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.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by dlucier</i> <br />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 <i>endless </i> complaining not to "stifle complaints" altogether? <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></font id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
When Jim used the word "endless," he was obviously trying to say that there were <u>a lot of</u> complaints. I <u>quoted Jim's exact statement</u>, and then paraphrased it for my convenience in stating my position, and, if you didn't like the way I paraphrased it, you could refer to <u>his exact statement</u>. My statement was full, complete and fair to Jim. I'm not going to quibble over exactly what he <u>meant</u>, because it doesn't really matter what he <u>meant</u>. What matters is what the officers, or the webmaster, actually <u>did</u> when they adopted Rule 6. What they <u>did</u> was to prohibit <u>all complaints</u>, <u>all bickering</u> and <u>all questions about membership</u> on the General Forum, no matter how <u>justified</u> the members might be in making the complaints, and then they decided to <u>punish</u> any violators with the ultimate punishment of <u>expulsion</u>.
If you think that's a good rule, then you'll understand it when the "Complaint Police" come to <u>your</u> door and inform you that <u>you're</u> being banished from the forum because <u>you</u> participated in an illegal discussion of our defective web browser, in the illegal thread entitled "Has Anyone Noticed?" on the General Forum.
Rule 6 goes <u>way beyond</u> what <u>anyone</u> apparently ever intended. It doesn't just prohibit "endless" complaints, or personal attacks, or any kind of behavior that we would all agree should be prohibited or regulated. The rule prohibits <u>all</u> complaints, or even <u>discussions</u> by and among the members, of even the most <u>legitimate</u> concerns that the members might have with regard to the business or the operations of this association. Such discussions by the members are absolutely forbidden on the General Forum, subject to the penalty of expulsion.
Imagine if the US government would pass a law that prohibited citizens from <u>complaining</u> about government, or from <u>discussing</u> governmental affairs, in public parks, streets, playgrounds, or inside any buildings <u>except certain specified buildings</u>. If you violate this law, your eyes will be poked out with a burning ember, and you'll be stoned to death. Now, suppose the government said that, "We respect the rights of our citizens to free speech, so, we will <u>allow</u> our citizens to complain to their hearts' content at the place of our choosing, and the place that we choose is at 123 Oak Street, in Hattiesburg, Mississippi. Whenever you want to complain about government, you can go there and complain all you wish." We would all be outraged. In effect, that's what Rule 6 does, within the context of this association.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by dlucier</i> <br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Steve Milby</i> <br />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"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The purpose of the rule 6 was to <b>prevent</b> 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"></font 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"></font 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".
<i>The purpose of the rule 6 was to prevent <b>endless </b> 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.</i>
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 <i>endless </i> complaining not to "stifle complaints" altogether? <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></font id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"> Don, you hit the nail on the head. Is it not the job of attorneys to twist, alter or change the meaning of reality so that they can win their case? In saying, "Thus, I quoted and paraphrased Jim's statement accurately", Steve does manage to twist, alter and changes the meaning of what was being stated in order to win his case. Also if Rule 6 was so bad, how come none of us have been censured and kick off this association. We have all been allowed to say our piece with out censorship. Not being an attorney, I will make my statement short and to the point. I hate being long winded and repetitive. I rest my case.
Steve A
PS Steve, please don't take this personally as I didn't take it personally that after you sent me a personal email re your taking it personally, that you didn't respond back to me that that "the matter was resolved and that there were no hard feelings", to use your exact words.
I agree, Steve. Let's lighten up a little. I'd like to think we're all friend here.
One of the problems with this medium is that resolution to a particular problem is not always possible through discussions that are disjointed and lacking the nuance that is so important in live conversation. Some have a style of writing that is detailed and specific. Others, have a style that is quite broad in its impact. I think that it is natural for all of us to defend our positions and we do that in the style with which we are most comfortable.
Because the forum lacks the interpersonal dynamic that is live conversation, interactions often become "either/or". When in live conversation, it may be more "a little of this and a little of that". This tends to result in resolution sooner and with less antipathy for the other's position, much less the other participant.
To this end, could I suggest that the board of officers take this issue under advisement during their periodic conference calls. Then, with appropriate <i>live</i> input from the concerned members, a resolution and decision can be provided the membership. If the current board would prefer to table this until the newly elected board is in place, I would support that.
