 Poster: A snowHead
|
Because of the 'open' 'public' nature of Snowheads, some issues relating to the Ski Club's future are best debated by those who actually own the organisation - its members. We own it. We can change it. Others are welcome to join the Ski Club, especially if you're up for improving it. It remains the national ski club and enjoys substantial human and physical assets which can be deployed for British skiers.
It's time to get things discussed openly and frankly at the heart of the Club, so that things can move forward. The best arena for that discussion is the Club's own website - if you're a member.
Laura's set up a new section for Ski Club matters to be debated. Have a look. Start a thread, or have a chat.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
Just avoid anything that may damage the club or its reputation - as these postings will be removed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
Good point, David. Will they be taken to a car pound, with a £150 retrieval fee?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
I'm not happy with the new forum. It seems obvious that its genesis was primarily defensive - to get criticism out of the main board, the one most people read. And then it carries a vague threat right up front.
I think the Council or Club management should tell us what is and isn't acceptable speech before we start using it. Otherwise, I'd prefer discussion to continue here, on snowHeads.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
Fair point. Why not post a thread on the SCGB board with that specific question? At some point those in authority must answer reasonable questions. Better now than at the AGM. I totally agree with you. These things must be defined, or moderation must be simply handed over to sensible people, as it is on Snowheads.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
Good idea. I'll think about it - curiously reluctant to be dragged back to the other place...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ssh,
For ½ a second I was going to get angry about racist comments, then I realised you have a right to be obnoxious!! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
and we had Americans before - although I wouldn't for a moment suggest that Steven Smith was anything other than a perfect English gentleman  By the way, he'll be back....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
Well it's a start Steve!
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 Craggs, hmmm... PG Tips for breakfast this morning? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
you'll be on the toast and marmite next (if you had any decent bread that is).
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
Sorry, did I miss something? What have our war-buddies done now to wee wee you off ssh?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
David. I'm concerned that anything said here can be conveniently ignored by the Club, which is why I've restarted the reps debate on the Club's own site, along with one or two other new threads. They're designed to stimulate thought and debate about an organisation which holds substantial assets and responsibilities (Snowheads does not).
This process of comprehensive discussion about the future of the Club can develop over the coming months, so that the Ski Club forum performs as a 'members only' debate. That, of course, depends on censorship not being applied.
I believe that non-members will be readmitted to the SCGB forum sometime later this year, because the Club will come to its senses - there is no valid legal or liability argument against it.
Snowheads is likely to be judged by the Establishment as a group of malcontents. I continue to say that if Snowheads was collectively owned it could be highly influential, because everyone would know it is here to stay and here to bite and bark, but it's for U-brain to take a pragmatic view on that. I would like to buy a stake in this site and protect it from commercialism. I also think that Snowheads will ultimately be bigger and stronger if it invites its members to become shareholders.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
Leaving aside the ownership issue, which PG and I flogged to within an inch of its life a while back, I can understand your wish to move back to the SCGB forum, DG.
A few points, though. I don't see any evidence that debate on SCGB will be taken seriously by the Club - we're a 'troublesome, vocal, non-representative minority', aren't we?
Plus the bizarre tone of the SCGB's online voice (insisting we don't use SCGB, the terms and conditions, threatening censorship etc) is very off-putting.
I also don't believe the SCGB can just change its mind about how it deals with online and magically get back to where it was (http://snowheads.com/ski-forum/viewtopic.php?p=14648#14648).
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
"This process of comprehensive discussion about the future of the Club can develop over the coming months".
David, yes it can. But in the meantime have you turned your thoughts to considering the elections for council - I believe you previously mentioned July(?) as a relevant month (i.e. only 4 months away)?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
Yes, this is very much on my mind. I was talking to a fellow Snowhead earlier today about holding a kind of rally and seminar in June to put forward candidates for election and devise a vote-winning strategy.
It would be excellent for the Club to have some core internet awareness and knowledge at the top.
I think it would also be useful for us to unite around a common manifesto that sets out proposals for a more popular and effective Ski Club. We could maybe get a blog off the ground shortly to work on this. Any thoughts?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
The secret with any meeting is to have your ducks in a row before you go in.
BTW, I have met 2 of the Council, and skied with 1. They didn't strike me as the slightest bit "ossified" as someone suggested somewhere in these threads.
But I think I would vote for a snowheads council member. I don't agree with all of your views, but I think they should be part of the Council picture.
Good luck with your efforts.
Last edited by You'll need to Register first of course. on Tue 30-03-04 22:51; edited 2 times in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| David Goldsmith wrote: |
| Any thoughts? |
David,
Sorry not to have responded previously. Initial thoughts are as follows.
I assume that the elections are essentially a one-shot deal i.e. each candidate is allowed to circulate a personal statement to all members, and that is the only means of contacting the entire membership (?).
Obviously we need to guard against portraying ourselves as loons obsessed with single-issue paranoia. The issue arising from the closure of the forum to non-members is not just the closure in itself, but the entire relationship between the club and it’s members. It involves the culture of secrecy, the refusal to share basic information, the unwillingness to accept usual norms of democratic procedure.
