 Poster: A snowHead
|
... that's the date on which nominations close for places on the Ski Club's Council (board of directors). There are four vacancies this year and the election will be held on 29 November - at the Club's annual meeting.
If you would like to influence the Club for the better, enhance its services to members and further its role in the skiing world, then 29 August is the date by which you must notify HQ of your desired candidate(s). A proposer and seconder must sign the nomination, which should take the form of the candidate confirming interest in standing. Nominations must be forwarded to the Chief Executive at the Wimbledon HQ.
Given the importance of the internet to the Club's future, enlightened Ski Club members - who are also snowHeads - could be of value and significance to the future running of the organisation.
Do you know someone with some skiing knowledge and an appreciation of the Great British Skiing Public, who's also a forward-thinker?
Get those nominations in!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
Only a certain David Goldsmith.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
Been there, done it, got the t-bar
There must be hundreds of well-qualified potential candidates
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
I should have mentioned that there will also be an election for the new Treasurer, since the long-serving Treasurer of the Club gave notice of his retirement last year. This interesting position may appeal to a member who would like to oversee the Club's finances, its incomes and expenditures, and budgeting.
I'm not quite clear as to whether the position of Treasurer is open to nominations from ordinary members of the Club. No notice has been given, other than the verbal one at last year's AGM. If someone has access to the constitution (memorandum and articles of association) this could be explored further. I'm unable to download the pdf file on the computers I have access to.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
hibernia, I think David's problem is that his computers have unusual access problems when it comes to the SC site. Isn't that a strange thing? Never mind, I've emailed him the pdf but thanks anyway 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Alan - I just realised that after I posted the above and have been trying ( unsuccessfuly!) to do a copy and paste of the extract referred to.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Alan Craggs, in fact it's only one of his PCs that is having trouble, according to him. Conspiracy theorists will have to explain why he just doesn't use the one that works!
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Put your money on the horse, Alan. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
What's happened to snowball's post and it's replies?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
Cor blimey guv give me a chance. A PM is on it's way to you Tim.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Alan Craggs, ok, fair enough. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| Quote: |
What's happened to snowball's post and it's replies?
|
I guess the rest of us will never know ....... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
maggi, whether you find out or not, rest assured Alan has acted correctly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
maggi, now that I have a little more time... snowball's post included what was, in my opinion, an allegation in respect of a particular individual which should be independently verified if it is to remain in the public domain. I took the decision to remove it from public view whilst the matter is referred back to snowball and discussed elsewhere. The post has not been deleted and if my decision is deemed to be inappropriate then it can be restored.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
|
|
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?
|
maggi, not true at all! I even agreed with masque once! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of snowball's post but if I remember rightly it was about an incident 10 years ago and was also not really relevant to this topic (though diversions can be stimulating). So it might be best left in limbo... Whatever the mods decide is fine with me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
ian, with respect I think that misses the point entirely.
Yes, snowball rolled off-topic to a degree but there's no rule about what you can write about on this forum, or what it must relate to. Can't see that the history is relevant - it might just reflect an 'enduring cultural problem'. Free speech is something we celebrate, don't we?
| Quote: |
| So it might be best left in limbo... |
It might be even better for it to be checked out, and for the person concerned to be offered an opportunity to respond to the allegations.
Is that what you actually meant? (!)
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
David Goldsmith, the post and some replies were there for quite a time. Thread diversions are not per se a problem. I usually enjoy them. But Alan obviously felt this one needed further checking before leaving it any longer in view. No problem at all with free speech within the site's acceptable limits but dragging up something from 10 years back (even if it is about the same guy, who is now retiring anyway) hardly seems very productive. This site has a policy on vexatious postings and personal attack and perhaps snowball's post might have been verging on breach of policy? It's not for me to decide but my opinion is that nothing much will be achieved if it comes back. This is normally a friendly and polite place and snowball would probably admit his post was out of keeping both with his normal style and that of the forum.
