Wow, quick discussion, I must have missed it. :ne_nau:Quote:
Originally Posted by Shane
News to me that Shane has authority over who where when etc. I post and/or discuss anything with other people who may happen to be members of Bogley. :crazycobasa::roll::facepalm1:
Thank you Shane, for making my life simpler. I will be sure to not discuss anything with Dan, except "in-house". :naughty:
Tom :moses:
I don't know where this was posted. I haven't seen it anywhere? However I can see what may have triggered it. There has been some talk in a few threads that I have read here on Bogley about possibly building a competing community. I am not sure if that is the case and what the plans are. Obviously this is something that concerns Bogley management and would be very unethical.
There has been a lot of blood, sweat and tears put into this website over a 7 year period. It is a thankless job for the most part. Myself and others that manage the site are very engaged in constantly improving the community. We work full time jobs and work on Bogley during our lunch breaks, but most of the time spent is late at night when our kids are in bed. In fact, I have been working through some server issues for most of the week.
I hope my suspicions are not correct and the talk is about a basic org website. This would make sense and let the social communities continue to serve their purpose. After all, members of various social communities across the web will continue to visit their favorites, no question about that. The majority of Bogley's members live in the heart of canyoneering country. So it is a natural fit for discussions and support of the orgs strategy to continue right here.
At the end of the day Bogley is here to facilitate discussion about new strategies and tactics that will keep the sport of canyoneering healthy for years to come. Access is particularly important to me as I have two young boys that I would like to take into the beautiful canyons that I read about and see on Bogley.
it was posted on the yahoo group.
who said anything about building a competing community? we are interested in having a forum that is simply available for EVERYONE to discuss the issues surrounding the creation of an access organization. it is not a "competition." that's the entire thing we are trying to get away from. shane already co-opted the yahoo group that had something like 55 members, and said that all discussions would take place here on bogley. the place then went silent, and mike ended up deleting the group.
but, a large portion of canyoneers refuse to participate at bogley. some refuse to post at the ACA. some refuse to post on the yahoo group. all we are attempting to do is create a forum that solely deals with the creation of a new association that is directed by democratic participation of the community. it will not be a place to house TRs. it will not be a place for beta questions. it will not be a social organization. it will not be anything other than a forum to discuss things related to the creation of "american canyoneers," it's mission statement, it's bylaws, and it's board of directors. once a clear path has been charted by the members of the organization, i highly doubt the forum will even need to exist anymore.
there is no competition. :ne_nau:
Thanks for the clarification. Good to hear. Will registration be required or will it be open to everyone? If you have to register then it's no different then any of the existing communities. They are all open to EVERYONE as well. Lets face it, people have their personal preferences and politics will be a factor anywhere.
I've said it before, but the only way to get a consensus from the entire canyoneering community is to be active on all the online communities. People won't be forced to hang out where they are not comfortable and creating a neutral community is impossible.
no offense scott, but i don't think you quite understand why people won't post on bogley, or the amount of canyoneers who live outside of utah (bogley is largely a utah canyoneering forum, there are hundreds of canyoneers who never post here, and probably never will). but that's not entirely the point. the reason a new forum is being put together is to facilitate discussions solely related to forming an association. if that continues to happen on bogley, great. but with a significant percentage of people not willing to join here, it makes no sense for there to not be another avenue.
certainly, conversations should still happen here. no one is suggesting they shouldn't. we are just trying to create a big tent, that works for everyone. this is not the place, sorry.
Creating a big tent for the org is fine and I understand what would be discussed. Bogley has the largest online canyoneering community tent so naturally conversations will continue here.
IMO, thinking everyone will post under a new "neutral" tent is not realistic.
If you say so...Quote:
Originally Posted by accadacca
or not.
I realize you have a LOT invested in Bogley, and I thank you for that. There IS a lot of loyalty to the Bog by quite a few canyoneers. But you need look no further than Shane's snide terretorialism for why many canyoneers cannot bring themselves to join Bogley, free though it is:
As Dan said, the American Canyoneers forum is not envisioned as a competitor for Bogley or the Canyons Group, but as a place for all members of the community to discuss, at the least, business issues of American Canyoneers; secondarily perhaps access issues; and unlikely to have much traffic - other things canyoneering.Quote:
Originally Posted by shane
I don't think staking a claim on all current denizens of Bogley as if they are serfs on your estate is likely to be in your long-term best interest.