We should not predicate a campaign on the basis that ‘legal advice’ was wrong, since it is a secret, and might be correct, however unlikely that seems. The intention should be to shine light into dark places. The club’s members have a right to know the commercial relationships entered into by the club. The members should, through elections, determine what relationships are appropriate: they deserve more than to receive dark hints of awful consequences.
As part of a new approach, there should be a commitment from candidates that they stand for a re-examination of the decision to exclude non-members from the forum: proper legal advice should be obtained and made available to members. The club needs to be a part of the modern world: it should not just hide from it by clinging to a quill pen past.
I believe we are speaking of three candidates (?). So far as candidates are concerned, there are the obvious points that the more well-known they are the better; there should (ideally) be at least one from each sex; the more their surnames are towards the front of the alphabet the better; and the more familiar they are with using the internet the better.
As to holding a rally/seminar, that might be useful if enough people can attend (- I assume you were not thinking hiring of the Albert Hall!). How many people does it take to nominate someone for election to council?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Two nominations are required. Assuming that there is competition, the number of votes to win election could be determined by studying past voting records - perhaps in consultation with Electoral Reform Ballot Services.
I agree with your other points, Terry. A quite comprehensive understanding of all the Club's resources and services, and a meeting of minds, are required. Perhaps we could begin to structure and categorise our thoughts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Interesting to note that the tone in the SCGB forum is decidely less civil than would be expected over here...
Try this: "You are truly one of the greatest geniuses of our time. Not only are you able to read the mindsets of the long dead, but you are also able to come to conclusions which are unquestionable."
Or this: "I'm sure I don't need to remind you that I have every right to question any point you put forward as part of your argument. But I will anyway, in case others have forgotten."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, Gerry at full throttle! Luckily one develops a thick skin after 40 years' SCGB membership.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
Yes indeed. I thought he'd died but, apparently, he was just recharching his venom while doing an excellent job of repping.
Should mean another stream of disgruntled scgb members heading DG's way soon!
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 Goldsmith wrote: |
| Perhaps we could begin to structure and categorise our thoughts. |
But to move away from the frivolous  and back to more serious conversations, what sort of format did you have in mind?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is a good one (addressed to our very own DG)...
"I once heard of a saying " A woman scorned .......... and all that" I am not saying you are a woman, but you have clearly been deeply hurt by the Ski Club for you to take on this crusading role of trying to do as much damage as possible to the Ski Club. It would be useful if you could perhaps explain to us all what the Ski Club did to you to make you so vitriolic towards it and what you are trying to achieve in attempting to get as many people as possible to cancel their membership."
I especially like "I am not saying you are a woman" - as if that would be the ulimate insult. You big girl you!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
But as Terry says - on to the serious. I'm not sure the attempt to get debate going over there is working too well, DG. Worth raising a few of the issues over here for a more friendly snowHeads debate?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
Over there I have felt constrained  to report those posts as they appear to me (not a lawyer) to be defamatory against David.
Apart from that, I'm inclined to agree that it might be better, for the moment, for most forward planning to occur over here rather than there.
Not that I'm surprised that there seems to be a slight upsurge of support for the council over there. I rather assumed that once the initial uproar had abated, and council groupies had had a chance to teach their mates how to switch on a pc, that this would occur; especially so now that, over there, 'club matters' have been shunted off into a separate section. But I don't expect it to last.
But I suspect David's actions have rather more subtlety than just attempting to get debate going over there. In any case, he is to be applauded for his continued dedication to the best interests of the club.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
Terry. The vast majority of people I meet in the Ski Club are really friendly interesting people. Quite a number are here at Snowheads.
I'm grateful for your supportive words. Once the Club has all the issues out in the open for discussion there can be a vigorous and informed debate. Unification can then take place behind a common purpose and plan.
It's not wishful thinking, is it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Terry,
"Groupies", that's a bit hard isn't it? 
FWIW I first personally used a mainfame computer for a simple ALGOL program in, I think, 1967.
First used a desktop PC in the office in 1985.
At home, went through the ZX81 and BBC computer route until I could afford my first PC in 1993
Reckon I know where the on switch is.
Not sure who the "groupies" are.
Again FWIW, I skied with a council member because he was the resort rep - only discovered he was a council member some time later. Met the chairwomwan when - at an end-of-season party - she wandered up to me and a friend, total strangers to her, and asked what we though of the club. I raised a worry I had. She knew her facts, and took the time to reassure me. Must say, I was impressed.
I stumbled accross the club forum the week after it had been shut down to public access.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
Er, Terry,
I never owned one, but I did play with the ZX80 
I had a long convalescence from a leg injury, and was stuck at home. My doctor tool pity on me and leant me his ZX80. It was what hooked me onto home computing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
I had a ZX81, CBM64, Atari, Amega, then a load of PCs, all of which I built myself.