You started this thread to draw attention to nominations for new blood in SC. Any allegations against SC staff or members past or present would be better posted on the SC site in my opinion. But mainly I don't see the point of making them anywhere after such a long time. If there is an ongoing 'cultural problem' in SC with the sort of behaviour snowball described that's their problem. A post and some discussion on snowheads is not going to change it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ian, as a very longstanding member of the Club (which has a mission statement to be a 'club for all skiers' and 'the spokesbody of British skiers') my normal instinct would be to agree with you. Yes, it's an internal matter for members of the Club.
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. Of course, we're in the rather odd position of Ski Club matters being discussed on an external forum, but the reason seems to be that most Ski Club members involved in discussing skiing do it here on snowHeads, post MO (Members Only) Day in Feb 2004.
Had the exclusion not taken place, we would probably still be in one chalet, and snowball might well have raised his points in the 'members only' section of the SCGB site. But he didn't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Beck Daross, the mission statement (1995 SCGB Annual Report) is as follows:
| Quote: |
To promote safe, enjoyable recreational skiing to skiers of all standards. This will be done by providing members with a wide range of high quality services in the UK and Overseas.
The Club will also safeguard and enhance its position as the independent spokesbody for British recreational skiers |
References to the Ski Club of Great Britain dedicating itself to "all skiers" - which I'd thoroughly support, personally - have been made at various times since the switch to being a more commercial (i.e. populist?) and outward-looking organisation.
The moderation carried out on snowball's posting was - I agree - correct. Whether that's the end of the matter is really up to the mods, which is fine too.
It's only my personal view that snowHeads can perform a useful function in keeping the national Ski Club on its toes, from an independent perspective - particularly if our Club seeks to be representative and inclusive of all British skiers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
David Goldsmith, I am bemused that you quote a 10-year old mission statement rather than current policy. And from what I have seen, correspondence here will not divert SCGB policy one jot. Correspondence in the Club forum is, however, sometimes picked up by the staff or a council member. And, of course, cogent, coherent, and brief letters can also influence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
That's absolutely right, Nick. We're either 10 years into the mission, or the mission has been modified for some reason. It's obviously best if missions, simply and clearly stated as in 1995, are followed and accomplished.
The current policy you quote is broadly consistent with the 1995 mission, but the reference to acting as "the independent spokesbody for British recreational skiers" is not there. Does our Club not act with that objective, when contacted by national media?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Well, Alan has approved a longer version with some slight rewording.
However many people above don't seem to feel I should re-post so I don't know what to do. I was simply recounting what happened on the holiday (and there was a more minor action of the person in question that really annoyed many people I haven't even mentioned in either version).
I and my friend Stuart have told this story to many SCGB members in the past since we thought it quite shocking, and seeing him mentioned I simply told it here.
Certainly it is much too late for the ski Cub to dicipline him in any way since he is retiring, but I never thought in those terms.
I would welcome any thoughts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| snowball wrote: |
Well, Alan has approved a longer version with some slight rewording.
However many people above don't seem to feel I should re-post so I don't know what to do. I was simply recounting what happened on the holiday (and there was a more minor action of the person in question that really annoyed many people I haven't even mentioned in either version).
I and my friend Stuart have told this story to many SCGB members in the past since we thought it quite shocking, and seeing him mentioned I simply told it here.
Certainly it is much too late for the ski Cub to dicipline him in any way since he is retiring, but I never thought in those terms.
I would welcome any thoughts. |
Of course you should, there's rather too much censorship. I fail to see why it's not a matter for discussion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
ise, it is quite unwarranted and unfair to refer to the moderator's actions as censorship. It was a wise precautionary action. No censorship has taken place, as is clear from what snowball says.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
Well here it is:
I assume the SCGB treasurer about to retire is Fred English. I had no idea he was still serving. He was already “long serving” when I had the misfortune to come across him, about 10 years ago.