Until such time that the board can make a decision and take action on this issue, I would suggest a moratorium before friendships get strained and the camaraderie that is the hallmark of this association is damaged. I suggest this not because the arguments on either side are unimportant. But rather, I believe them to be simply unresolvable through this medium. Besides, that's why officers get paid the big bucks!
This kind of discussion may well have been what prompted Churchill to reflect: <i>"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."</i>
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by piseas</i> <br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by dlucier</i> <br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Steve Milby</i> <br />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"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The purpose of the rule 6 was to <b>prevent</b> 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"></font 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"></font 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".
<i>The purpose of the rule 6 was to prevent <b>endless </b> 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.</i>
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 <i>endless </i> complaining not to "stifle complaints" altogether? <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></font id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"> Don, you hit the nail on the head. Is it not the job of attorneys to twist, alter or change the meaning of reality so that they can win their case? In saying, "Thus, I quoted and paraphrased Jim's statement accurately", Steve does manage to twist, alter and changes the meaning of what was being stated in order to win his case. Also if Rule 6 was so bad, how come none of us have been censured and kick off this association. We have all been allowed to say our piece with out censorship. Not being an attorney, I will make my statement short and to the point. I hate being long winded and repetitive. I rest my case.
Steve A
PS Steve, please don't take this personally as I didn't take it personally that after you sent me a personal email re your taking it personally, that you didn't respond back to me that that "the matter was resolved and that there were no hard feelings", to use your exact words.
Steve A, I tried to spare you embarrassment by dealing with the matter in a private email, thinking that perhaps you would appreciate it. When someone hits me below the belt, and then apologizes for it, I don't think I owe him absolution. Besides, only a true penitent is entitled to asbsolution. You don't qualify.
This is a discussion, among friends, of important association business. You can contribute more to it if you'll increase the amount of light that you bring to it, and decrease the heat.
Some of you can't see the forest for the trees. You're so focussed on debating small, insignificant factoids that you are completely missing the big picture.
This is, plain and simply, an issue of <b>freedom of expression</b>. The foundation of <u>all</u> our freedoms in this country is our freedom to <u>discuss</u> any issue of importance to us, <u>without fear of reprisal</u>. We are, and should be, free to either praise or criticise our government, as we see fit. The United States Supreme Court says that the government can impose certain reasonable limitations on the time and place when and where you can exercise your right to free speech. The best known example is the prohibition against falsely yelling "Fire" in a crowded theatre. But, such limitations are very narrowly drawn. No restriction on our liberty can be imposed which materially encroaches on our overall ability to freely express ourselves. If, for example, the government passed a law that only allowed us to criticise the government at a certain location, such as 123 Oak Street in Hattiesburg, Mississippi, and imposed the death penalty for violating that law, it would clearly be invalid. It would be invalid because it would deprive citizens of any <u>effective</u> opportunity to speak freely. It would be unduly burdensome for you to travel to that location, and, once you got there, nobody would be there to hear you. It would render your <u>right</u> to speak out against your government an empty, useless right. Moreover, the <u>extreme penalty</u> imposed for a violation of that law would <u>intimidate citizens</u> from ever challenging that law.
Now you might be saying, "What does this have to do with our little Association?" The officers of this Association are, in effect, the "government" of the Association. After they were confronted with "endless complaining, bickering and questions about membership," Duane wrote Rule 6, and either the officers or the webmaster, or <u>somebody</u> decided to adopt it (So far, nobody has "claimed credit" for it, so we really don't <u>know</u> whether <u>anyone</u> with <u>authority</u> to do so, formally <u>adopted</u> it as a by-law of this Association.)
Nevertheless, I'm not particularly concerned about the technical legality of the rule. What I'm concerned about is that Rule 6 does not just deprive our members of their right to <u>criticize</u> the officers on the General Forum, but it goes waaaay beyond that, and deprives the members from even <u>discussing any Association business</u>, either complimentarily or critically, on the General Forum. But, in fairness to Rule 6, it doesn't deprive us of our right to discuss Association business at <u>every</u> time and place. It allows us to talk about it in a dark corner of the forum, where nobody ever goes, and, if we attempt to talk about it in any other place, we can be <u>expelled</u>. That deprives all our members of their freedom to speak out on the matters which are important to us <u>in a place where our thoughts and opinions are likely to be heard</u>. That might not seem important to some of you, but it's important to me.
For those of you who are only interested in quibbling over "who said what," and "who shot John," and "whether the purity of my General Forum is going to be deflowered," I'll leave you to debate that with all the heat you can engender. I'm only concerned with the <u>serious</u> issues.
