Association Forum - Rules concerning conduct on the Forum

Assn Members Area · Join

Home.

Association Forum

Ships Store

Cruising

Racing

Technical Tips

Photo Gallery - New

Boat Search - Updated

Manuals & Brochures

Swap Meet

Links

Officer Flag Line & Staff

Bylaws & Constitution

Members Area

Join the Association

Notice:
The advice given on this site is based upon individual or quoted experience, yours may differ.
The Officers, Staff and members of this site only provide information based upon the concept that anyone utilizing this information does so at their own risk and holds harmless all contributors to this site.

Association Forum

Username:	Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

All Forums

Association Business

International Association Business

Rules concerning conduct on the Forum

New Topic

Topic Locked

Printer Friendly

Author

Topic

Page: of 2

JimB517
Past Commodore

Member Avatar

USA
3285 Posts

Initially Posted - 09/19/2008 : 11:57:47

I am in favor of keeping the General Forum a Sailing Forum, and moving discussions about membership, officers, by laws, budget, and so on to this forum.

No one is going to be banned for starting a thread in the wrong forum. However moderators may move the thread. This is common on other sites.

My reasoning is to keep our dirty laundry off the front page, we don't want to scare off new members!

I am in favor of entertaining a re-write of rule 6. If someone wants to rewrite the text and make a motion, please do so.

We have monthly officers meetings via conference call. I am in favor of opening up these meetings to the members if interested members want to call in and discuss some motion they want to bring before the board.

I work in Government and public can attend any of our meetings, it is called the "Brown Act".

Indiscipline 1978 FK SR #398

Edited by - on

Steve Milby
Past Commodore

Members Avatar

USA
5902 Posts

Response Posted - 09/19/2008 : 13:36:07

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by JimB517
 I am in favor of keeping the General Forum a Sailing Forum, and moving discussions about membership, officers, by laws, budget, and so on to this forum.

No one is going to be banned for starting a thread in the wrong forum. However moderators may move the thread. This is common on other sites.

My reasoning is to keep our dirty laundry off the front page, we don't want to scare off new members!

I am in favor of entertaining a re-write of rule 6. If someone wants to rewrite the text and make a motion, please do so.

We have monthly officers meetings via conference call. I am in favor of opening up these meetings to the members if interested members want to call in and discuss some motion they want to bring before the board.

I work in Government and public can attend any of our meetings, it is called the "Brown Act".
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I'm in favor of repealing Rule 6 in its entirety. It's absolutely unnecessary and it impairs the ability of the officers to effectively communicate with the membership about important Association business. Rule 10 empowers the Association to expel any member who engages in conduct that is detrimental to the Association. Rule 7 prohibits personal attacks. Rule 8 authorizes the suspension or revocation of forum rights as a penalty. Those rules will require members to engage in the discussion of Association business with reasonable decorum. If that is done, then the discussion of association business will not constitute "dirty laundry." If a member violates those provisions, the members' privileges can be revoked.

I fail to see how an adult discussion of a dues increase, for example, constitutes "dirty laundry" that should be hidden from view in shame. Likewise, I fail to see how an adult discussion of our treasurer's report constitutes "dirty laundry." I don't understand why our current, thoughtful, polite discussion of Rule 6 is embarrassing or shameful, or why it should be buried in a forum that few ever read. On the contrary, I think it casts our members in a very good light in the eyes of any newcomer to see us engaged in courteous, thoughtful discussion about important matters, and, if anything, we should be proud of such discussions. I don't understand how anyone can believe that it is appropriate for the officers to post important notices of Association business on the General Forum, but it is inapropriate for the members to discuss the important Association business of their association on the General Forum.

Rule 6 doesn't solve the problem that it was intended to solve, it operates to the detriment of the officers, who need to be able to communicate effectively with the members, and it deprives the members of the ability to communicate effectively with each other with regard to matters of important Association business. The rule should be repealed.

