do I think they will be. The intention appears to be purely disruptive.
Let's just make it clear, very few people are banned from this forum. There are over 6000 BCA members and I guess about four of them are banned. I suspect they would be banned from any forum if they behaved like they did on here. I'll give you one example of why a person might be banned - making very rude and unsubstantiated remarks about the sexual orientation of a prominent caving landowner. That sort of thing will get you banned. Those few people aren't banned because of their views they are banned because of the way they have behaved. Trying to suggest that people are banned because of their views panders to the belief that they aren't allowed to speak themselves. From the point of view of a moderator I think MarkS has put it succinctly in his post above. Cheers
NewStuff
New member
The kicker is if I can watch my gob enough to stay, then getting banned is a real trick to manage. People should be, and are, free to say what you want, but that comes with consequences. I've had more than a few spells on moderation on this site, and I hold directly opposing views to a few banned members. If I get gobby, I promise you, mods and owners have zero issue telling me to watch what I am saying, or edit the more colourful parts of my post.
Pitlamp said:Sorry Badlad, I honestly hadn't wanted to start looking at old skeletons in cupboards.
I'll shut up for a bit and let you catch up with yourself.
I'm only keen to dispel a myth even if it wasn't directly put. Please keep on posting as your contributions are always interesting to read.
royfellows
Well-known member
Re NewStuff. If he has something to say about you, he says it to your face rather than go behind your back and try to get a knife in.
I have a lot of respect for people like that.
I have a lot of respect for people like that.