I know that a lot of people have been sitting on the sidelines, reading these discussions, and they have been reserving their opinions. It's time for you to start expressing your views. As I see it, you have four choices.
(1) You can sit quietly and <u>let someone else decide</u> what if any limitations will be imposed on your freedom of expression.
(2) You can speak out in favor of <u>keeping Rule 6</u>, which will, as I have explained, prevent you from engaging in even the most innocent discussion of Association business on the General Forum, and subject you to expulsion if you violate that rule. Such discussions will, however, be permitted in a dark corner of the Forum, where nobody ever goes, called the Association Business Forum.
(3) You can support the proposal that is now being made to "cut the baby in half." That proposal is, in essence, to <u>keep Rule 6</u>, which will prevent you from engaging in even the most innocent discussion of Association business on the General Forum, and subject you to expulsion if you violate that rule. Such discussions will, however, be permitted in a dark corner of the Forum, where nobody ever goes, called the Association Business Forum. <u>BUT</u>, that forum will be <u>moved</u> to a more prominent place on the forum's web page, in the unrealistic hope that by doing so, we members will be motivated to actually <u>click on that page</u> and <u>read</u> the boring, mundane stuff that will usually be found there.
(4) You can speak out in support of <u>repealing Rule 6</u>, which will preserve your freedom to courteously discuss your legitimate concerns with Association business on the General Forum, with no fear of reprisals. Most of the discussion on the General Forum will relate to sailing, but there will occasionally be discussions like this one, and announcements relating to the election of officers, and other non-sailing discussions that will be important to you, and that should not be buried in a dark corner of the forum. If Rule 6 is repealed, that does <u>not</u> mean that personal attacks can be made during any discussions. That conduct is prohibited now, by other Rules which will remain unchanged.
This is <u>your</u> Association and <u>your</u> forum. I believe it is in your best interests to choose the fourth option. If, however, you do not, I have no intention of debating it further. The choice is yours, and I will respect any choice you, the members, make. Dave Bristle and I have done our part.
Sure, if I had a complaint with my city(association) and wanted to inform the most citizens(members), instead of going to the not so popular or well attended public town hall meeting(Member Feedback forum), I could air my grievances in the stands during the Friday night high school football game (General Sailing Forum), or during the city sponsored movies-in-the-park(C250 Forum), or maybe during a show at the community playhouse(Cruising Forum), but just because I may have the right to do so, to me, it doesn't make it the right thing to do.
I not only see the trees and the forest, I see the mountains too.
Off the sidelines. (Ok, I have muttered a few thoughts on this here and elsewhere)
I, as a US citizen, am a staunch defender of the right to freedom of speech. I'm a Rotarian, I'm English, I'm a Member, I'm a frequent poster on the forum. And I'm one of the members that help manage the website, title='The Webmaster'
There is no mention of the forum in the bye-laws & constitution.
References to Rule #6 of the FORUM are to the Sticky, locked Article in the GENERAL Forum 'FORUM RULES - PLEASE READ' Thread.
That Rule states <blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" 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"></font id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
I have not altered that text, ever.
I have received obnoxious emails from members of the association on topics of 'Rules' and 'Participation'
I have tried to refrain from being anything but the bearer of olive branches accept when the responses (via email) were inappropriate and then I took action to request that the sender cease delivering their undesirable content.
Ok, cards thus on the table.
My interpretation of the Rule #6 does not impart a promise of expulsion from any place, other rules take care of that. However, I totally agree with Steve Milby on the basis of his concern. Steve's obvious support of freedom of expression is a delight to me, of course it pains me that these subjects are becoming more prevalent than those on sailing matters which were the decision maker when it came to deciding to join the Association in the first place.
Most everybody seems to be on the side of the Association when it comes to refraining folks from being obnoxious or against personal attacks (I'm not going to quote anyone here, that in itself can be misconstrued as aggressive).
In my past experience as a Rotarian, I have had to deal with issues where the group were focusing on the personalities, 'he said', 'she said' instead of the issues.
As any politician will tell you .... "It's the Issues " .... and I would respond, "Yes, focus on the issues, not on the personalities".
One of the key points of the intent of Freedom of Speech is that you allow others the right to say their piece, and you have the right to rebuttal. But that does not make it right!
This subject has certainly been read with both amusement by some, and concern by others, perhaps with ambivalence by many, and unread by the majority.