Edited by - on

stampeder
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

1608 Posts

Response Posted - 09/20/2008 : 11:59:06

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> I am in favor of keeping the General Forum a Sailing Forum, and moving discussions about membership, officers, by laws, budget, and so on to this forum.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
I agree.
And, as a general member, I would like to be able to chime in or listen in to an officer's meeting. I may want to run for office in the future and would like a taste of what it's like before I commit.

Edited by - on

piseas
Former Treasurer

Members Avatar

USA
2017 Posts

Response Posted - 09/21/2008 : 07:44:45

I also agree keeping the General Forum and all sailing forums for that matter, a forum for sailing and about sailing. Association business matters is not appropriate in this forum.
I am in favor of keeping Rule 6 as is. I do not see a need to change it but am willing to put it up to a vote by members or by the new board.
Steve A

Edited by - on

DaveR
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

USA
2015 Posts

Response Posted - 09/22/2008 : 09:15:55

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I'm in favor of repealing Rule 6 in its entirety.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Agreed. "If it's not broke, don't fix it". The amount of non sailing posts are negligible but are necessary for the majority of members to be made aware of. The only thing broke is rule #6.

Edited by - on

Dave Bristle
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

Djibouti
10005 Posts

Response Posted - 09/22/2008 : 15:36:20

I almost missed this thread... just happened to check the "dark corner" of the site. I suspect most others will miss it, too.

Edited by - on

Steve Milby
Past Commodore

Members Avatar

USA
5902 Posts

Response Posted - 09/23/2008 : 08:59:05

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by piseas
 I also agree keeping the General Forum and all sailing forums for that matter, a forum for sailing and about sailing. Association business matters is not appropriate in this forum.
I am in favor of keeping Rule 6 as is. I do not see a need to change it but am willing to put it up to a vote by members or by the new board.
Steve A
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
By their own admission, Rule 6 was adopted for the express purpose of stifling the complaints of our members. If the members are complaining, there are two ways the officers can deal with them. (1) They can fix the problems that the members are complaining about, or (2) they can make a Rule that prohibits our members from talking about their legitimate complaints on any forum other than a forum that nobody ever visits, and they can threaten to penalize our members by expelling them from the forum.

If our members are complaining, then the proper way to deal with them is number 1, above - fix the problems. The very idea that the officers should attempt to squelch dissent by threatening and intimidating our members into shutting up, or into only speaking out on a dark forum that nobody ever visits, is an idea that is not consistent with the way we do things in this country. We don't squelch dissent through intimidation. That's the way things are done in other countries, but not here.

I know the officers don't perceive themselves as being guilty of such behavior. They only see themselves as using Rule 6 to solve a problem. But, the plain truth is that it is precisely the effect of Rule 6. Rule 6 was an attempt by the officers to sweep the legitimate complaints of the members under the rug. They admitted as much.

To their great credit, the officers fixed the problems that were causing the members to complain, but they didn't stop at that. They adopted Rule 6 to squelch any future complaints by the members, regardless of whether the complaints were justified. That rule only served the self-interests of the officers, who didn't like to feel the occasional sting of justified complaints. It didn't serve the interests of the members, who ought to have a right to "petition their officers for redress of grievances," in a forum where their grievances are likely to be actually heard.

Please don't misunderstand me. I don't mean to suggest that our officers had sinister intentions, or that they have been bad officers. I believe they have served very well, but they made a very bad decision when they adopted Rule 6, and it would be nice to see either the old or new officers correct that mistake promptly, before Rule 6 has a chance to cause any more mischief.

Edited by - on

DaveR
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

USA
2015 Posts

Response Posted - 09/23/2008 : 10:36:27

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I almost missed this thread... just happened to check the "dark corner" of the site. I suspect most others will miss it, too. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

enough said .................

Edited by - on

dlucier
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

Virgin Islands (United Kingdom)
7583 Posts

Response Posted - 09/23/2008 : 12:41:39

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Steve Milby
 If the members are complaining, there are two ways the officers can deal with them. (1) They can fix the problems that the members are complaining about, or (2) they can make a Rule that prohibits our members from talking about their legitimate complaints on any forum other than a forum that nobody ever visits, and they can threaten to penalize our members by expelling them from the forum.

