What is going on with the SCGB ?

A snowHead

michael it's a little unfair to say that the tiny minority of users objected, granted that 100 or even your 700 figure are a very small percentage of the SCGB membership but they did make up the vast majority of members of the SCGB who actually posted on the forums, you can tell this by the huge decrease in use the forums have seen since non members were bared.

I wonder what the figures are like if you were to say examine the numbers of SCGB members who posted and those who simply browsed the forums both before and after the date concerned.

We may be the vocal minority but look at the figures for voters in the last two general elections before you simply class us as troublemakers or rable rousers.

I actually suspect that there are two possible reasons for the denial of access, firstly the legal reason which may or may not be accurate depending on what court cases you follow, secondly the financial reason i.e these people are not members so we should not let them continue to have access, in either case from what I have read they may well be mistaken, if it is for the legal reason there is evidence to suppose that they were in error, if it was for the financial reason then they are putting finances above members interests

michael you or they could change my view if you could come up with a valid reason and back it up with proof, the problem is there are many reasons that could be valid but no proof that says any of them is. Sad

Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?

DG, I'd narrow the reason down to one, and it's your second. I've aways felt the legal issue a minor one, overplayed on purpose to allow the club to achieve its desired result.

You need to Login to know who's really who.

I'm not so sure marc it is quite possible that the legal reason is the true reason I'm just not convinced from what I read that it was the correct one

Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.

The legal reason was the true reason? They just didn't happen to get any legal advice until after members caused a fuss? And then they kept the legal advice secret? I suppose that is possible. Seems to lack a certain diligence.

You'll need to Register first of course.

yes but they did appologise for the bad manners which is why it may be the reason

Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...

I hope you guys will forgive me, but I am copying here what I posted on the SCGB site under Minutes should be published on the internet 2 days ago. There has been no comment since.

"I have just gone through all the postings here. I was surprised to read at the start that the minutes were not published on this site. Why not? Then as I read this and other threads all became clear. The club has been run by a cozy little group for years. No riff-raff. Just chums. Then along came this nasty internet thingy to rock the boat. Can't have that. So the forum was cleverly killed off by making it Member Only (Hypothesis: death of forum not accident of the stupid, but clever ploy by the Machiavellian).
You see, no one turned up for AGMs in the past. The usual crowd could keep going. Even better if the Clubhouse was made even more inaccessible: move it from central London to the suburbs. But modern technology allows everyone access. We could all vote. We could all attend the meetings from Webland. So the status quo is threatened by a mass of unrully ordinary members.
I work in the NHS. A more reactionary organisation would be hard to find. But internet and intranet working is changing dramatically how we work.
And all minutes are published on the hospital website."

Killin off the forum was an intentional act to preserve the status quo. I am sure the proper response is to attend the next AGM. I have never done this before (apathy). When is the SCGB AGM?

After all it is free

Jonpim, History repeats itself! I wish to totally agree with you again.

All new technologies threaten the status quo, and the internet has barely started yet. The real power will and must eventually reside here in the egalitarian cyber world.

DG if you re-read my note you will see that I refer to the vocal minority of members not users. This fact still stands.

Clearly they also represent the majority of users who are

1. most affected by the decision and therefore
2.most likely to challenge the reasons given and
3.most unlikely to accept them.

Elizabeth – yes the reason given by the club was the threat of legal action and high cost of moderation in avoiding it. I am not a lawyer, so can only accept it when I am told that legal advice was the reason.

*Ski* the Net with snowHeads

Chris do you really believe that ?

snowHeads are a friendly bunch.

Yes. The net will eventually reshape our lives in a way that is almost unimaginable.
The pace of change is accelerating. Political boundaries and even the idea of place are challenged. We ain't seen nothing yet.

snow reports

Given the apparent close cooperation between the British Home Secretary and his US counterpart I'm not so sure.

michael - I just don't buy your last comment, and I certainly would not accept it by being " told it " by SCGB knowing what we now know. The management of the club are paid to manage risk, and not to fold at the first signs of a legal threat, if there was indeed one ( I doubt it ). And to act in the interest of the membership.

I also do not accept that there is a significantly high cost involved in moderation as demonstrated by Snowheads, which has now existed for 6 weeks without any problems. And, before anyone asks, the fact that Snowheads is a " shell " entity with no assets which could fold at the first threat of legal action with nothing to lose is not an argument that could be put forward by SCGB. There are lots of other organistions with lots of assets to protect that have open forums with adequate moderation.