Because the Officers need to make decisions based upon the considerations of the members, then such discussions are of great value. And I'm certain that our incoming officers will take these issues up at their first meeting. Our discussions here and elsewhere on the forum and via email have made that a certainty.
I would only ask one thing.
Focus on the issues, not on the personalities. We are all sailors (or the users of boats!) and sailors are renown for being prepared, helpful, and with space in their hearts for other sailors. (Power boat owners too!)
ps. I considered whether to post mention of voting at the end of my input. That might be construed as being a last minute attempt to sway voters. It's not! As any of you that know me, I don't get bent out of shape on these things. And if members vote then that's a good thing whatever the turn out.
My name is Paul Alcock, and I aprove this message.
Does it hurt to have redundency? I think not. The message (be nice or you get booted) is clear and the message has been adhered to with an impressive run of thoughtful, collegial interest in the core subject...our boats. However, transgressions are to be expected. Running for public office is the highest calling there is - because for little more than personal satisfaction - we expose ourselves to the less sophisiticated elements of society. I don't understand why this issue has legs. It is in the best interests of reputable forums (parliment, senate, local government to name but a few) to limit debate. The effect is that coherent arguments are set forth in a timely manner and that the facts are tabled in a forthwith manner, insuch - personalities, side-bars, tangents and old battles do not have as much time to enter into the picture. It is important that enough time is allowed and that all interested parties are given opportunity to voice their message...but enough is enough.
1)This thing ain't broke. 2)The internet is what it is.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by stampeder</i> <br />Paul - thank you for the clarity.
With reference to Rule 6 and Bylaw X.
Does it hurt to have redundency? I think not. The message (be nice or you get booted) is clear... <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></font id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"> Redundancy exists where two rules serve the <u>same purpose</u>. This is <u>not</u> redundancy. Bylaw X provides that any member or officer can be expelled from the Association for conduct or action deemed to be <u>prejudicial or injurious</u> to the Association. Bylaw X is the rule that requires members to "Be nice or get booted." Rule 6 does not address the subject of <u>prejudicial or injurious conduct</u> at all. Rule 6 does not require that members "Be nice or get booted." Rule 6 addresses a completely different subject. It says that <u>forum or association issues</u> can only be <u>discussed</u> in the "Member Feedback" forum or in a personal email to board members.
For those who want to preserve the purity of the General Forum for discussions specifically relating to <u>sailing</u>, <b>Rule 2</b> specifically <u>allows</u> members to discuss <u>non-sailing subjects</u>. It instructs members to: "Clearly mark titles as "non-sailing" when using the general forum for <u>non sailing subjects</u>." Thus, under the rules <u>as they presently exist</u>, we are free to use the General Forum to discuss home remodeling, or automobile repair, or any other non-sailing subject, but <b>Rule 6</b> specifically <u>prohibits</u> us from discussing any legitimate matters regarding the <u>business of the National Association</u>, or any legitimate problems with the way the <u>Forum</u> is operating, or its rules. The matters that <u>should</u> be of the <u>greatest</u> concern to <u>all</u> of us are the <u>only</u> subjects which we are <u>forbidden to discuss</u> on the General Forum, <u>no matter how polite and civil such conversations might be conducted</u>. Virtually any other subject is allowed. <u>Why</u> should those particular matters be of the <u>greatest</u> concern to <u>all</u> of us? They should concern us because they relate to the Association's <u>business</u>, and, if the business does not thrive or is mismanaged, the Association will not survive. The most important <u>service</u> that is provided by the Association is this <u>Forum</u>, and, if it is fraught with problems, technical or otherwise, it will be frustrating to use. Despite the fact that these are the matters of utmost concern to us, we can only discuss them in a dark corner of the forum, while we can go on talking about our home remodeling and automobile repair concerns. Moreover, if we dare to discuss the forbidden topics on the General Forum, we can be expelled from the forum or worse.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I don't understand why this issue has legs. It is in the best interests of reputable forums (parliment, senate, local government to name but a few) to limit debate. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></font id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"> This isn't "<u>limiting</u> debate." Using your analogy to parliament or other legislative bodies, this is the equivalent of such a legislative body referring a matter to a subcommittee for review, and then flying all the subcommittee members to a remote location, and discussing the subject quickly, before the press and public can get there to listen to the deliberations. The procedure is not designed to encourage the greatest amount of exposure for the issue, while it is being discussed, and it is not designed to provide the greatest amount of information to the members. It is designed to <u>limit</u> participation by the members, and to <u>limit</u> their input. It's a shabby way to treat your members with regard to the Association's most important business.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">1)This thing ain't broke.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></font id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"> If you <u>read</u> what I said above, and <u>think about it</u>, I don't see how one could conclude that it ain't broke.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">If you read what I said above, and think about it, I don't see how one could conclude that it ain't broke. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></font id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Read it, thought about it - hence my comments.