If our members are complaining, then the proper way to deal with them is number 1, above - fix the problems.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Steve,

What would be the proper way to "fix the problem" if members are complaining about using the General Forum to discuss association business?

Edited by - on

Champipple
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

USA
6855 Posts

Response Posted - 09/23/2008 : 14:46:02

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">6. Please use the "Member Feedback" forum or personal email to
board members to discuss forum or association issues. Complaining in other forums is inappropriate.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I wrote it, so unlike the Supreme Court who is left to interpret Jefferson, you can get the intent directly from the horse’s mouth. At the time these rules were posted the officers approved them, however I don't recall a formal vote. I said something to the effect of "I’m putting rules out there like other forums have” They looked at the rules and said sure no problem. If there was a vote, and I did not check the minutes, I don't remember it. I say this to point out that their existence, to the best of my knowledge is at the prerogative of the webmaster and shouldn’t require a vote of anyone for him to change it. The rules are there for him to manage the forum and maintain order.

The member feedback forum is monitored, or should be monitored by the association officers. It sits right above an officer’s only forum that is available for them to discuss motions and association business in between the monthly meetings and should therefore be visible to them by default. People linking to areas inside the forum beyond the main page ( http://catalina-capri-25s.org/forum/default.asp ) is something that cannot be controlled, nor should it be. People’s choice to ignore those forums should by no means constitute, imply or insinuate that the board (and again the board that put the rules up is not the one governing now) is trying to sweep anything under the rug.

As for the intent, it was to present a place to discuss association issues that are not normally considered sailing or boat related. (again – maintain a classification) In the old days ships store issues, members area problems, Mainsheet problems and more currently password problems, web errors, directory changes, membership questions, payment concerns etc. were what that forum was to be used for.

It was meant to keep these items out of the way of the true purpose of the forum, which is to exchange information about Boating, specifically sailing and more specifically sailing Catalina 25's, Catalina 250's and Capri 25's. etc.

The “complaining in other forums” part was put in specifically due to issues that were occurring at the moment. Someone thought they had nowhere else to complain (that they new of) and just blasted the association based on perceived issues. All of these were later resolved or unfounded and all could have been resolved without going off half cocked. Later that very same new member in question said if they would have known who to contact via email they would have just done it. The Association member’s forum was put in place to address issues and resolve them because of this. Not hide them. Maybe the complaining statement should have been omitted, but I really don’t think it matters. (This was by no means related to the Observer by the way)

For 22 bucks you get a forum, a mainsheet, historical information on this website, racers get a regatta (at little or no cost to the assn), cruisers have the opportunity to get dollars for a cruising event. Contrary to popular belief there isn’t a conspiracy going on here, no cover-up, no con job.

So again, purpose was to maintain some semblance of order.

The general order of things was intended at that time:

General was for anything sailing. It does not have to pertain to our boats.
C-25, 250 and Capri forums were for technical, handling, and other issues or concerns with the specific boat in question
Admiralty was a venue to provide the same for old members who now had new boats with issues that wouldn’t apply to the c25/250/Capri boats. It was specifically put in place to retain our tribal knowledge about these boats. They are starter boats for 80% of those who own them and turnover is high. This forum keeps that knowledge base in house, or at least tries to.
Racing was, you guessed it, for racing – any kind – provided the vessel or board has a sail.
Cruising - for cruising Sail or No sail (your welcome DB)
Members Forum - for things dealing with membership – not sailing related.
Officer forum - for communication between the officers

Edited by - on

John Russell
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

USA
3444 Posts

Response Posted - 09/23/2008 : 15:15:04

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Champipple
 .... It sits right above an officer’s only forum that is available for them to discuss motions and association business in between the monthly meetings and should therefore be visible to them by default. .... <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

The thing that interested me most in this was the "Officer's Forum" What that tells me is that there is a way to restrict access to a segment of the forum.

Therefore, it shouldn't be too hard (nor too expensive) to create some kind of "Member's Only" area to discuss things such as the recent unpleasantness.

