discussions among our members regarding Access Issues will be handled in-house

[CarpeyBiggs]

I do have a question.....has Bogley officially refused to allow the hyperlink to American Canyoneers?

That is correct. The link was posted last night with an invitation to all to participate in nominating an iBOD. It was replied to by jman, then placed in moderation, where it still is. I have the ability to see it and read it, since I am a moderator here at Bogley. I have asked that I be removed as a moderator here, as it appears my participation on the two sites is a conflict of interest.

Currently, Wolf and I have admin privileges on the AC site, until an iBOD is determined, at which point the board will take control of it.

That's about as open and transparent as we can be.

[Cirrus2000]

How exactly is a forum, open to all, a "smoky back room"? Shane, that doesn't make sense... A new, open forum with participation from various "factions" is precisely what is needed to prevent the shady dealings you seem to be concerned about.

Edited to add: The moderation that is being perpetrated is petty and vindictive. I am actually sickened. I was gone for months because of some of the pettiness around here, but missed it a bunch and came back. But this?? I am completely disgusted. Is this just Shane, or is it Scott?

[CarpeyBiggs]

The moderation that is being perpetrated is petty and vindictive. I am actually sickened. I was gone for months because of some of the pettiness around here, but missed it a bunch and came back. But this?? I am completely disgusted. Is this just Shane, or is it Scott?

I believe Scott placed it in moderation. I can understand his concern, if he truly feels we are trying to create a competing site. Again, not my (our) intentions. Scott is most likely busy during business hours so probably hasn't had a chance to weigh the matter fully. I expect he will make a reasonable explanation when he has time to consider it fully.

Don't be too hasty in your disgust.

[oldno7]

So lets see.....
Once the ibod is selected, they choose a bod and decide a mission statement.
Bod is put in place to administer the site, which will only be used for directing business as it relates to canyon access.

I guess, even as a lifetime bigshot, I fail to see the conflict. Quite possibly it could produce increased visibility and usage of this very site.

As long as EVERYTHING at the AC site is transparent, I see little to no chance of an aca II.

[restrac2000]

That is correct. The link was posted last night with an invitation to all to participate in nominating an iBOD. It was replied to by jman, then placed in moderation, where it still is. I have the ability to see it and read it, since I am a moderator here at Bogley. I have asked that I be removed as a moderator here, as it appears my participation on the two sites is a conflict of interest.

Currently, Wolf and I have admin privileges on the AC site, until an iBOD is determined, at which point the board will take control of it.

That's about as open and transparent as we can be.

I hope a measured and reasonable outcome can be managed by the Bogley moderators. I am not sure how they perceive a conflict or competition from the new site. That said, I do not have a financial stake in Bogley. I look forward to an explanation.

Phillip

[jman]

I was wondering why my silly comment got moderated - that's a little clearer.

Back to topic - It's fine to disagree on things, but perhaps egos are getting in the way? So much for the "greater canyoneering good" then... :(

[Cirrus2000]

I believe Scott placed it in moderation. I can understand his concern, if he truly feels we are trying to create a competing site. Again, not my (our) intentions. Scott is most likely busy during business hours so probably hasn't had a chance to weigh the matter fully. I expect he will make a reasonable explanation when he has time to consider it fully.

Don't be too hasty in your disgust.

Very good point - I am being hasty. My apologies for flying off the handle. A board owner/moderator cannot always be available to tend the flock.


But should it remain in moderation for an unreasonable time/in perpetuity, I stand by my comments. Therefore I'll not edit my previous post...

[accadacca]

For the record, I didn't moderate the post. I am not sure who did. There are a handful of moderators over the Canyoneering section, including Carpey. I was alerted by a regular average joe bogley user that a link had been posted to a competing forum. They voiced their concern to me, so I PM'd Carpey last night.

Once the board has been established, a mission statement developed, and the bylaws created, this forum will be at the discretion of the board.

What will the board decide to do with the forum down the road? Could it end up in direct competition with Bogley? What if they want a social group? It is impossible to answer these questions and know what direction the board will take.