'nuff said, I think.
Tom
everyone? nope, not looking for that. we are just hoping to create a place where everyone who is interested in discussing the formation and governance of a new association can post. if that were to happen on bogley, you have already alienated a huge portion of canyoneers.Quote:
Originally Posted by accadacca
i don't think you understand what bogley's demographic's truly are. there are a lot of people here, no doubt. but it is nowhere near representative of the canyoneering community at large. almost no one from arizona, nevada, death valley/california, pacific north west, or colorado post here. by in large, this place is dominated by utah based weekend warriors, with a couple exceptions. that's not a knock on bogley, it's just stating a fact. there is a huge portion of the canyoneering community that is not represented here. and many of those people refuse to join here. i think (hope?) you understand why that is. and thus, why having discussions relative to the formation of a new canyoneering association happen only on bogley makes zero sense.
so yes. bogley is free and open to all. thanks for that. but it isn't the answer for american canyoneers.
I NEVER stated that the org should only be discussed here. :nono: Hell, we created a separate section so members could discuss these issues. That's it. Why not accommodate our members.
All I am saying is that you won't be able to corral all canyoneers into one stable. The conversations will continue to happen all across the web and it is in your best interest to include all existing communities. Otherwise in your own words...you will be "alienating" canyoneers.
It seems like there is actually a lot of agreement on this issue. Forming a new site for the development of the organization makes a ton of sense. It would be new, neutral ground for people to contribute to the emerging organization. That doesn't inherently stifle conversations on either of the other forums. People will always engage ideas in multiple ways. However, there is a noticeable deficit of certain voices on Bogley, even compared to some of the 55 who signed up for the temporary YahooGroup.
I think a lot of the confusion came from Shane's comment, not Bogley's actions. I have appreciated the sub-section for the ongoing conversation. It has been helpful.
Phillip
Quote:
Originally Posted by ratagonia
When the comment is pulled over to Bogley from an outside source it is instantly out of context.... The Yahoo post is in a thread where yahoo is discussing building a forum to address their inadequacies with the belief that it will somehow suddenly be a neutral site that everyone will flock to.... I was just pointing out the error in such thinking....
But let me make this really simple for those of you that ride the short bus....
Everyone, including Tom and Crappy, is more then welcome to post anywhere they wish on any issue they desire.
But In the same spirit of freedom.... Bogley will continue to keep our membership informed of all access issues and provide a place on the Bogley forum where the issues can be discussed and addressed....
:cool2:
If anyone needs me to simplify things further just let me know and I'll get some colorful graphs, bold pie charts and a powerpoint presentation.
Here is your original post on Yahoo Canyons Group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/canyons/message/62550Quote:
Originally Posted by Iceaxe
Easy to misread. Here's is Dan's post you are riffing on:Quote:
Originally Posted by Iceaxe
My reading is that a forum needed to be created to discuss organization issues, because the yahoo group, even a new one, is a clumsy tool, and the Bogley Forum is not visited by a large segment of the Canyoneering community. You, Shane, seem to read it as a challenge to Bogley for dominance in the everyday-canyoneering-forum market -- not intended that way, and unlikely to do so. I think the community sorts itself already, and a new general forum is not needed (except, side-issue, for the Canyons Forum to join the 21st century).Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan
Readers can make their own evaluation of your post, and then your re-interpretation of your post. I realize you are very proud of your work over here, Shane, as you should be; and you also demonstrate why many have no desire to post over here in the Bog.
Thank you for your support, Ice. It IS appreciated, even when it may be hard to see. :cool2:Quote:
Originally Posted by iceaxe
Tom :moses:
thanks for keeping it classy shane. heaven forbid we move past this petty bullshit and actually try and move forward with something that might be beneficial to the community in general. :roll:Quote:
Originally Posted by Iceaxe
From Dan
Another forum AND another daily digest needs to be developed for this ONE group that does not post in forums :roll:Quote:
i do expect a new forum will have to be created.
