Author Topic: More bad news for BCA modernisers  (Read 8298 times)

Offline Brains

  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2326
Re: More bad news for BCA modernisers
« Reply #50 on: May 07, 2020, 09:55:19 am »
There is the possibility of course that "they" just don't think this is the right arena to discuss it?

If the BCA is to modernise and have electronic voting there has to be a web based forum for debates to take place and information passed on.

(bit of text left out here)

I am by no means promoting this forum as the right one but to move forward with any degree of member representation there has to be one.

Jopo

I'm also a massive fan of this UKCaving forum - but . . . .
This is something I've suggested in the past on here. Discussions of this type really should be on BCA's own independent forum. It has one of course ( https://british-caving.org.uk/phpBB3/viewforum.php?f=4 ) but few cavers use it presently. Perhaps the answer is a drive to get the BCA forum used more?

I'd very much like to point out that I don't want to direct attention away from here (i.e. the UKCaving forum) because it's run by dedicated volunteers and is absolutely excellent. It's just that I've always thought BCA business would be most efficiently done on BCA's forum.
Techie question... Could the BCA forum be linked to appear as a "Board" on other websites - eg this one AND Darkness Below so more people of differing points of view get to see the BCA discussions, without being tied to any particular subset of cavers?

Offline Pitlamp

  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 5319
Re: More bad news for BCA modernisers
« Reply #51 on: May 07, 2020, 10:00:55 am »
That's a really good suggestion but is the Darkness Below site actually a "forum"?

Online PeteHall

  • Global Moderator
  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 1101
Re: More bad news for BCA modernisers
« Reply #52 on: May 07, 2020, 10:48:37 am »
There is the possibility of course that "they" just don't think this is the right arena to discuss it?

If the BCA is to modernise and have electronic voting there has to be a web based forum for debates to take place and information passed on.

(bit of text left out here)

I am by no means promoting this forum as the right one but to move forward with any degree of member representation there has to be one.

Jopo

I'm also a massive fan of this UKCaving forum - but . . . .
This is something I've suggested in the past on here. Discussions of this type really should be on BCA's own independent forum. It has one of course ( https://british-caving.org.uk/phpBB3/viewforum.php?f=4 ) but few cavers use it presently. Perhaps the answer is a drive to get the BCA forum used more?

I'd very much like to point out that I don't want to direct attention away from here (i.e. the UKCaving forum) because it's run by dedicated volunteers and is absolutely excellent. It's just that I've always thought BCA business would be most efficiently done on BCA's forum.

In principle your suggestion makes some sense Pitlamp, however there is a major flaw.

Discussions only take place, where there are people to join them. People visit UKC as there are a lot of cavers here and a lot of chat about things that interest us, while here, we sometimes see reports of BCA matters and discuss them. If nothing is happening on the BCA front, we continue to chat about everything else caving.

If you were to banish BCA matters to another website, I can't imagine many people would bother going there to find out if anything had happened that week.

It would be rather like saying you can't discuss surveying at The Hunters, you have to go to The Queen Vic for that, even though all the cavers are at The Hunters chatting digging, caving etc.

There are those who argue that the national caving forum should be run by the BCA. This in itself is not an entirely stupid suggestion, but rather than create a rival forum, it would make much more sense to build on what is already widely used. This would obviously be a private matter for the current owners of UKC and BCA to discuss and agree on, if that is what they wished to do.

I would however point out that it would make very little difference to the discussion, other than being directly linked to the BCA website. The same people would contribute, the same arguments would happen and doubtless, the same rules would apply.

Perhaps some people don't contribute as they don't want their political rivals to profit from their contributions? I don't know what money (if any?) UKC makes for its owners, but it is at least an incentive to keep the site functional. Under BCA control, we would either need to pay someone to run it, or rely on yet more volunteers. While I'm sure such a system could work, but I'm not convinced there would be a queu of volunteers to take on this extra work, so it would doubtless fall apart over time. I'm also not sure what benefit it would bring to cavers and I'm not sure what incentive there would be for the current owners to hand over their baby to an organisation which can't seem to get its act together... :coffee:
The distance between stupidity and genius is measured only by success.

Offline cavemanmike

  • forum star
  • ****
  • Posts: 611
  • ucet
Re: More bad news for BCA modernisers
« Reply #53 on: May 07, 2020, 10:49:59 am »
That's a really good suggestion but is the Darkness Below site actually a "forum"?
Considering they moderate your post to see if it fits their agenda before they put it up leads me to believe it's not a forum in the true sense of the word 

Offline Ed

  • menacing presence
  • **
  • Posts: 193
Re: More bad news for BCA modernisers
« Reply #54 on: May 07, 2020, 11:00:57 am »
PeteHall --- I've amended part of your post to make a far more sensible idea -----

 "It would be rather like saying you can't discuss caving at The Hunters, you have to go to The Queen Vic for that, even though all the cavers are at The Hunters chatting digging, caving etc."

