 Poster: A snowHead
|
|
None of the content of the old post was lost, just a few parts which were opinion stated to be so. On that basis I can see the necessity and wasn't bothered.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| David Goldsmith wrote: |
| I get the feeling that one or two people are trying to stir it here, unreasonably (and one of them just happens to have set up a competing website !) |
A few points here.
- firstly the website in question's no. 1 PR man to date on snowHeads has been none other than you, DG.
- secondly, for the nth time, whatever competition there is will be negligible, in the very few areas where the sites overlap a little.
- thirdly, as you know from discussions elsewhere today, I've been arguing the diametrically opposed position to ise with respect to snowball's post. This should tell you something. I'll spell it out. ise and I do not correspond on our contributions here or anywhere else. I, and ise as well I'm sure, see snowHeads as we always have done. A friendly snowsports community where we communicate our viewpoints with no agenda in mind. To suggest otherwise is pretty insulting, and I'm fed up with the innuendo, personally.
Take a look at ise's posts going back six months. Precisely where do you see a change in approach?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
PG and ise, all that's occurred on this thread is a gentle teasing out of fact and opinion on matters of greater or lesser importance. In that sense I, for one, hope the thread's performed some sort of service.
I'm afraid I'm not going to answer questioning, be it aggressive (ise) or irrelevant (PG), unless other contributors really think the issue is 'me'. If you want to have a go at me personally, start a new thread - I'm up for it, if you want.
As you rightly say, PG, let's keep this
| Quote: |
| A friendly snowsports community where we communicate our viewpoints with no agenda in mind. |
I'll drink to that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
maggi, Lets make that articulate and stroppy 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| David Goldsmith wrote: |
I'm afraid I'm not going to answer questioning, be it aggressive (ise) or irrelevant (PG), unless other contributors really think the issue is 'me'. |
And my banking arrangements are relevant in what way? I take your point that you're not going to answer any questioning, it's been remarked on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
|
Goodness, what is all the fuss about? Alan Craggs and snowball seem to have had a perfectly amicable conversation and reached a mutually satisfactory conclusion. They seem to be the only ones keeping their heads!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The 'voice of reason', from laundryman,
When people get shirty, call for laundryman.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
snowball, I saw your original post on this, and from what I can tell, the follow up is worse in terms of you or snowheads being sued. In it you actually name the person and admit that your main area of concern, that the person involved 'pulled rank', is based on an assumption.
We had someone being sued for saying another person 'must need his head examining' a few weeks ago. So if I were you, I'd be very careful what I said about people if I didn't have proof to back it up. It could be argued that your statements, as they stands, have damaged this man's reputation amongst right thinking people.
My advice to you is to only state known facts about named persons which are already in the public domain!
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
Alan, if you are nervous and want his name out please take it out. As Tim says, I didn't even give it last time. I haven't asserted that he pulled rank. I reported what the punters believed.
However in a day or so this thread will have died and I can't see it would be remotely in his interests to drag it into the courts where even more people would hear about it and 12 people could testify to the truth of the facts reported, with added detail no doubt.
Last edited by And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports. on Thu 21-07-05 19:56; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowball, that's the rub. Is it worth you having to argue the point? Check the libel laws of England, they are pitched in favour of the claimant. Ask Roman Polanski!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
Alan, as I said, take his name out if you like. I won't consider it censorship.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
snowball, you can edit it yourself if you wish. As far as I can see all that you have "alleged" in this post is that this chap's skiing standard was not up to that of the rest of the group, and his social skills did not meet with your expectations. If that is regarded as defamation then we are in a sorry state indeed. Your other comments are quite clearly your opinions and assumptions.
I/we are not in the business of "approving" posts - this place would be a pretty empty place if we were  My concern with the previous wording was that it could be taken to include somewhat serious allegations which could be difficult or impossible to prove, even if true. As it now stands, I take it that this is your honest account of how you felt and thought about the situation, with a factual description of what actually happened with the guides. If you feel that this is an appropriate place in which to express those feelings, then that is your prerogative.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
Couldn't have expressed it better myself. We read a great deal of material on these pages, accepting it in good faith as straight facts or honest opinions. Snowball's posting is undersigned with a real name, which is good, and that's the signature of a member of the Club. Many other members of the Club will have read the posting. Accepting David Johnson's points in good faith as a true and accurate account, it's essentially a question of who paid for the second guide and what impact the first guide being shared by 10 skiers (evidently good-natured ones) had on the holiday experience.