.....
some sort of email or daily digest type offering for those who don't want
to participate in forums altogether needs to be developed too.
best of luck to you if you think this will recruit 100% of the yahoo group. In reality you will still have some of the yahoo group that will not post to the next forum "for obvious reasons" too.
Just because I do not post here does not mean I do not enjoy browsing here often. Now to stay current on access issues I will need to subscribe to 2 more lists from the sound of it :roll:
I think that once the IBOD is in place, a site should be set-up. I envision a board where information is posted via the IBOD with no ability to respond. The information can be mined and taken back to the respective sites for discussion and debate. If the IBOD is diverse, each of the boards can be represented. Even though some will not post in certain places for one reason or another, most can read when and where their interests take them.
Instead of trying to plant trees, maybe we should sow seeds and see how things grow.
i'm not sure what is so difficult to understand about why the new forum will be created. it will be used to DISCUSS THE MISSION STATEMENT AND GOVERNANCE OF THE ASSOCIATION. if you want to be a part of discussing where the association "american canyoneers" is going, that will be the place. that is all.Quote:
Originally Posted by redstone fever
if you want to be a part of it and discuss the formation and direction of the association in particular, we are suggesting it happen in one location. we are just trying to accommodate as many people from as many different groups as possible. whether that be those who are active on the ACA, the canyons, or here at bogley.
if you want to talk about access issues, trip reports, social gatherings, or anything else, post wherever you like, there will be nowhere available for those types of conversations on the american canyoneers site. we are just suggesting that in the infancy of this association, if people want to discuss it's future and influence where it is headed, then please post your feelings on that site, when it is announced. this will be a place to discuss the future iBOD, the bylaws, and governance of the association. that's it.
maybe the community won't participate. maybe nobody really cares enough to step up. so be it. i'll set up the site, encourage everyone to be a part of it. if it gains momentum, hopefully it will become a positive force for the community. if it withers and dies, and becomes nothing more than talk on a few forums, at least we know the community isn't interested.
not sure what is so hard to understand about this. and why it has provoked the dichotomy of a response from shane. on one hand he says he'll support an access type association, but on the other he seems to be implying that bogley is all the community needs and the new association website isn't important.
shane, if you really want to support it, stop talking out both sides of your mouth, and step up and say "let's make it happen." rally your friends and lets try and get some critical mass together and see if we can make this work. or if you think it is pointless, just say so.
none of this is an attack on bogley.
i'm not hoping to recruit 100 percent of anyone. i'm hoping to give everyone a chance who wants to participate in the formation of a new association the chance to participate in it, regardless of what forum they like to follow. i'm not naive enough to think that it will be 100 percent of anyone, anywhere. i'm hoping it is 100 percent of those who want to be a part of this.Quote:
Originally Posted by redstone fever
i'll say it again. the only forum and daily digest messages from the new american canyoneers forum will be directly related to the creation and governance of the new association.
capiche?
I certainly have no interest in reading another site. I think many feel like this. It's hard enough to find time to read one! Even if I tried I know I would loose interest quickly.
I keep coming here for one reason - its about all kinds of things and there are all kinds of people. There is more to life than canyoneering. :haha:
As I understand it, there is a fledgling org, tentatively called "American Canyoneers" - just starting to crack the egg, really. And that new org needs its own place to discuss and develop itself. That place will be the American Canyoneers forum.
The purpose of that forum will not be to supplant, replace, or otherwise draw attention away from existing forums. I am looking forward to seeing it go live, and to where the new org goes.
Please don't try and paint me as the bad guy because I disagree with your opinion of moving the discussions to a smokey back room.Quote:
Originally Posted by CarpeyBiggs
I have been very consistent with my opinions from the very start:
Moving the discussions to a small cliquish environment on a start-up forum with little traffic is a bad idea.
Holding the discussions in the middle of the largest population and broadest spectrum of American canyoneers on an existing forum or forums is a good idea.
Yes, I'm well aware that no matter which option prevails some are going to be unhappy.... Yes, I understand that you, CarpeyBiggs, are one of those that is going to be unhappy if we don't pull down the big top, put the lions back in their cage, pack up the elephants and move into the cliquish back room.
And if you haven't noticed I'm doing exactly as you suggest... I am rallying my friends to the idea of holding any discussions in as large and transparent of venue as possible.