 :o :spank: ::)

Offline Badlad

  • Administrator
  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 1864
Re: More bad news for BCA modernisers
« Reply #55 on: May 07, 2020, 11:07:52 am »
Pitlamp (all) - I wouldn't disagree that some BCA council business would be best discussed on a BCA forum.  Perhaps a closed one allowing council members only (we don't have one of those).  However, you are just going to get the same sorts of opinions together with the issues of moderation that you would on any forum.  Believe you me the BCA council list emails can be quite aggressive at times as Matt alludes to.  From what I can see of the BCA forum it has almost no traffic except for two people.  Those low numbers of engagement will not bring out the wider range of opinion you wish.

I think what we would all like to see is more information and positive messaging from BCA both on here and in other media.  The current discord within BCA as outlined in by recent resignation letters is so deep that it is worthy of wider public discussion by the membership.  It has gone well beyond resolving it within the core of BCA leadership.  It is members money and members have a right to know what is being done in their name and other than on this forum where else is it being brought up for discussion. 

This nearly crossed with Pete.  We do receive some income from supporters of the site but that goes to hosting, IT support and keeping data safe.  Any excess goes towards supporting conservation, student expeditions, comp prizes etc.  It is a lot of work and effort but we all do it, moderators and all, as a service to caving - a sport we love.  I would have no objection in principal to handing the site over to the BCA to run, but I would want to see some evidence that they were in a position to do a good job first.

Offline Pegasus

  • NCC
  • Administrator
  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2591
Re: More bad news for BCA modernisers
« Reply #56 on: May 07, 2020, 11:22:34 am »
There is the possibility of course that "they" just don't think this is the right arena to discuss it?

If the BCA is to modernise and have electronic voting there has to be a web based forum for debates to take place and information passed on.

(bit of text left out here)

I am by no means promoting this forum as the right one but to move forward with any degree of member representation there has to be one.

Jopo

I'm also a massive fan of this UKCaving forum - but . . . .
This is something I've suggested in the past on here. Discussions of this type really should be on BCA's own independent forum. It has one of course ( https://british-caving.org.uk/phpBB3/viewforum.php?f=4 ) but few cavers use it presently. Perhaps the answer is a drive to get the BCA forum used more?

I'd very much like to point out that I don't want to direct attention away from here (i.e. the UKCaving forum) because it's run by dedicated volunteers and is absolutely excellent. It's just that I've always thought BCA business would be most efficiently done on BCA's forum.

In principle your suggestion makes some sense Pitlamp, however there is a major flaw.

Discussions only take place, where there are people to join them. People visit UKC as there are a lot of cavers here and a lot of chat about things that interest us, while here, we sometimes see reports of BCA matters and discuss them. If nothing is happening on the BCA front, we continue to chat about everything else caving.

If you were to banish BCA matters to another website, I can't imagine many people would bother going there to find out if anything had happened that week.

It would be rather like saying you can't discuss surveying at The Hunters, you have to go to The Queen Vic for that, even though all the cavers are at The Hunters chatting digging, caving etc.

There are those who argue that the national caving forum should be run by the BCA. This in itself is not an entirely stupid suggestion, but rather than create a rival forum, it would make much more sense to build on what is already widely used. This would obviously be a private matter for the current owners of UKC and BCA to discuss and agree on, if that is what they wished to do.

I would however point out that it would make very little difference to the discussion, other than being directly linked to the BCA website. The same people would contribute, the same arguments would happen and doubtless, the same rules would apply.

Perhaps some people don't contribute as they don't want their political rivals to profit from their contributions? I don't know what money (if any?) UKC makes for its owners, but it is at least an incentive to keep the site functional. Under BCA control, we would either need to pay someone to run it, or rely on yet more volunteers. While I'm sure such a system could work, but I'm not convinced there would be a queu of volunteers to take on this extra work, so it would doubtless fall apart over time. I'm also not sure what benefit it would bring to cavers and I'm not sure what incentive there would be for the current owners to hand over their baby to an organisation which can't seem to get its act together... :coffee:

You talk a lot of sense, Pete.

We do not make any personal profit from running UKC - if I wanted to make money the very last thing I would do is buy a caving forum.

Can't speak for Tim but I absolutely would not hand over UKC to BCA at the moment.  I couldn't bear to see all the time, trouble and effort we (and the Mods/Q  :thumbsup:) have put into the forum to make it fab resource for cavers go the way of Try Caving or the current BCA Forum...would be awful.  Bad enough seeing what's happening on Council.  BCA needs strong leadership for a start....

Offline Roger W

  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2342
Re: More bad news for BCA modernisers
« Reply #57 on: May 07, 2020, 12:03:10 pm »
UKCaving is working very well at the moment.

It ain't broke and it definitely don't need "fixing"!

A big thank you to all of you who keep it going so well.
"That, of course, is the dangerous part about caves:  you don't know how far they go back, sometimes... or what is waiting for you inside."   JRR Tolkein: "The Hobbit"

Offline Pitlamp

  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 5319
Re: More bad news for BCA modernisers
« Reply #58 on: May 07, 2020, 12:17:42 pm »
UKCaving is working very well at the moment.

It ain't broke and it definitely don't need "fixing"!

A big thank you to all of you who keep it going so well.