It's only right that the Treasurer should enjoy the facility to reply. The Club has media personnel who, I guess, make a point of monitoring these pages, so the opportunity for forwarding the thread and facilitating a response is there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
Hmm. I think the lesson is to complain vigorously and effectively if there is a problem (particulalry on safety) on your holiday, be it with SCGB or anyone else. A phone call on the day or evening to the TO HQ has a lot more going for it than a complaint in this forum 10 years downstream. At this distance, I doubt if the Club would wish (or be able) to comment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
Well I don't accept it as accurate. Snowball doesn't remember the standard of the holiday, he didn't even get the name right. If it was a purple/gold std then it's quite possible that the Treasurer and his wife were guilty of nothing more than being in the minority as purple std skiers.
The chap in question doesn't post here and I doubt very much doubt that he'd 'enjoy the facility to reply' to this sad historical anecdote.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
snowball, if I were you I'd do a bit of editing! You have as good as admitted that you don't know if Fred pulled rank or not. If you aren't sure then you shouldn't really mentioned it. You might as well have tacked 'allegedly' on the end of the accusation for all the good it would have done your defence. If the chap comes here and says he didn't pull rank then you will have to apologize unreservedly.
Also, you do seem a little vague on the detail. Detail is important, as are facts. My advice is to ignore all the 'encouragement' you seem to be getting and, first and foremost, protect yourself and not further some stupid anti-censorship campaign.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
David Goldsmith, so if the chap in question comes here to defend himself and his version - posted in good faith, of course - is different to David's, what then?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| Nick Zotov wrote: |
| Hmm. I think the lesson is to complain vigorously and effectively if there is a problem (particulalry on safety) on your holiday, be it with SCGB or anyone else. A phone call on the day or evening to the TO HQ has a lot more going for it than a complaint in this forum 10 years downstream. At this distance, I doubt if the Club would wish (or be able) to comment. |
10/10, post of the day  And more to the point, if it had been a post about Crystal or Thompsons or some other package tour there wouldn't have been this fuss. Post of that nature appear pretty regularly, they're neither removed nor provoke such knicker-twisting indignation.
Once posts are censored (it's in the dictionary, look it up, it's the act of censure if it's too hard for you) it becomes extremely hard to understand what standards are being adhered to and removal becomes totally arbitrary and inconsistent.
The irony is that SnowHeads came from the public closure of the ski club forum after that organization found some behaviours unacceptable and has moderators now attempting on a pretty much daily basis to define what can and can't be discussed. The social insight given is remarkably similar to the one in the removed post about the dynamics of clubs and social groups.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with the principle, but then there's the reality. There are libel laws, there are plenty of lawyers, unscrupulous and otherwise, and there are plenty of people with the money to throw at them whether they are in the wrong or not. "Professional" media outlets employ hordes of experts to try to ensure that they stay just on the right side of the line - as well as budgeting for those occasions when they miscalculate.
No matter what you put in the rules and regs about posters being responsible for their own posts, by providing people with the medium to publish their posts in combination with a moderation system, the owners of that medium are assuming a degree of responsibility for the content of contributions to the forum.
There are also people who take pleasure in trying to disrupt discussion communities. Some of the slanging matches that develop in unmoderated newsgroups (check out rec.skiing.alpine for the perfect example) can virtually destroy a forum, well-meaning contributors ending up leaving out of disgust.
There are instances where people have been involved in court cases over remarks made in unmoderated newsgroups. Web-based discussion communities are a different matter. For the same of maintaining a good atmosphere, moderation, if lighthanded, some consider necessary. Not easy, trying to draw the line somewhere.
Personally I believe that it helps if a web community's moderators are elected by the community itself, with none of the administrators involved in this side of running things. That removes most of the suspicion about the motives of one forum in censoring - or otherwise - comments relating to a rival organisation, for example, as in this case.
[PS... I can't see anything at all wrong with snowball's post as it is now worded]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have sent Tim a PM about a couple of matters best not expanded further in public.
My friend has reminded me of the name of the holiday leader and says the standard was purple/gold. However the difference of standard was not small. We covered a range of standards and they were nowhere near it (my friend's opinion is low-grade silver - and (as someone who knows the criteria and has done some assistant Gold judging) that seems reasonable. It wasn't just that they would have held up the group a bit: they simply could not have skied much of what we skied.
The year before last I skied on a gold holiday in Chamonix where the standard of one person was a resonably good purple. He was able to ski the things we skied with him and did not particularly hold us up. Yet he was asked to leave the ski group because it might (and in one case certainly did, when we skied under the top section of the Helbronner lift) prevent the guide taking us somewhere where his lesser skill could be dangerous.
The La Grave case was not a small difference such as that.
If the person in question wishes to put a different point of view that's fine. I will feel freed to mention other things.
However I cannot see the point in taking this further. It was a long time ago (1995, actually).
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
| Tim Brown wrote: |
| David Goldsmith, so if the chap in question comes here to defend himself and his version - posted in good faith, of course - is different to David's, what then? |
Mybe invite the other members of the 1995 ski group to comment as witnesses, so that everyone reading this thread has a fairly balanced account of what happened.