Yes as we all know closing the open forum without warning was wrong. But the strategy (if you can call mob rule a strategy) employed to get it reopened was a disaster and only made sure it stayed shut!
Getting it reopened was almost in the bag at one stage. But sadly, a couple of insults too many were aimed at the council and the opportunity was lost.
The phrase 'only ourselves to blame' springs to mind. I did warn you. It's all in the archive.
Anyway, I'm off to Verbier.
Last edited by Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do. on Mon 21-06-04 16:10; edited 3 times in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
Can you give me a link to this "archive"?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have tried that in the past WTFH but you will not be able to surf the archive unless you are a member.
Gerry, I'm sure I do not need to remind you that the SC open forum was closed suddenly and without warning of any kind. If there is one thing that unites all of us it is (I hope) that we are passionate people (in fact if one doesn't have a "go for it" attitude one doesn't progress very quickly through the jolly old club grading scheme). If the council did not anticipate a passionate response (or "mob rule" perhaps in your words?) then they have singularly failed to understand the feelings of the people they purport to represent.
To consider that outburst of emotion a "disaster" and to (with 2 notable exceptions) fail to engage in any meaningful discussion with aggrieved members seems to me to be an opportunity lost indeed, but not by "us", rather by the council of the club.
You state that "we" only have ourselves to blame - but what for? "We" haven't suffered a loss - the Ski Club has.
Have a good time in Verbier and Tignes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So, it seems that Gerry (in between telling us of his obvious considerable prowess in the field of home computing, and distorting the history around MO day) has now blurted out enough clues to permit a reconstruction of what really happened.
Some members of council decided that they did not like the existence and/or the content of the chat forum. I have suspected that the political reality of the council is that it contains a couple of forceful individuals who have bright ideas that they persuade the others to accept. That seems to have happened here. With little consideration given to the possible views and reactions of members, the decision was taken to abruptly close the forum to non-members.
The council was then surprised to find that the vast majority of members on the forum at that point were in uproar at what had been done and how it had been done. Day after day passed with members left bewildered. Two members of council then appeared on the forum. All credit to them for at least participating; but it is a matter of fact that a number of members found some of their contribution to be condescending and sometimes aggressive. Simultaneously a certain (very small) number of friends of the council (I won’t mention names) were little other than aggressive.
Every argument advanced to defend the closing of the forum was considered in detail and found threadbare. In fact little in the way of justification had been forthcoming. Members were largely told that there was no alternative in order to ‘solve’ a ‘problem’ that was largely left undefined, and did not appear to exist.
An outbreak of good sense then occurred amongst at least some council members and it was stated on 12th February that the council was to reconsider it’s decision and that it was hoped to have “positive news within a week”. It is to be presumed that some council members, perhaps the fragrant Sally, hoped that council members could liaise by phone and e-mail and agree to re-open the forum. At that point something curious happened. Some “aggrieved councillors” then demanded a meeting. The meeting occurred on the 18th February.
At the meeting it seems that some people then demanded a legal opinion be obtained obviously in the hope that this could be used to justify the continued closure of the forum to non-members. Some form of advice was then obtained (presumably during the course of the 19th and 20th) from some unspecified source. This was used to retrospectively justify the original decision, which remained unchanged. It is likely that the weekend was used to cobble together an announcement that was duly made on the 23rd.
So we now know that the legal issue was a smokescreen. No legal advice had been obtained. The original decision was taken without proper consideration of the issues. The council took the decision it did because some of its members happened to feel like it. Only later did they seek an excuse to hide behind. Council members leaked news of their activities to their mates whilst members, as a whole, were left in the dark. The council held a meeting because some of its members were determined to keep the forum closed. Some members of council placed their feelings (which is what caused the problem in the first place) ahead of a resolution of the problem.
That the ‘legal advice’, taken from some unspecified source, remains secret may indicate that not even there is the council’s position really supported. In the statement of the 23rd reference was also made to commercial concerns. Yet even that seems likely to be irrelevant since some council members were obviously prepared to override those concerns prior to the meeting on the 18th. The true reasons for the closure remain a secret.
That’s about it, is it not?
I apologise for the length of this posting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
No apologies needed, Terry. Seems like an excellent summary from what I know of things - being only an excommunicated open forum non SCGB member. The only thing you've missed is the parallel (if time-slipped) fiasco over the boarders' open forum.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Terry. Having served on the Ski Club's Council, I would not describe your analysis as a fantasy. I haven't thought about it in such clinical detail, but it's pretty close to my own theory.
I believe that the Council simply hated the discussion about reps, which included some weighty issues. We therefore witnessed an act of 'expedient censorship'. A discussion about votes and control of the Club was also getting going when the shutters came down.
(putting my SCGB hat on) We have to be careful about airing real core issues in public before a proper internal club debate has taken place. Hopefully some vigorous discussion can continue on the SCGB site - it's now started - because the Club must relate to, and be respected by, the full ski community. It can't cocoon itself any longer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