I voted for Jim because I thought his perspective, in his post above (09/19/2008) is the one closest to my own. Jim's posting is simple, straight forward and to the point. When and if elected he will address the issue with his mandate. I look forward to seeing the results of the democratic process.
<font face="Comic Sans MS"><font size="2"><font color="blue">The polls are closed, congratulations and thanks to the new officers.
Had the following statement been made during or just after the mind numbing display our national nominees put on tonight it would be understandable.
<i> <b>"It is in the best interests of reputable forums (parliment, senate, local government to name but a few) to limit debate." </b> </i>
Wrong. Understandable but wrong.
But it wasn’t. It was written as if <i> <b>"limiting debate"</b> </i> were a rational solution for a<i> <b>“parliment, senate, local government”</b> </i> let alone our Association.
Steve Milby has spent considerable time thinking about and articulating a basic democratic tenet of open discussion in about 3000 words (<i>my rough estimate</i>) and with just 21 (twenty one) words Mike makes the case that our members ideas and concerns need to be <b>“limited”. </b>
By using <i> <b>“parliment, senate, local government”</b> </i> as examples that need limiting he goes against 200 years of American style democracy. That’s an astounding position. In regards to the Association Steve says it best.
<i> <b> “It's a shabby way to treat your members with regard to the Association's most important business.” </b> </i>
I hope the new officers will err on the side of democratic discourse.
Peregrine - #4762 </font id="blue"></font id="size2"></font id="Comic Sans MS">
If you <u>read</u> what I said above, and <u>think</u> about it, I don't see how one could conclude that I suggest that traditions be broken.
It is in the best interests of democratic result, and from long standing parlimentary tradition that I profer my comments. Both of our countries began from the Parlimentary precident of Great Britian. Both of our countries limit debate and both countries use fillibusters to extend debate even when nothing else is left to say. MY point, and I do have one...is that when everything has been said and when contributors are repeating themselves and when contributors begin to bring in old arguments, get personal and slide off into tangents like this one, debate should be brought to an end and a vote should be held. That sir, is why there is a gavel, a speaker, a moderator, common sense and rules of debate. I have not suggested that we limit legitimate debate that would further the interests of this forum, I suggest we have the good sense to know when enough is enough. Thank you honorable members, your thoughts and comments are considered, timely and well executed...but overboard. I'm going sailing, fair-winds to you.
Hey guys, I am following along on this discussion from time to time and hope the Rule 6 is squared away one way or the other soon...cause I am wondering...Are you guys getting out sailing at all ? And by the way - Peregrine....with all the years experience you have, I have only seen a couple of post responses from you in the way of direct sailing interest/assistance and it seems that you would be an asset to get more involved with what is discussed on 99% of the posts that are sailing or sailboat improvement related. Just my opinion. I mean if this debate is of more interest than what else is discussed on this Forum, well...I guess that just shows the versatility of this Forum to offer something for everyone.
As I promised Steve in a private email, the new officers will take this issue up during the first meeting under my tenure. We may very well re-organize the forum and rename some categories. We will review the Forum Rules and may make some revisions.
I'll probably start a Forum poll, so, like any good politician, I can be guided by what the members want.
Meanwhile, I am glad this discussion happened here, rather than on the General Forum. I feel that should be the General Sailing Forum, but that is just my own feeling.
Also
<b>No one is going to be banned for simply starting a thread in the wrong forum! At worst the thread may get moved by a moderator.</b> As happens daily in every other forum on the Internet.
And, yes, you can quote me on the above.
To get banned you have to do something really over-the-top, like deliver a bomb threat to the Commodore and his family.
Jim, Congrats to you and the the new officers. I look forward working with you all and our members.
It looks like the officers will have our hands full and I for one am up for the challenge to meet the needs of the members, who make up this great association. I know we can all work together to make it even better.
In the meantime, I await with much interest the "Forum Poll", which I assume, as you want as much feedback as possible, will be in the General Forum section vs the Member Feedback area.
We'll deal with this when I get back from the Ensenada race, I just have too much to do now, plus a yacht club meeting tonight, picking up the skipper's packet tomorrow night, and then leaving.
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.