BTW, I probably agree that the General Forum should be a sailing forum but, it really hasn't been much of an issue overall. Most of the non-sailing posts have been of "general" interest and really didn't fit anywhere else so...... I mean, have we really had a problem with so many non-sailing posts that sailing topics have gotten missed, overlooked, not entered?? I don't think so. So, while rules may technically been violated, was there any real negative consequence? I guess that's an argument for elimination of the rule or, maybe, just ignoring it as has been the practice.

Edited by - John Russell on 09/23/2008 15:16:45

Champipple
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

USA
6855 Posts

Response Posted - 09/23/2008 : 15:26:36

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by John Russell
 

The thing that interested me most in this was the "Officer's Forum" What that tells me is that there is a way to restrict access to a segment of the forum. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Possible, but a royal pain. Maintenance of such a table would be an utter nightmare. We did in fact look into this back during the upgrade in 05/06ish. Peoples emails aren't the same as their subscription email - if they have one - this alone causes issues. I know how difficult this is because of the utilization study I did. Forum names aren't real names. People renew at all sorts of times.

Getting someone to maintain that consistently and then getting their replacement down the road would be unrealistic.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by John Russell
 

BTW, I probably agree that the General Forum should be a sailing forum but, it really hasn't been much of an issue overall. Most of the non-sailing posts have been of "general" interest and really didn't fit anywhere else so......
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Actually John, stuff got moved out of this forum that should have stayed in there. I tend to agree with you on this regardin general interest. It still keeps it categorized as General. It still speaks for a need for an area to put this.

Edited by - Champipple on 09/23/2008 15:28:00

Dave Bristle
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

Djibouti
10005 Posts

Response Posted - 09/23/2008 : 17:38:22

Edited by - on

Steve Milby
Past Commodore

Members Avatar

USA
5902 Posts

Response Posted - 09/23/2008 : 18:12:26

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Champipple
 <blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">6. Please use the "Member Feedback" forum or personal email to
board members to discuss forum or association issues. Complaining in other forums is inappropriate.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I wrote it, so unlike the Supreme Court who is left to interpret Jefferson, you can get the intent directly from the horse’s mouth. At the time these rules were posted the officers approved them, however I don't recall a formal vote. I said something to the effect of "I’m putting rules out there like other forums have” They looked at the rules and said sure no problem. If there was a vote, and I did not check the minutes, I don't remember it. I say this to point out that their existence, to the best of my knowledge is at the prerogative of the webmaster and shouldn’t require a vote of anyone for him to change it. The rules are there for him to manage the forum and maintain order.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"> That should make it easier to get rid of Rule 6. The Association doesn't belong to the webmaster, however. Nor does the forum. They belong to the members, and any rule that he or anyone else adopts that isn't in the best interests of the members should be repealed.

How does Rule 6 help the webmaster manage the forum and maintain order? Those terms sound impressive, but they're meaningless. The caption that defines the scope of the General Forum is as follows: "This forum is suitable for all general discussions relating to either the Catalina 25, Catalina 250, and Capri 25." Everything on this website pertains to the Catalina 25, Catalina 250, and Capri 25, including this forum and the National Association and its business. Rule 6 attempts to single out any discussions of the business of the National Association and to move all those discussions to a dark corner of the forum where nobody ever goes, and imposes the ultimate penalty on any member who violates that rule. Based on what the past Commodore has told us, I'm pretty sure why the rule was adopted, but I don't really care why the officers, or the webmaster, or anyone else adopted such a rule. The reason isn't important. The plain fact remains that it is a bad rule that operates against the best interests of the members, and it should never have been adopted.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The member feedback forum is monitored, or should be monitored by the association officers. It sits right above an officer’s only forum that is available for them to discuss motions and association business in between the monthly meetings and should therefore be visible to them by default. People linking to areas inside the forum beyond the main page ( http://catalina-capri-25s.org/forum/default.asp ) is something that cannot be controlled, nor should it be. People’s choice to ignore those forums should by no means constitute, imply or insinuate that the board (and again the board that put the rules up is not the one governing now) is trying to sweep anything under the rug.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"> In our discussion on the General Forum, Jim B. said the following: <blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The purpose of the rule 6 was to prevent endless complaining, bickering, and questions about membership. These rules were adopted during my tenure as Commodore.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"> As Commodore, I believe Jim B. was privy to the discussions among the officers regarding the adoption of Rule 6, and he said it's purpose was to stifle complaints from the members, which is exactly what I have been saying.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">As for the intent, it was to present a place to discuss association issues that are not normally considered sailing or boat related. (again – maintain a classification) In the old days ships store issues, members area problems, Mainsheet problems and more currently password problems, web errors, directory changes, membership questions, payment concerns etc. were what that forum was to be used for