I am afraid that the will and vision are not available at SCGB to develop it into a club for the 21st century. It is now becoming apparent that it is encumbered by all its commercial interests which have put been ahead of the interests of its members. It thus has a conflict of interests. Its responsibilty is clear ..... the members and future development of the club must come first.

Thanks anyways for putting the case. I am sure it feels like being in a lions den. I get that feeling whenever I post anything over at SCGB these days!

You know it makes sense.

D G Orf, the cows have been out of the barn for a decade. The pols will never be able to regather them.

Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:

No ssh but they have the alternative method of getting in their helicopters and killing off all the cows, on the lines of if I can't controll it you can't have it, I assure you that it is possible, unlikely maybe but definately possible

A snowHead

D G Orf, I'm not sure that it is. They would have to all (worldwide) cooperate and basically shut down the 'net. I just don't think it's going to happen.

A snowHead

ssh given that a group of disorganised hackers can severely cripple the net do you honestly think that it would be impossible for governments that control specialist code cracking units and have access to all the internet backbones to do better ?

Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?

highly unlikely they'd want to, though

You need to Login to know who's really who.

As I said earlier, but it is possible Twisted Evil

Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.

D G Orf, legally? Yes. Illegally? Yes. Why? Because too many aspects of the 'net are self-healing (and more so every day). I could set up a web site that is virtually impervious to attack. If I can do that, I'm sure that a number of sites have done already, as well. SCO not among them, mind you. They, btw, deserve the strongest derogatory words I can come up with--but I won't post them here (or anywhere). I just can't believe that they are so ignorant of technology that the virus-based attack for which they had over a week's notice could not be repelled. It proves how utterly worthless their technology actually is. rolling eyes

You'll need to Register first of course.

D G Orf, I think a directed attack is possible, but not a general destruction. The reason is the same one that caused the initial air attack in the first Gulf War to last so long: Iraq had created their network infrastructure with Wellfleet routers and a TCP/IP mesh. Hence, to take the system down, the USAF had to effectively destroy every communications center. Taking down the "strategic" ones just hit the OSPF tree and caused re-routing.

Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...

Speaking as someone who has a friend who is a tech support engineer in house at Cisco if he tells me it's possible I'm inclined to believe him Exclamation

After all it is free

I think Michael misses something quite important. The "tiny minority" were not a drain on resources, but fantastically cost-effective creators of content. The SCGB should have tried to harness and extend these people in order to create a self-sustaining and ever-growing website. I think snowHeads will now do this - as is being discussed here... http://snowheads.com/ski-forum/viewtopic.php?p=14113#14113

*Ski* the Net with snowHeads

I'm inclined to agree with DavidS on this, that tiny minority plus the non members were posting a high number of posts and new subjects each day, that is a big attraction for non members and members alike, what is left is not even a shadow of the former life

snowHeads are a friendly bunch.

now if the SCGB had done what snowHeads is doing - build a proper phpBB system, expose the whole lot to google, add new features such as a review system etc - soon you're getting a huge increase in traffic to your site...

snow reports

I'm not sure I'd say huge but it does seem pretty good here

Huge may be pushing it, but look at it this way: recently, for example, I wanted to recommend a ski school in Val Thorens, but couldn't find any user feedback of any kind anywhere on the net. A board like this one, however (and even better, a formal reviewing system) will eventually generate that kind of content (i.e. when I come back from VT and post about the experience my friends had with Prosneige)and bring people to me to the site via google (if the pages are being indexed)...

You know it makes sense.

Valid point, if it all works then yes it could be good

Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:

Joseph wrote

“michael I just don't buy your last comment, …………knowing what we now know”

What do we now know? I have seen no lawyer come on here or the ski club site to say the advice taken was categorically wrong. I have seen some who choose to dis-believe they took advice at all because it makes their argument stronger.

“ The management of the club are paid to manage risk, and not to fold at the first signs of a legal threat, if there was indeed one ( I doubt it ). And to act in the interest of the membership. “

Yes the management are paid to manage risk but how many members would thank them if the scarce finances of a not for profit organisation were spent challenging their legal advice. The worst the club can be justifiably accused of is being overly prudent ( it is budget day after all!) in acting on the advice received. The courts are littered with the bodies of now near bankrupt politicians and celebs whose egos got in the way of listening to their lawyers advice.