I completely agree with Roger's sentiments here. Could I also clarify (perhaps to set Pegasus' & Badlad's minds at rest) I wasn't suggesting handing over this forum to BCA! There is much to be said for having an independent forum anyway. I use this forum a lot and I'm a big fan. I'm also eternally grateful to the two I've named above for their massive commitment to keep it running and safe.   :clap2:

Offline Pegasus

  • NCC
  • Administrator
  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2591
Re: More bad news for BCA modernisers
« Reply #59 on: May 07, 2020, 01:17:16 pm »
UKCaving is working very well at the moment.

It ain't broke and it definitely don't need "fixing"!

A big thank you to all of you who keep it going so well.

 :kiss2:

Online mikem

  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3598
  • Mendip Caving Group
Re: More bad news for BCA modernisers
« Reply #60 on: May 07, 2020, 02:21:34 pm »
Whilst the majority of stuff on the forum is great, it's not independent of the issues, as Pegasus is BCA Publications & Information Officer & Badlad is CNCC Rep. That's one reason the CSCC committee won't engage here.

Online PeteHall

  • Global Moderator
  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 1101
Re: More bad news for BCA modernisers
« Reply #61 on: May 07, 2020, 02:23:25 pm »
Whilst the majority of stuff on the forum is great, it's not independent of the issues, as Pegasus is BCA Publications & Information Officer & Badlad is CNCC Rep. That's one reason the CSCC committee won't engage here.

But they will engage with the same people in a council meeting? Not sure I follow the logic here, but I doubt logic really comes into it.
The distance between stupidity and genius is measured only by success.

Online MarkS

  • Global Moderator
  • junky
  • *****
  • Posts: 770
  • BBPC, YCC
Re: More bad news for BCA modernisers
« Reply #62 on: May 07, 2020, 02:33:20 pm »
Whilst the majority of stuff on the forum is great, it's not independent of the issues, as Pegasus is BCA Publications & Information Officer & Badlad is CNCC Rep. That's one reason the CSCC committee won't engage here.

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.

Offline Ian Adams

  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 1233
  • UCET
    • UCET Caving Club (North Wales)
Re: More bad news for BCA modernisers
« Reply #63 on: May 07, 2020, 02:43:38 pm »
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  :shrug:

Ian
A door, once opened, may be stepped through in either direction.

Online mikem

  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3598
  • Mendip Caving Group
Re: More bad news for BCA modernisers
« Reply #64 on: May 07, 2020, 02:48:43 pm »
But they will engage with the same people in a council meeting? Not sure I follow the logic here, but I doubt logic really comes into it.
Because they don't have content control over meetings, whilst they do have the means to edit posts, even if they rarely do.

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.

Online MarkS

  • Global Moderator
  • junky
  • *****
  • Posts: 770
  • BBPC, YCC
Re: More bad news for BCA modernisers
« Reply #65 on: May 07, 2020, 02:51:10 pm »
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.

I was - just not as a moderator. I think it is a much more civil place these days. :)

Anyway, back to the BCA...

Offline Pitlamp

  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 5319
Re: More bad news for BCA modernisers
« Reply #66 on: May 07, 2020, 03:13:50 pm »
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.

Online PeteHall

  • Global Moderator
  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 1101
Re: More bad news for BCA modernisers
« Reply #67 on: May 07, 2020, 03:31:35 pm »
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.

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  ;)
The distance between stupidity and genius is measured only by success.

Offline Pitlamp

  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 5319
Re: More bad news for BCA modernisers
« Reply #68 on: May 07, 2020, 03:39:19 pm »
Your first paragraph above is an interesting one Pete and has made me think.

Not sure I agree the suggestion in your final paragraph as that would favour the affluent and disadvantage those who are struggling to make ends meet - i.e. not be fair.

Online PeteHall

  • Global Moderator
  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 1101
Re: More bad news for BCA modernisers
« Reply #69 on: May 07, 2020, 03:47:32 pm »
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  :)
The distance between stupidity and genius is measured only by success.

Offline JoshW

  • obsessive maniac
  • ***
  • Posts: 388
  • WSCC, YSS
Re: More bad news for BCA modernisers
« Reply #70 on: May 07, 2020, 03:48:39 pm »
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?

Online PeteHall

  • Global Moderator
  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 1101
Re: More bad news for BCA modernisers
« Reply #71 on: May 07, 2020, 03:52:02 pm »
Same sort of thing as standing at a general election? Need to get 10% of the vote to get your fee back?
The distance between stupidity and genius is measured only by success.

Offline Pitlamp

  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 5319
Re: More bad news for BCA modernisers
« Reply #72 on: May 07, 2020, 03:55:59 pm »
Wouldn't simply raising the number of signatures needed to make a proposal valid have the effect of removing any which were "pots for rags"?

Offline Badlad

  • Administrator
  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 1864
Re: More bad news for BCA modernisers
« Reply #73 on: May 07, 2020, 04:02:16 pm »
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

Offline Pitlamp

  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 5319
Re: More bad news for BCA modernisers
« Reply #74 on: May 07, 2020, 04:07:55 pm »
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.

 :thumbsup:

 

Main Menu

Forum Home Help Search