What is going on with the SCGB ?

A snowHead

David Goldsmith has just posted a very interesting comment on the SCGB web forum, he points out that the SKI and BOARD website, set up by the SCGB also has a forum on it, one that is open to everyone.

Anyway I've added my comment that this means either the legal advice was wrong concerning the original SCGB forum or if it was correct, then someone in the SCGB responsible for the development of the new site is incompetant.

Anyone else think this reeks of double standards ? Or possibly downright lies ?

A snowHead

I can't access the ski and board site from work (we still have flash v1 here rolling eyes

) but last time I went on at home, the only post was from u brain. I got the impression that they were regularly deleting all posts made there. Maybe u brain can shed more light onto it?

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

No there are a few posts - 12 on the board called "anything goes" for example ("Talk about anything and everything in here."). Great spot from DG - hadn't noticed the chat function because the navigation bar has been cunningly hidden by the site's designers!

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

Frustratingly, it's impossible to link to but try this... Go to http://www.skiandboard.co.uk/, dicker around on the left hand side until the navigation bar reveals itself, select "news" and then the item from 23/02/04 called "Dare to Bare".

You'll get a report on nude snowboarding at xscape, complete with a picture of 3 boarders cavorting in a hot tub. Now tell me what the guy in the back left is doing with his left hand...

Very tasteful!

Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.

un be flipping lievable!!!
I expect its the right hand not knowing what the left is doing. Presumably it will now be shut down???!!!

You'll need to Register first of course.

Maybe we should remind SCGB of the terrible legal risks they face through running an open discussion forum Wink

We captured a few boarders through skiandboard...

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

David S. Yes, I do believe that's the first time my club, the Ski Club of Great Britain, has published a photo of pubic hair. Certainly a centenary milestone. He's not a rep, is he?

Normally with this sort of thing a policeman arrives and strategically places his helmet in front of the offending anatomy. You'd have thought they could have found a ski hat in the building.

After all it is free

What I can't believe is the apparent hypocrasy (I'm sure thats the wrong spelling by the way) of the situation, how on earth can they justify it, or like so many recent comments will they just not bother to try ?

D G Orf, not much going on at http://www.skiandboard.co.uk/, is there? Certainly no rude comments about resorts or equipment. No real threat to anyone. I had yet to discover the (siren) delights of forums when the portcullis came down at SCGB (I note many can only say "the other place" in similar way so many wizards are unable to say Voldemort), but was there a particular comment or topic that prompted the-powers-that-be to to send in the scuds? I get the impression that the forum was becoming too vocal and noisy for some commercial organisations. Yes?

*Ski* the Net with snowHeads

My suspicion though I have no proof is that since the SCGB became a glorified travel agent it has become much more concerned about its image, also certain threads indicated a concern over the profesionalism of its reps and the association it had with those resorts its reps are invited to. Obviosly I'm in the Harry Potter, or possibly Dumbledor mould as I have no problems saying SCGB snowHead

snowHeads are a friendly bunch.

I agree with DGO re the possible protection of reps involvement in MO day. I met up with 2 reps on a recent holiday. Told them I was a non-member but was considering joining until they suddenly closed the forum. One said ' I'm here for fun and skiing ' and invited me to ski with them next day. OK for attitude - can't fault that. Couldn't take up the offer as they were going off piste (way above my level). But that's another thread .....

The other (amongst stuff about legal advice and that they couldn't afford to pay a monitor ........) said he was horrified by some postings in the other place and that if his wife ever saw them he'd never be allowed to rep again.

I use 'the other place' in the parliamentary sense - now which is the Commons and which is the Lords ??

snow reports

The problem is that just because he was horrified about some of the accusations regarding reps behaviour and I can think of at least one thread that's relevent it doesn't mean that the accusations were untrue.

DGO - - - - D'accord. But those were his fears.
I also told him that there was no need to pay for a monitor function. Look what has been achieved here with competent willing volunteers. He was aware of snowHeads but I got the impression he was in "SCGB Can Do No Wrong" mode. My criticisms didn't stop him trying to get me to sign up with the '2 years for 1 if you join in resort' spiel.

The more time goes by the more I suspect the 'Powers That Be' really didn't properly review the working of the open forum and the consequences of its sudden closure. The existence of the other SCGB open forum highlighted above proves there is certainly no consistency of approach and probably sheer incompetence or ignorance played a significant factor in the MO decision.

You know it makes sense.

A friend who's just spent some time with a few SCGB staff asked the question on my behalf. The answer was along the lines of.....we regret having to take the decision, but there was no way Laura could moderate the forums on her own, and there had been a lot of criticism of companies that could have led to legal action being taken. They seem pleased that we've been able to get snowHeads up and running, and still have a place to play.

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

Elizabeth B the whole point of the forums is that it allows people to have their say, i.e if a large number of people are saying that a particular company is failing to do it's job properly it is usually an indication of just that, now said company can either carry on as if nothing is wrong or it can use the information to address the complaints, however if nothing is seen then nobody knows, this is the way that we reward companies that treat us well and punish those that don't.