:cool2:
Shane, why do you refer to the suggested forum as a "smoky back room" or a "cliquish environment"? Maybe I missed something in Dan's post, but I didn't see that this would be a site only permitted to enter by those knowing the secret handshake :haha:. My understanding is that anyone interested in "American Canyoneers" would be welcome to participate. Am I wrong?Quote:
Originally Posted by Iceaxe
Nat
Because I have been to this rodeo before..... several times.....Quote:
Originally Posted by nat
My question is why not hold the discussions where the canyoneers actually are?
I think the largest reason to move it to a dedicated forum is to avoid any direct associations with a given forum. The organization will hopefully become an autonomous, professional institution. Housing it on an open forum with diverse topic may not be the best protocol for an organization that plans on interacting with agencies, even at just a minute level.
I have enjoyed and appreciated my limited involvement on Bogley. I actually think its moderation (or lack thereof) is one of the most consistent I have seen. However, I would hate to see the occasional inflammatory remark or off-the-cuff vent affect and independent organization. Hopefully the organization will support our community but it doesn't need to be involved in the day-to-day interactions of its members.
All this depends on an active moderator on the new site who immediately deters irrelevant threads or comments that could hurt the organization. It should be a specialized, limited conversation that is germane to the mission statement and its members relevant needs.
And once again....that doesn't mean people can't duplicate or share their ideas elsewhere.
Phillip
That is the problem....Quote:
Originally Posted by restrac2000
The minute a moderator (or moderators) impose any judgment call or moderation the organization immediately loses any neutrality because at that point one group is imposing their standards, morals and ethics over anther.
Now the big catch 22... a forum can't really function well without some type of moderation.
This is why I believe the organization should avoid having a forum. That is the only way for the organization to truly remain neutral. The minute a forum is added all neutrality is lost, no matter how good the intentions.
I don't know if "neutrality" is as black and white as you pose, Shane.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iceaxe
First, from how I understand the impetus of the new site, its more about a "neutral" location than a type of moderation. Second, I don't think its as simple as "imposing" ones standards on another. People who go to the new site will do so as interested individuals, not ambassadors from a specific forum (i.e. a different group). By engaging in any forum it is presumed you have read the rules and standards, which on most forums are pretty universal and basic. We are supposed to be knowledgeable about the places in which we interact. We should know the boundaries. So its more about remaining accountable than being a victim of some random act of moderation.
All that said, I am not a moderator or administrator of the site. I am not sure how they will deal with the concept you mention. I don't believe it is likely that it will ever be a big deal because such heavy handed moderation is rare and the parameters of use are extremely limited (i.e. iBOD and mission statement)
I have signed into the new site and hope my contributions are meaningful. Hoping your conclusions are wrong.
Phillip
I'm trying to make this simple....
Just reading through the forums boiler plate information causes me concern.
Yes, it sounds great in theory, but what I consider abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening or sexually-orientated probably differs greatly from your interpretation.Quote:
You agree not to post any abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening, sexually-orientated or any other material that may violate any laws be it of your country, the country where “American Canyoneers” is hosted or International Law. Doing so may lead to you being immediately and permanently banned.
At some point information that is detrimental to the organization will be posted on the forum.... at that point who makes the call? I don't want to see this new organization fall into one of the traps that caused the ACA such grief. I have also owned and moderated canyoneering forums for 15 years, I know what the downfalls and weakness are.
Maybe the best argument I can make is:
There is a good reason the Access Fund does not host a forum.
The Access Fund is a good organization that I would like to see American Canyoneers modeled after.