Talking of their finances, If the club did not affiliate itself to some commercial ski related and travel companies which you say is “a conflict of interest “ then they would not have the income to provide the services they currently provide. The option then becomes fewer reps in resorts or snow reports updated less frequently by fewer staff ……or higher subs! There is no profit cushion at the end of the year, it's all spent on us!

Dave B

Your point on the role of the council did stump me for a while!

However……..Any company usually has aims and objectives or a mission statement outlining the purpose and role of the company. That does not prevent the primary responsibility of the board of directors (in the club’s case – the council) being to represent the interests of the shareholders of the company (in the club’s case the members)

A snowHead

PS Thank you Joseph for welcoming me to the lion's den!

A snowHead

Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?

Peter B, who is a commercial lawyer, did express an opinion on the SCGB website but I couldn't find during a recent check.

My impression on SCGB was that the reasoning has shifted from being a strict legal liability issue to a 'don't upset the sponsors' issue. So I don't think people should feel that overcoming the original legal arguments will change anything.

To be honest my enthusiasm for the argument over SCGB has waned, I'm happy here at snowHeads and anticipate that my membership of SCGB will lapse later this year...

You need to Login to know who's really who.

I'm almost in agreement with Ian on this, the exeception beeing that I'm not sure weather I'll cancel my membership or not.

Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.

Precisely. I was starting to wonder why we care. (Cared?)
I suppose we still have a regard for dear old SCGB, even though we feel a sense of rejection. It's odd we are still talking about them.

You'll need to Register first of course.

Please come to the AGM. Then think about your future membership. I think some good questions about the website and other matters, and maybe some candidates for Council who understand the issues being discussed here can improve things significantly. It would be fun to meet fellow SCGB Snowheads and have a chat.

A conversation with the White House today suggests to me that the legal argument was - as suspected - a smokescreen. Skiandboard.co.uk apparently has a different forum policy and includes non-members because there is less posting there! Classic Ski Club logic.

The real reason for excluding non-members, as we've suspected, was that certain people didn't like the discussion about reps and so on. I've pleaded that we be treated as intelligent human beings who do not wish to be patronised, who have the best interests of our Club at heart (after all, we own it) and would welcome 'official' Council responses in sensitive debates.

Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...

My thoughts:

1. A thriving online community is vital to the future of the SCGB.

2. The MO affair, however, is a perfect case study (one worth writing up!) of the difficulties an established organisation has in coping with the needs of its online users.

3. Its legal advice re the forum was conservative and contestable - but certainly not without foundation.

4. A risk-taking organisation would have pressed forward with a better forum, extended features, community moderation etc. - but the Council (relying on legal advice, but with little experience of the wider issues) chose a risk-averse approach.

5. On MO day, the SCGB crossed a line. There is no going back. It lost its community very quickly, with work on snowHeads starting on the day the decision to close the forum was taken. Whatever happens at the AGM, the Club can’t get back to where it was.

6. If the Club had considered the case carefully and fully, and sought advice from people with experience of the online world, it’s possible that an arms-length solution might have been developed - set up a linked site, on US servers, and organise it in such a way to insulate the Club from risk, while encouraging innovation.

7. snowHeads is, de facto, that site. It has the potential to develop into a powerful user-driven resource, as blog, review, photo functionality is gradually added. It could also become everything that snowandboard.com would like to be, but isn't.

8. The best option, therefore, for SCGB would be an informal tie-up with snowHeads, using Club finances, marketing power, brand power to help the site become the user-driven complement to the main site.

9. As an option, it’s likely to be cost effective and have a high degree of success. It’s also legally safe.

10. That’s what I think we should argue for at the AGM.

After all it is free

DavidS, all are valid points, however given the SCGB's apparent attitude to any forum at the moment I would rate your chances of success with items 8. 9. and 10. as just marginally above zero

Actually, what's needed is for internet-savvy candidates to stand for Council, and then things can change. Our rapidly-growing internet community can provide the necessary votes to elect people who are in touch with the needs of the general ski population, who will run the Club in a more open and transparent fashion.

Very low numbers of votes are generally cast at AGMs (which I believe has alarmed Electoral Reform Ballot Services, who oversee the elections) so the challenge is winnable.

*Ski* the Net with snowHeads

Right then so who lives near enough to London to consider standing then ?

And question no.2 is it possible to give a proxy vote to someone other than the chairman, because a 2.5 to 3.0 hour journey each way just to attend the AGM is a little far for my enthusiasm to stretch Confused

Help!!

What is going on with the SCGB ?

snowHeads Forum Index >>> Ski Club of Great Britain