It was meant to keep these items out of the way of the true purpose of the forum, which is to exchange information about Boating, specifically sailing and more specifically sailing Catalina 25's, Catalina 250's and Capri 25's. etc. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"> That might have been your intent, and might have been a secondary consideration, but Past Commodore Jim B. said the intent of the officers was to stifle complaints from the members. Moreover, what leads you to believe that the "true purpose of the forum" excludes the discussion of the legitimate business of the forum by its members in the area of the forum where the members are most likely to read and participate in those discussions?

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The “complaining in other forums” part was put in specifically due to issues that were occurring at the moment. Someone thought they had nowhere else to complain (that they new of) and just blasted the association based on perceived issues. All of these were later resolved or unfounded and all could have been resolved without going off half cocked.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"> It is completely inaccurate to characterize the many complaints being made by the members at the time in that manner. The members had legitimate reasons to be complaining, and the same problems were recurring. The complaints were later resolved because Jim and the officers took it upon themselves to fix the problems that were causing the complaints. People weren't "just blasting the association based on perceived issues." They were blasting the association because the same problems were recurring, and, until that time, nobody was fixing them.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Later that very same new member in question said if they would have known who to contact via email they would have just done it. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"> Do you really mean to imply that all of the frustration that was caused by complaints from members, and that prompted the officers to adopt Rule 6 was the result of one person's complaint? Jim said Rule 6 was adopted to "prevent endless complaining, bickering, and questions about membership." Do you really mean to suggest that that one member couldn't figure out how to send an email to an officer, and it never occurred to any of the officers to tell him how to do so, and if they had done so, the officers wouldn't have felt a need to adopt Rule 6?

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The Association member’s forum was put in place to address issues and resolve them because of this. Not hide them.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"> I think it's fine that a Members' Forum was created to give the members a specific place where they can go to register a complaint. There should be such a place. But, that doesn't explain why somebody went still further, and attempted to prohibit any discussion of Association business on the other Forums, and why they were so adamant about it that they subjected any violator to the ultimate penalty that they could impose on our forum - expulsion. In order for the officers to be so heavy-handed in dealing with our members, surely they must have had a more compelling reason than simply to preserve the purity of our General Forum for sailing issues. I believe their purpose was exactly what Jim said it was, i.e., to "prevent endless complaining, bickering, and questions about membership." (to stifle complaints)

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">For 22 bucks you get a forum, a mainsheet, historical information on this website, racers get a regatta (at little or no cost to the assn), cruisers have the opportunity to get dollars for a cruising event. Contrary to popular belief there isn’t a conspiracy going on here, no cover-up, no con job.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"> I agree. The Association is a bargain. I don't believe there's a conspiracy, or cover up or a con job ( well, maybe there is a little bit of a con in the attempt to justify Rule 6). I believe Rule 6 is a bad rule that operates to the detriment of the members. I can't say it any more plainly.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">So again, purpose was to maintain some semblance of order.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Do you mean you want to have a place for everything, and everything in its place? That's OK if we're organizing an office, but it has no relevance to this forum, where the desire for logical neatness is overridden by the need for the members to be able to communicate among themselves in the most effective manner with regard to the business of their National Association.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The general order of things was intended at that time.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Likewise, the desire for logical order is overridden by the need for the members to be able to communicate among themselves in the most effective manner with regard to the business of their National Association.

Edited by - on

Champipple
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

USA
6855 Posts

Response Posted - 09/23/2008 : 19:31:57

I think I will go back to keeping my mouth shut on matters where my membership status is not impacted, as I should have done in this case. I just thought hearing straight from the author would be of some assistance. Obviously you have your mind made up and hearing the truth doesn't matter if it isn't your version thereof.