Quote:
Originally Posted by restrac2000
I understand it won't be associated with any given forum. And if one happens to post a trip report, gathering, or anything stated above? Does it get deleted? Kept but locked? Does the poster get asked to post this on another forum without making the suggestion to yahoo canyoneering.net or bogley because of the strict non association?Quote:
Originally Posted by CarpeyBiggs
I'm sorry if this keep you up at night. So many unanswered questions!!!! :cool2:Quote:
Originally Posted by redstone fever
:moses:
i hope people from bogley will participate. if you don't want to allow a link to the other website to be posted on this forum, i suppose i can't argue with you. that's management's decision. if people feel like bogley is the best place to discuss these issues, i have no problem with that. however, the new organization is not just about some forum. it has the potential to be the online presence of a transparent, member-based association. the strength of this association will be in it's numbers and and in it's members. so i understand you don't want to see another forum created, that's fair enough. but the forum is not the association. it is simply a mechanism to help steer the vehicle in it's infancy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iceaxe
if we are going to move past the fragmentation in the canyoneering community, it will be by working together. our strength will be in our members. you are a well known player in this community, and your sphere of influence is substantial. my invitation to you is to use that influence and help make this new organization a success.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iceaxe
Oh, thanks Shane. I only have a bachelor's degree, so I struggle with these complex language challenges...Quote:
Originally Posted by Iceaxe
Probably not, and you have Bogley where you can be as abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous and hateful as you wish. Perhaps you would refrain from such behavior on American Canyoneers. And uh, notice that condescending is not on that list, so you can still be condescending. Compromise?Quote:
Originally Posted by Iceaxe
Whomever are the forum moderators at the time. This is a job looking for volunteers, perhaps they would also provide guidelines for posting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iceaxe
Thank you Ice. Couldn't have said it better myself. When the Access Fund formed itself, they used the best communication method available at the time - the phone. Land lines to be exact. Now we have a great tool for putting an organization together: a PHP bulletin board. You seem to imply we should not use the best tool available, but perhaps send notes by Owl?Quote:
Originally Posted by Iceaxe
Your support is valued, Shane. Would you mind putting aside the IceAxe personna for a few months and lending a hand, rather than getting in the way. The people actually doing things at the moment have no interest in superseding Bogley.
Tom Jones
Imlay Canyon Gear
Canyoneering USA
Zion Adventure Company
ps. using my real name and associations I offer as an indication that this is a post from the real world ME, not from my ever-rascible Bogley Personna, Ratagonia, Centagenarian Emperor of Canyoneering.
Dan and Tom.... I have noticed this "working together" only applies to achieving the goals you want by the method you desire....
You can try to spin this any way you wish.... but what it really boils down to is you are only happy if everyone is willing to move into your small tent. I told you from the very beginning moving to a small cliquish tent would be an issue for many of us.
So to the two of you.... if you are really interested in "working together" lets see you back up your talk.
All the work so far has been done on Bogley. The name was coined here, Mission statement is well on its way, iBOD was in progress, goals were being discussed.... The only thing that has slowed any of the work down is the two of you wasting so much time trying to shove everyone into that little tent of yours.
How about the two of you come over here and help us get some work done. One thing I know for certian about Bogley, we can get this done, and done fast, with your help.
Shane Burrows
Climb Utah - Canyoneering & Mountaineering
http://Climb-Utah.com
Shane - I'm a straightforward guy, I call it how I see it. I am not trying to spin anything. I sincerely want to make this work. I have no financial interest in this. My primary motivation is to see an association formed that can hopefully secure access to canyons, and preserve the resources we already have access to. That's it. The community has been fragmented for a long time. I've played a part in it, as I tend to have pretty strong opinions. But if we are going to move forward and make this work, we have to move on. My commitment is to donating time and energy to creating a representative community organization.
With the help of Wolfgang, we've acted on input from a variety of sources, and created the foundations for a true association moving forward. He is currently working on the legal aspects of incorporating as a non-profit. Hopefully this will coincide closely with the formation of an interim board. And really, that's the next step, finding people willing to be on the iBOD. Whether that happens here or on Canyons or at American Canyoneers or anywhere else doesn't ultimately matter. We are simply extending the invitation to people to volunteer for the iBOD, so that they can form the bylaws and governance documents. After that, a method for members to join will be implemented, and a true vote will take place to establish a true board of directors.
I'm sincerely trying to understand your concerns. What am I missing? I'm not trying to spin your responses, misrepresent you, or paint you as "the bad guy." Simply put, what is it about American Canyoneers and it's associated website that you don't approve of? Do you believe it somehow undermines Bogley? If so, why?
Let's work together Shane. I'm backing up my talk the best I can.
Shane,Quote:
Originally Posted by Iceaxe
I have to fully disagree with you on this one.