The problem with the SCGB is that it is now a glorified travel agent more than it is a club for skiers, as such it must protect its relationship with the tour opperators rather than acting as a consumer champion for the skiers, David Goldsmith I believe stated that as it was originally founded no tour opperator could be a member of the SCGB ....... my how times have changed Sad

A snowHead

I totally agree, although if people were writing comments that were untrue (and how does a moderator know?) then they would be open to legal action.

A snowHead

Yes that is true but when you have a number of people all complaining about the same company but in different resorts ..... Alternatively you have the situation I was given recently .. One chap wrote that he was very unhappy about a certain hotel in Wengen another that he was very happy about the same hotel, in the end I didn't post a review one way or another about that hotel and I won't until I have better information, many of these things are related to our expectations but certain things are not, e.g we have the right to expect that on a 7 day ski holiday we will get at least 6 days when if the weather is suitable we can ski, if say due to planes arriving or departing at stupid times this is not the case do we have the right to complain ?

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

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

Ohh good one I hadn't even thought about that side of things, amazing really

Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.

You never know....they might have permission to do this.

You'll need to Register first of course.

It's possible that they might have permission but it would have been so much easier just to provide a link!

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

From my recollection there was actually very little criticism of companies within the forum. There was;

1. A good deal of criticism of the reps programme {mea culpa}
2. A few questions about the reps programme {who goes where, and why do they go there
3. A few questions about the apportionment of votes at AGMs etc [funny enough it was wahen I raised that question that the shutters seemed to go down, despite some fairly strident criticism of the reps 'award'.

I recall very little criticism along the lines of 'brand X/operator X is rubbish'. In any event the s and b forum would be vulnerable to the same postings. However it's less likely to atract this sort of discussion - criticising and questioning the club

After all it is free

My guess is that they've forgotton about the S & B forum - either that, or with one post every 20 days, they feel that they can moderate it.

I seem to remember that holiday companies came in for a bit of stick.....I remember recounting my experience of AOA with Crystal, and there were other such threads.

There was also critisism of reps behaviour, e.g not turning up due to too many drinks the night before then saying they were sick rather than hungover.

The problem with companies goes back to my earlier comment with regard to the SCGB acting as a travel agent, it cannot do that job if at the same time it is also supporting a forum that is seen to critisise one or more opperators, at least that seems to be what it is saying, amongst other things.

*Ski* the Net with snowHeads

snowHeads are a friendly bunch.

Oh ho even better, that's a classic, moan about the possibility of breaking one law whilst possibly deliberately breaking another ! Looks like maybe the SCGB should get some new legal advisors !

snow reports

Below is a variation on my posting to a ski club member on that site. I post it here as you are having similar discussions and it is my honest view.

You are to be respected for your perseverance in attempting to reverse a decision that perhaps 100+ other members disagree with.

However, the ski club is not all about chat lines for the 100 members, …..or more precisely, the 20-30 members …who regularly posted here, and can now chat away all day here on Snowheads.

The ski club council is responsible for servicing the interests of all 27,000 members. Comments such as these posted just today

"Please don't ask in a forum thread because it may get lost within the thousands of messages - where exactly are the thousands of messages now?"

"Ahh there I think I can help try snowheads.com 13,500 messages since feb 06"

and

“ What exactly is your strategy - to shrink the Club into a little group of bald men fighting over a comb?..”

are although amusing, mistakenly attempting to suggest that

the decline of the chat line = the decline of the ski club.

This is clearly not true and it is misleading of you and indeed others, both here and on the ski club site to suggest it is in order to further your argument. The chat line does not even register on the radar of 97% of ski club members.

The ski club should of course seek to promote the benefits of members chatting to each other on line, and encourage more do partake. If more members can be persuaded to join in, the site may in time grow to become a valuable service to many more members.

However if as currently, all but a handful of members simply don’t want to do it, ….or more likely if they go on to the site currently, the content would certainly dissuade them from returning,…. then they have voted with their feet.

By all means carry on your campaign here at Snowheads if you wish, but the continued visits by some to the ski club site merely to mock them simply discredits the original reasonable objections to the ski club decision.

The council have not ignored the vocal but tiny minority on this issue, two council members have fronted up on the ski club site and the decision was reviewed following the outcry.

I am not trying to stifle reasoned discussion here, it is simply that nobody is saying anything new, and the continued argument on the ski club site is far more damaging to the club then the original decision.