I'll drop this here and agree to disagree. I'm sure mr. observer is eating this S#!t up anyway. The fact of the matter is it really doesn't matter. remove the sticky from that post and it falls back into oblivion and no one is the wiser.

In closing (and then I'm not replying here), opening a specific channel to indicate the best or most effective way to communicate is a fairly standard thing. Customer Service Lines, Sales Departments, Help Desks, Opening the bridge, hailing a ship in a channel...There is a specific place for that communication.

Would you want to put your SOS out on 9 or 23?

Edited by - Champipple on 09/23/2008 19:33:28

Dave Bristle
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

Djibouti
10005 Posts

Response Posted - 09/23/2008 : 21:56:17

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Champipple
 Would you want to put your SOS out on 9 or 23?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">Interesting analogy... Of course you put a Mayday out on 16, because that's where everybody is. You could pick 22A instead, and only the Coasties would hear you--not a single boat in your area.

By the way, the forum is called Member Feedback. I always took that to be a place to report a problem or post a question that some officer or the webmaster would take note of, and never assumed anyone else would notice. I've used it once or twice for that purpose, and the result was as I expected. I probably would have started the Back button thread on the Member Feedback forum--Paul would probably respond and nobody else would notice. Since somebody else started it in General, it got quite a discussion. But is it illegal?

Edited by - on

dlucier
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

Virgin Islands (United Kingdom)
7583 Posts

Response Posted - 09/23/2008 : 21:58:21

I find it truly amazing how the volunteers to this association, who are practically begged to run for office in the first place, keep from saying, "I don't need this $hit!".

Edited by - on

Dave Bristle
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

Djibouti
10005 Posts

Response Posted - 09/23/2008 : 22:39:38

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by dlucier
 "I don't need this $hit!".<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">So, a discussion of some arbitrary rules that include grounds for expulsion of members and were never voted on by anybody should not be allowed even in the "dark corner" of the site that's supposedly designated for such discussions?

Edited by - on

dlucier
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

Virgin Islands (United Kingdom)
7583 Posts

Response Posted - 09/23/2008 : 23:06:45

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Dave Bristle
 <blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by dlucier
 "I don't need this $hit!".<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">So, a discussion of some arbitrary rules that include grounds for expulsion of members and were never voted on by anybody should not be allowed even in the "dark corner" of the site that's supposedly designated for such discussions?

Edited by - on

Dave Bristle
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

Djibouti
10005 Posts

Response Posted - 09/24/2008 : 08:57:27

Don, nobody challenged Duane's "veracity" (truthfulness). In fact, I am impressed by his veracity--he took us through what by his admission was a somewhat arbitrary reaction to some particular events. To me, he so much as says, "That's what happened and what we did then--if the association disagrees now, do it differently."

Steve, in the style of the lawyer he is, is dissecting the arguments for keeping association discussions in a separate forum, and presenting his responses to them. I suspect Jim is doing what he planned to do when he started this discussion--sitting back and listening. (...or going sailing.) This is simple Democracy 101: If we can't have a discussion like this anywhere, then we can't have an association. If we have to have it in a dark corner, the association is endangered.

Edited by - Dave Bristle on 09/24/2008 08:58:14

Steve Milby
Past Commodore

Members Avatar

USA
5902 Posts

Response Posted - 09/24/2008 : 09:51:01

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Discussion? More like a tirade.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to sense the frustration in Duane's post as he tries to defend his intent while his veracity is being challenged.

This thread further illustrates why it shouldn't be on the General Sailor's Forum, they never lead to good places. Case in point...John G!
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Are we a bunch of children here? Duane knows how much I have respected his contributions to the Association through the years. The same is certainly true for Jim B, and should be true for you and others, Don. We've all been wearing our big boy's pants for many years, and we ought to be able to disagree on important issues involving the operation of the business of this association and the rights of our members without getting personal about it. The fact that I might disagree with your thinking doesn't imply that I don't respect you as a person and a member of the Association.