The size of the new tent has yet to be decided, that will be based on member involvement. Ultimately it makes sense to move the new work to an official site. I understand you have trepidation about the new forum. I also understand you have based that on previous experience and observation. But don't you think this is a genuine attempt to build something new, meaningful and is at least attempting to correct some of the structural problems that started this entire dialog this autumn?
While the work has been housed at Bogley it has been "done" in many places. There was an attempt to make it happen at Yahoo but that turned into an odd situation and dissolved. There was an unofficial move to house in its own subsection at Bogley. That has been a great catalyst. There has been a ton of email and phone calls that have gone on behind the scenes. The iBOD stagnated almost immediately here (hopefully that won't be a terminal theme). I coined the name and shared it on Bogley but that was because it was the most active dialog.
The most direct work has been done by Wolf and he was based on Yahoo (from what I gather). He finally put his money where his mouth was and paid the fees and got the ball rolling. Dan actually helped build the site and make the ideas "official" (for whatever that means). I have thoroughly appreciated Bogley's site for helping house elements of the conversation but that doesn't mean it needs to remain here. In fact, the territorial battle that seems to be developing is a good reason to move it away ASAP. If it becomes a BOGLEY thing or Yahoo thing then that will undoubtedly deter interested members from both sides of the fractured online community.
As for the Access Fund comparison.....I agree with Tom. I recognize this technology is a double-edged sword but it seems like we have an opportunity to increase awareness and involvement that didn't exist 1-2 decades ago for comparable organizations. If we harness it "properly" it can be a great tool.
I would hate to see this relatively minor issue (in regards to the overall goal of the new org) fracture and deter success so early on. This is the most member-driven movement I have seen in the community in a long time.
Phillip
QFEQuote:
Originally Posted by restrac2000
I totally agree, Phillip. I really think this nascent organization needs its own tent. I'm a frequent Bogley poster, and I'm a Yahoo lurker and occasional poster. The place to discuss American Canyoneers is... American Canyoneers. Aside from that, my trip reports will be here. My discussions and socializing will be here. And I'll continue to keep tabs on what's happening over on the Group, and chime in now and then.
"I don't always discuss canyoneering organizations - but when I do, it's on American Canyoneers."
You are getting side tracked Phillip.....Quote:
Originally Posted by restrac2000
I do not support American Canyoneers maintaining it own forum for a multitude of reasons, which have been throughly detailed in the thread above... if you disagree that is fine. I wish you the best of luck.
:cool2:
I think we do disagree about the importance and flaws of it having a forum.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iceaxe
However, just so I understand you, how was my comment "side-tracked"? I think I addressed, acknowledged or countered several of the consistent ideas you have stated. I get the "tent" idea and I also believe it has been an important element of your resistance to the new website. Where am I wrong or side-tracked?
Phillip
Shane - I've carefully read this entire thread, and tried to understand your issues. In the above thread, I don't see any clear reasons why you won't support the American Canyoneers. Again, this is not an attempt to be snide or sarcastic. I'm being serious.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iceaxe
If your concern is one of competition, I think it is unfounded. The American Canyoneers website will never be competition to Bogley. It is not a social forum. The only reason the forum exists is to discuss it's pertinent business. Why would the association discuss it's pertinent business anywhere but on it's own site? As soon as the iBOD is developed and bylaws written, the forum will have largely served it's purpose. I've said it countless times, it is NOT a competition. It will not house trip reports, beta requests, or any other function that Bogley or Canyons already does. The social sites serve the community well. No need to supplant them.
It appears the real sticking point here is the creation of a new forum. Here is what is posted on American Canyoneers.
I'm here to listen. If you and Scott have a clear complaint about why you will not support the American Canyoneers and why you will not allow a link to posted on Bogley, please explain. I don't see any reasons in the thread above, certainly not a multitude. I see concerns from Scott about competition. I see no clear concerns from Shane, save a few cheap shot insults.Quote:
Originally Posted by American Canyoneers Site
We're here. Have been for years. We aren't going anywhere. I have nearly 3700 posts, as does Tom. :2thumbs:Quote:
Originally Posted by Iceaxe
I read this whole thread again, top to bottom, one more time to see if I am missing something. I realize Scott's fears about competition. Makes sense. From this thread, it appears those fears have been resolved. I suppose there is an element of him simply trusting that American Canyoneers is going to be what we say it is going to be.