Snowball is right that this is ancient history, but it may have relevance to the future running of the Ski Club. It's the old chestnut of whether an unpaid director/member of Council/officer has a right to reward of some sort, or whether those who give their time should do it altruistically.
That point is made without hearing the other side of the story.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Good grief. I can't remember the detail of holidays 10 years ago. So I doubt if most group members could give an accurate picture. And I also doubt if the club still has record of the holiday in question. I don't think there is another side of the story still to hear.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
Nick Zotov, I would imagine that if you'd had a bad holiday it would stick in your mind far more, I know that I can remember two bad holiday incidents far better than I can remember the rest of either holiday 
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
David, I don't think there would be much argument about any "right" to rewards in this case.
We were quite probably wrong about the system and the brass at the time at the SCGB never heard about it as we thought they would. Either that or they dealt with him in-house.
I'm sure if he came on here his defence would not be that he had a right but that he didn't force Mary to arrange things that way.
Personally I think this has been aired and I'm not adding anything more.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
D G Orf, The evil that men do lives after them;The good is oft interred with their bones.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
He was a great skier.
Last edited by You know it makes sense. on Fri 22-07-05 12:54; edited 2 times in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
Nick Zotov, exactly
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| Beck Daross wrote: |
| Quote: |
But if my Club has the above inclusive and representative aspirations then its actions (and particularly those of officials) are of some bearing to the ski community generally.
|
I can't find the 'mission statement' to which you refer David. I don't think personal anecdotes about how one member got upset with another's skiing standard more than a decade ago really have any bearing on "the ski community generally". Alan is quite right to take it down. |
I'm adding these as I read this thread, Beck, it was there for years until it became questioned . . . and more pointedly . . . blatantly a falsehood. Stop demonstrating your very crude obfuscation, it does you no credit and may damage the reputation of the SCGB.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
For the ignorant, like me, here is what obfuscation means. Bittava long word, innit, Masque? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
Masque, how many years was that statement there for? Do you have proof of the reason it was taken down?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
Tim, I first read it about 5 years ago, the last would probably be Nov. 04. but I've not been interested enough to know the exact date it was removed from the SCGB site (March 05?) . . . but I'll have a look in the internet archives to see if we can narrow the timeline.
But why should that matter? Are you saying that the SCGB did not claim to speak for all UK skiers? I know we take great pleasure in attempting to rip each other new sphincters, but the above is on ‘record’ and far beyond puerile argument.
The club has decided to change a part of its public expression, the reasons are its own but it may be realising that the ski community is bigger than it can claim to represent in totality.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| PG wrote: |
I agree with the principle, but then there's the reality. There are libel laws, there are plenty of lawyers, unscrupulous and otherwise, and there are plenty of people with the money to throw at them whether they are in the wrong or not. "Professional" media outlets employ hordes of experts to try to ensure that they stay just on the right side of the line - as well as budgeting for those occasions when they miscalculate.
|
Yes, this is a good point. The current thinking about this is that once a censorship process is used for any particular item in online media then we have an actually greater problem. First, we need to be seen to have been applying some fairly reasonable standards, these standards need in some way to reflect the norms and standard for the environment in question and they need to be well known. Second, these standards need to be consistently applied, it's felt if user A is able to argue the removal if his material was unjustified using the example of user B whose material remained intact then there's a clear inconsistency that can be exploited legally.
It's considered generally that the potential issues with removing material are nearly always more serious than with leaving it. Common carrier defences, although to date (I think) an untested device, are clearly massively undermined by censorship. To spell that out, if for example, SkiPunter a well known TO were to sue SnowHeads (assuming it could be identified for legal purposes) because they were repeatedly presented in a bad light they would be able to use the removal of posts critical of the ski club as evidence of a clear editorial policy and a bias against them.
It turns out the effort involved to consistently censor is so huge that it's just not worth it, the only reason people get confused about this is because they add emotion to the argument.
PG's point about professional media is slighty wide of the mark, as are DG's continual reference to some sort of gold standard of journalism, these standards do not apply since there's no editorial control here, or ought not to be, as soon as there is then all sorts of problems occur.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ise, Pretty thought provoking stuff. I am aware of a website, hosted from the Caribbean, which was successfully shut down by a British company, simply by threatening legal libel action against them-which they could not afford to fight. All their forum posts were factual, some posters were featured on UK TV, and at the time the site was pulled, the BBC was advertising for programme participants on the site. Perhaps this site needs it's own lawyer if they wish to go the censorship route.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
The author of the post in question said:
| snowball wrote: |
| None of the content of the old post was lost, just a few parts which were opinion stated to be so. On that basis I can see the necessity and wasn't bothered. |
and he was right. No point in making a fuss about nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ise, so there will be no censorship on snowSliders?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
)