Apparently, John G. now agrees with me on some issues, but there's a big difference between me and John G. He has turned his disagreements into personal vendettas. I try to avoid personal issues, and respect the fact that other people see things differently, but I try to use reason and logic to bring people over to my way of thinking. I don't try to vilify the people with whom I disagree. Occasionally during this discussion, others have tried to vilify me, and I have defended myself, but I have made every effort to avoid personal confrontations. Rather than counter-attack them and embarrass them publicly, I have contacted them by private email and resolved the matters one-on-one, in the hope that there will be no residue of hard feelings.

Duane recounted the facts as he remembers and perceives them. I remember them and perceive them differently. It isn't unusual for people to have different perceptions of the same facts. That doesn't mean that either of us is fabricating the facts. It's just typical human behavior. In attempting to sort through the facts, I pointed out that some of Duane's recollections weren't consistent with other, known facts, or were illogical. He was free to do the same, or to defend his statements. He hasn't.

I wouldn't be making such an issue of Rule 6, if I wasn't convinced that it will be the source of much future mischief for the members of the Association. I have tried to reason with the officers, but they don't seem to be moved by my reasoning. I can understand that, because Rule 6 serves the interests of the officers in avoiding meaningful disagreements with the members. Rule 6 does not serve any significant interest of the members, unless you are committed to the notion that the "purity" of the General Forum should be preserved for sailing, even at the expense of the members' ability to freely discuss the Association's important business in the most conspicuous area of the forum.

Since the officers do not seem to be persuadable, I am taking my case directly to the members, in an effort to persuade them to repeal Rule 6. When it was suggested that the discussion be moved to the Member Feedback forum, I refused to agree, because that would bury the discussion in a place where many members would not participate in the discussion.

Yesterday, in an email correspondence, I was asked to engage in a moratorium on discussing the issue, until the new officers could consider it at one of their first meetings. Why would I stop talking about this issue now? A number of the members who have been silently following this discussion are starting to understand my reasoning, and are now beginning to express their support for my position. Dave Bristle now understands my reasoning and is supporting my position. It is my hope that a groundswell of members will overwhelm any resistance that the officers might have to the repeal of Rule 6, and leave the officers with no alternative but to repeal it. It's a bad rule, and it doesn't serve the interests of our members.

For the past two days, the members have been engaged in a discussion on the General Forum captioned: "Has Anyone Noticed?" That discussion has nothing to do with "sailing." It is about the problem with our forum's browser, that is requiring us to double-click the "back" button in order to navigate. That discussion violates Rule 6, and the people participating in it can all be expelled from the forum. Some of the very people who support Rule 6 are participating in that discussion. If that doesn't set people to thinking, I don't know what it would take. How can anyone justify a rule that would, on its face, expel our members for talking about a flaw in the forum's browser, merely because they're talking on the General Forum?

Edited by - on

dlucier
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

Virgin Islands (United Kingdom)
7583 Posts

Response Posted - 09/24/2008 : 09:53:32

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Dave Bristle
 Don, nobody challenged Duane's "veracity" (truthfulness).<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Dave,

Now I'm not an attorney, but if Jim B says, "It was not meant to stifle open and constructive dialog on the General Forum, nor to prevent threads about elections, discussion of rules, or talk about the budget."

and Steve Milby later says, "As Commodore, I believe Jim B. was privy to the discussions among the officers regarding the adoption of Rule 6, and he said it's purpose was to stifle complaints..."

then someone's not being entirely truthful. Did Jim B say, "it's purpose was to stifle complaints" or not? If he did, then he covered his tracks very well because I can't find it anywhere.

Anyway, if the intent of the officers was to, as Steve says, to "stifle the complaints" of the members, then Steve is living proof that it has been an abysmal failure.

I won't even pretend I can verbally spar with Steve, he would eat me alive and spit me out. Heck, he could probably convince me to sell my sailboat and buy a stinkpot.