The only clear argument I see from Shane is not a clear argument at all. He says
Which really doesn't explain why it is a problem for this community at this point. No one is suggesting that a forum is necessary once the organization is formalized. Though I agree with most every point stated already in this forum, which is the forum is not necessary after the organization is formalized. However, that's not my decision to make. That will be up to a future board.Quote:
There is a good reason the Access Fund does not host a forum.
I also don't see concerns voiced by any other individuals besides Shane and Scott (again, Scott's appear resolved from reading this thread.) Sandstone Fever made a couple comments wondering what would happen if someone posted a TR or something on the other site. The answer to that seemed self-evident to me. There is absolutely no reason to post it over there. That forum exists for one highly specific reason.
Myself (and many others) helped create the beast that became the ACA.... I have no intention of making the same mistakes and creating ACA version 2.0. The forum gives the organization to much power to work out shady deals in a smokey back room and moderate off the malcontents and whistle blowers..... And now some of those pressuring me the hardest for my support are the same individuals that ignored my warnings 10 years ago regarding the ACA.
If you want my support dump the forum and work in a transparent and open manner free from the internal pressure of the organization....
As I said, I have been to this rodeo before and have no desire to help create ACA v2.0.
:cool2:
FWIW: I am done with this thread, if you don't get it by now you never will.... See Ya.
:wavey:
Shane - how do you propose the new association go about forming an iBOD? If the discussion is to happen on Bogley, this statement stills hold true.
A very good example is the post I made last night that was moderated, and still has not been restored.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iceaxe
Again, these two are not mutually exclusive. Having a forum is one of the sure ways to ensure transparency, and one of the reasons why the discussion of the association should happen on that site. You yourself have made the "forums make moderators too powerful" argument ad nauseum. (even though I don't agree with you.) If anything, NOT having the discussions in an open and transparent manner is what allows the smoky back room deals to be made. No need to moderate off malcontents and whistle blowers when they aren't even invited to the party.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iceaxe
Which is exactly why a new forum was created. To give EVERYONE a chance to participate and nominate an iBOD, if they have the desire.
But as I said before, whether the nominations happen here, or there, or anywhere else ultimately doesn't matter. Getting a diverse interim board together is paramount. Really, we just need people to step up and volunteer some time. Then, as a board, they can work through the legal hurdles, create a mission statement, and move towards a true transparent organization with a democratically elected board.
I'm trying to grasp why you have so many reservations. Your arguments really seem to be hollow and petty. Say the American Canyoneers forum is dumped, how do you suggest the iBOD be selected? How do you avoid the smoky backroom deals? How do you facilitate open and fair discussion? If your answer is to "have those discussions on Bogley" then you are contradicting yourself, as you said forums facilitate shady backroom deals. (I, once again, disagree with you here. Clear, open and transparent discussions are the only way to keep these deals from happening.)
Just know the invitation is extended. I hope you participate. As you probably already know, you have been nominated to serve on the iBOD. What better way to make sure your point of view is represented then to accept and volunteer?
I get that summation and preference. I wasn't in the ACA mix until about 2002-2003 and then I bought fully into the model it presented. I didn't learn about its lack of honest structure and community involvement until much later. So in some ways I am an example that supports your trepidation.
On the other hand....its seems the forums sole purpose thus far is to completely avoid the problems many of us have condemned that ACA about in the past. Its transparent and open. There is no real "internal pressure of organization" yet.....there is just a group of people in the early forms of making itself cohesive.
You may have too many bad experiences in the past.....sorry to lose your input on the American Canyoneers forum for that reason. You have many great ideas and I think the overall organization will benefit from that diversity. However, I don't remotely see your stated fears as manifested in the new website. Maybe I will be proven wrong (once again). But I would rather make a mistake trying to participate in building something I value than whittle away at any potential because of relatively small details.
I do have a question.....has Bogley officially refused to allow the hyperlink to American Canyoneers? If so, that seems unfortunate and to fall right into the very trap you are trying to avoid Shane. If not, then no worries.
Phillip