I and a friend, Stuart Bonham, were on an SCGB off-piste holiday to La Grave, (gold or purple/gold standard, I forget which).
We had 2 guides for 12 people as is usual there. However it turned out that Fred and his wife were nowhere near good enough skiers for the holiday standard.
The youngish female party leader, if she had followed normal procedure, would have asked them to leave our ski-groups and find another guide. However we, and the other people on the holiday we talked to, assumed that Fred English had pulled rank or at the least she didn’t feel she could do this with the treasurer of the club. Consequently the rest of the holiday Fred and his wife hogged one guide, while all the rest of us all skied with the other, and Fred showed no sign of being embarrassed with this result. It was as though they were on a separate holiday from us.
Skiing with so many with one guide is not very safe off piste in such challenging terrain, and the guide was not happy. Nor were we. It seems likely we didn’t ski some things we might otherwise have done.
Stuart and I, and the others on the holiday we spoke to, all believed that someone with as much experience of the club as Fred English must have known that he and his wife were not up to the ski standard, but we cannot prove this.
However neither Stuart or I complained to the Club, as, in retrospect, perhaps we should have. We thought that the the party leader had to write a report on the holiday and that the facts would thus become known to the club holiday organisers. Perhaps we were wrong.
I should say that I have been a regular on Ski Club holidays, before and since and would still urge anyone to go on one, especially if they are seeking a group of similar standard to ski with off-piste.
|
|
|
|
|
|
brian
brian
Guest
|
David Goldsmith, what would you call it then ? If a posting is removed because of it's content and only approved after modification, then that's censorship, Shirley ?
Justified censorship it may be, but still censorship.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
It will be interesting to see how long it is before the post above is 'modded'!
|
|
|
|
|
|
brian
brian
Guest
|
|
boredsurfin, I think that one's been pre-approved.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
brian, it's moderation. Censorship is almost always non-negotiable, with the censor(s) having very much the last word.
Alan Craggs' actions were wise and correct, in relation to common publishing practice and the law. If people want anarchy it's maybe best to start snowAnarchy, with no mods, no censors - and probably best to base it on a remote ungoverned island.
|
|
|
|
|
|
brian
brian
Guest
|
David Goldsmith, I'm not disputing the wisdom of AC's action. I'm sure it was perfectly reasonable. I've been involved in moderating internet fora as well and sometimes censorship is necessary.
Don't see why we should avoid the word though. AC would not have allowed the original posting to stand and very much has the last word, does he not ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| David Goldsmith wrote: |
| ise, it is quite unwarranted and unfair to refer to the moderator's actions as censorship. It was a wise precautionary action. No censorship has taken place, as is clear from what snowball says. |
Rubbish.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I would have thought the outcome is satisfactory, forging the necessary balance between what snowball intended to express, and the 'community of snowHeads' interests. It was clearly a negotiated outcome, between the mod and the author, so what's the problem?
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 !)
BTW, it's important that the individual referred to in snowball's posting enjoys right of reply, IMHO. Perhaps he has a PR agent who could organise this?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| David Goldsmith wrote: |
BTW, it's important that the individual referred to in snowball's posting enjoys right of reply, IMHO. Perhaps he has a PR agent who could organise this? |
No it's not, this is the Internet, not the parish magazine. Where does this right come from?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
ise, I hope you don't adopt this sort of tone when communicating with Swiss banks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
David Goldsmith, what tone? Do I walk in whining about rights I imagine I have with some intellectually flaccid justification? Oddly, no, this is Switzerland, they'd laugh at me.
I presume this is all by way of the usual stock in trade attempts to belittle rather than answer a question? What right do you think it is? Would any of the people you belittle and insult have a right of reply? I'm thinking of the frequent political tirades you launch, or the postings you made about a doctor in the public eye.
The logic of some link between asking you a question and my private banking arrangements utterly escapes me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
(It's a woman thing - you must have noticed 
)