Edited by - on

Steve Milby
Past Commodore

Members Avatar

USA
5902 Posts

Response Posted - 09/24/2008 : 11:00:55

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by dlucier
 <blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Dave Bristle
 Don, nobody challenged Duane's "veracity" (truthfulness).<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Dave,

Now I'm not an attorney, but if Jim B says, "It was not meant to stifle open and constructive dialog on the General Forum, nor to prevent threads about elections, discussion of rules, or talk about the budget."

and Steve Milby later says, "As Commodore, I believe Jim B. was privy to the discussions among the officers regarding the adoption of Rule 6, and he said it's purpose was to stifle complaints..."

then someone's not being entirely truthful. Did Jim B say, "it's purpose was to stifle complaints" or not? If he did, then he covered his tracks very well because I can't find it anywhere.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"> Don, JimB made the statement himself, on September 18, at 6:07 pm in the "Financial report" thread on the General Forum. In his exact words, he said:

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The purpose of the rule 6 was to prevent endless complaining, bickering, and questions about membership. These rules were adopted during my tenure as Commodore when we spent $3500 of your money and did the forum redesign.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I took the liberty of changing the word "prevent" to "stifle." In Wikipedia, the word "stifle" is defined as follows:

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Stifle can mean: To suffocate; To prevent from speaking or to prevent a view being heard. See free speech, gag and gagging.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Thus, I quoted and paraphrased Jim's statement accurately.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Anyway, if the intent of the officers was to, as Steve says, to "stifle the complaints" of the members, then Steve is living proof that it has been an abysmal failure.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"> Actually, I'm very content with the way the forum is working, and the way the Association's business is being conducted. You haven't seen me nit-picking the officers with petty complaints. In fact, whenever the officers are "attacked," I can usually be counted upon to come to their defense. My sole problem at this time is with Rule 6, which is a badly misguided attempt on their part to solve a problem that they have already solved with other Rules, and now, for reasons I don't understand, they are so invested in Rule 6 that they can't let it go.

Edited by - on

Sea Trac
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

Vanuatu
1357 Posts

Response Posted - 09/24/2008 : 11:25:22

To be fair to the current slate of officers, whose tenure ends September 30th, I don't believe I've read a single response from one of them on this issue. If I were a lame duck officer, no offense intended, I would leave the decision to the incoming slate of officers to discuss and decide during their first monthly meeting in October. Like so many things in life, this issue seems to be getting blown completely out of proportion to its importance.

Edited by - on

Dave Bristle
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

Djibouti
10005 Posts

Response Posted - 09/24/2008 : 11:27:47

Isn't it interesting how attempts to limit or hide disagreements just create more disagreements, particularly when the disagreements are over whether to limit or hide disagreements.

Edited by - on

dlucier
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

Virgin Islands (United Kingdom)
7583 Posts

Response Posted - 09/24/2008 : 11:34:29

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Steve Milby
 Don, JimB made the statement himself, on September 18, at 6:07 pm in the "Financial report" thread on the General Forum. In his exact words, he said:

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The purpose of the rule 6 was to prevent endless complaining, bickering, and questions about membership. These rules were adopted during my tenure as Commodore when we spent $3500 of your money and did the forum redesign.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I took the liberty of changing the word "prevent" to "stifle."

Thus, I quoted and paraphrased Jim's statement accurately.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Steve,

I not sure if you are paraphrasing Jim's statement accurately.

In taking the liberty of changing the word "prevent" to "stifle" then paraphrasing his quote to read, "to stifle complaints" you omitted a very important word in his direct quote, "endless".

The purpose of the rule 6 was to prevent endless complaining, bickering, and questions about membership. These rules were adopted during my tenure as Commodore when we spent $3500 of your money and did the forum redesign.

When the word "endless" is omitted, the meaning is dramatically affected as to Jim's perceived intentions.

I believe his intent was, as Jim stated, to prevent endless complaining not to "stifle complaints" altogether?

Edited by - on

Page: of 2

Topic

New Topic

Topic Locked

Printer Friendly

Jump To:

Association Forum

Notice: The advice given on this site is based upon individual or quoted experience, yours may differ.
The Officers, Staff and members of this site only provide information based upon the concept that anyone utilizing this information does so at their own risk and holds harmless all contributors to this site.