Perhaps that is now the intention of some?

michael, welcome to snowHeads, and thanks for your views. I doubt if many (if any) are intending to damage the SCGB. What are being voiced are peoples opinions - something which SCGB weren't happy with. This is of course their right. What has annoyed most people is that the decision seems a backward step. We are in 2004. In 1993, the world wide web had 1000 web sites. It now has millions. Online business is now the norm, as is the internet as a source of information (do you know anyone who uses encylopedias any more?)
If SCGB, like any other organisation, wants to move forward in the 21st Century, they need to exploit the internet as much as possible. They do this with a very informative, well designed website, and appeared to be moving to attract new members via a discussion forum. The decision to remove access to it was a backwards step.
The reason the move has attracted so much criticism is that people care about SCGB. If they didn't, no-one would mention it. However, many people here want the ski club to move forward, and their postings are in frustration at the fact that the ski club, in their eyes, is reinforcing the stereotypical view of an organisation out of date.

You know it makes sense.

Michael I would be more impressed if instead of critisising us and telling us to contribute to more useful threads you wrote a new thread youself.

Before the SCGB removed non member access to its forums there was a lively and useful discussion going on across the board, with lots of useful information being exchanged by both members and non members alike on a variety of different subjects. Since the removal of access by non members most of that discussion has petered out, now you are entitled to your opinions but so are the rest of us.

The primary reason the club quoted when it shut down non member access was that of legal reasons, we have now discovered that a second forum also paid for and managed by the club is wide open to non members, WHY ? surely if it was right to close down one the other should not have been opened, likewise the club would appear to be breaching copyright rules when it publishes certain stories on the net.

Now I happen to think that the SCGB will not back down even if "hell freezes over" however I will respect anyone that can come up with a good story either for or against the club, we still live in a democracy, just, and as long as we have the right to free speech I dont think you or I have the right to change that.

If the council had properly answerd at least some of the critisisms and comments made on the SCGB forum then I suspect that most if not all of the subsequent comments would not have occured.

Right then rant over make of it what you will..

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

I think michael just means that it's time to chill out a bit... ?

A snowHead

A snowHead

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

Sherman I agree however it is interesting to note that their legal advisors failed to mention this to them and yet are so hot on the subject of the internet !
With regard to the previous post of yours I don't believe they ever said it was a valuable resource though I do think it was implied that non members were getting something for nothing, of course on this I could very well be wrong as I was out in the alps at the time

Dolphingirl I hope I am chilled, all I have ever tried to do is participate in reasoned argument and have asked for the reasoning behind certain apparently strange decisions, now my own personal point of view was that they were wrong to do what they did and I have stated that also, along with my belief that despite David Goldsmith and others raising the issue repeatedly it is not going to change.

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

Understood. I enjoy the piste and other stuff threads more though, much calmer! Very Happy

Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.

Michael

''the decline of the chat line = the decline of the ski club. ''

No it doesn't, but;

1. The [non members] chat forum didn't decline, it was killed, stone dead !

2. Whilst the decline of the fourm probably has no direct relationship to the well being or otherwise of the club I, and a number of others can't help thinking that the shut down was representative of a view within the club to the effect that

'you can't criticise us, in fact it's rather impertinent of you to ask any embarassing questions'.

That mind set might well augur rather badly for the club's future.

Now you raise the point that;

'The council have not ignored the vocal but tiny minority on this issue'

I am not sure that you are in a position to claim inside knowledge on this - do you know that the club has had more support than criticism for its decision to close the forum ? If so - well, ok that's democracy.

If you are inferring from the fact that only a small number of people have actually shouted about decision this whilst the 'silent majority' has remained silent -- well I don't think that you're in a position to assume that silence means a vote one way or the other.

You'll need to Register first of course.

I think it's really interesting that all the critics of the SCGB critics have adopted the same "tiny, noisy, unrepresentative minority" line. When I've run websites, I've always thought of people who visit every day as a very important core audience - not as the enemy!

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

After all it is free

DavidS, Precisely! I just don't believe that SCGB couldn't see that. All these messy customers blocking up the store............

Of course what they have now is a nice clean store with everything in its place, although some shelves just have out of stock printed on them and a few customers wandering arround asking the staff when the new stock is going to arrive

*Ski* the Net with snowHeads

Elizabeth - I agree with most of what you say strangely enough, the main difference being that I am prepared to believe the ski club took the unpopular decision for the best of reasons.

Arnold - Yes the chat line for non members was killed by the club. I was referring to the members chat line. The council aren't daft. I am sure they were well aware of the liklehood of the huge reduction in the chat line's traffic when they took the decison.

As for the questions, I cannot speak for them but impertinent questions should not worry anyone UNLESS they also question the motives, honesty and integrity of what is after all an unpaid voluntary role. This is what I object to.

The vocal but tiny minority I refer to is the 100+ members who bothered to object. They do say that for every 1 who complains there are approx. 6 that feel the same but don't. So if we call the number 700 it is still just over 2% of the membership as a whole despite an all out full campaign for the last 6 weeks. It just is not a big issue amongst the wider membership is my take.

DavidS - Yes the 100 are those most affected by the decision. They are not the enemy, just the group who are least likely to accept the decision no matter what the reason.

DG - Nothing I can say will change your view so I won't try.

Help!!

What is going on with the SCGB ?

snowHeads Forum Index >>> Ski Club of Great Britain