Conversation and participation is obviously the lifeblood of Bogley. It doesn't matter if members are talking about bird feeders. We want that conversation to happen on Bogley. It is what we do here and why this site was created. This shouldn't be hard to understand.

Would a car dealership advertise for another car dealership? Even if they sold a different make of car? Bogley members will naturally sign-up if they have an interest in org discussions or have a desire to purchase that make of car.

Bogley has dedicated an entire section to this topic. There are 26 threads and over 1,100 posts on the subject. It has been covered ad nauseum. In fact, the mission statement was started here, the nominations, the entire idea of a new association, etc, etc, etc. If it was that much of a concern, all of that would be deleted. There is far most publicity being created over a thread going into moderation then would have been received by a hyperlink to a name that has been mentioned countless times on Bogley.

Does Bogley support the new org and issues at hand? Absolutely. That is obvious in my post and the creation of a separate forum, yadda, yadda. Do we support another forum without knowing the full intentions of the board? No.

[ratagonia]

For the record, I didn't moderate the post. I am not sure who did. There are a handful of moderators over the Canyoneering section, including Carpey. I was alerted by a regular average joe bogley user that a link had been posted to a competing forum. They voiced their concern to me, so I PM'd Carpey last night.


What will the board decide to do with the forum down the road? Could it end up in direct competition with Bogley? What if they want a social group? It is impossible to answer these questions and know what direction the board will take.

Conversation and participation is obviously the lifeblood of Bogley. It doesn't matter if members are talking about bird feeders. We want that conversation to happen on Bogley. It is what we do here and why this site was created. This shouldn't be hard to understand.

Would a car dealership advertise for another car dealership? Even if they sold a different make of car? Bogley members will naturally sign-up if they have an interest in org discussions or have a desire to purchase that make of car.

Bogley has dedicated an entire section to this topic. There are 26 threads and over 1,100 posts on the subject. It has been covered ad nauseum. In fact, the mission statement was started here, the nominations, the entire idea of a new association, etc, etc, etc. If it was that much of a concern, all of that would be deleted. There is far most publicity being created over a thread going into moderation then would have been received by a hyperlink to a name that has been mentioned countless times on Bogley.

Does Bogley support the new org and issues at hand? Absolutely. That is obvious in my post and the creation of a separate forum, yadda, yadda. Do we support another forum without knowing the full intentions of the board? No.

Do segments of a community support each other? Absolutely.

Destroyer

Met a girl called lola and I took her back to my place
Feelin' guilty, feelin' scared, hidden cameras everywhere
Stop! hold on. stay in control

Girl, I want you here with me
But I'm really not as cool as I'd like to be
'cause there's a red, under my bed
And there's a little yellow man in my head
And there's a true blue inside of me
That keeps stoppin' me, touchin' ya, watchin' ya, lovin' ya

Paranoia, the destroyer.
Paranoia, the destroyer.

Well I fell asleep, then I woke feelin' kinda' queer
Lola looked at me and said, ooh you look so weird.
She said, man, there's really something wrong with you.
One day you're gonna' self-destruct.
You're up, you're down, I can't work you out
You get a good thing goin' then you blow yourself out.

Silly boy ya' self-destroyer. silly boy ya' self-destroyer

Silly boy you got so much to live for
So much to aim for, so much to try for
You blowing it all with paranoia
You're so insecure you self-destroyer

(and it goes like this, here it goes)
Paranoia, the destroyer
(here it goes again)
Paranoia, the destroyer

Dr. dr. help me please, I know you'll understand
There's a time device inside of me, I'm a self-destructin' man
There's a red, under my bed
And there's a little green man in my head
And he said, you're not goin' crazy, you're just a bit sad
'cause there's a man in ya, knawin' ya, tearin' ya into two.

Silly boy ya' self-destroyer.
Paranoia, the destroyer

Self-destroyer, wreck your health
Destroy friends, destroy yourself
The time device of self-destruction
Light the fuse and start eruption

(yea, it goes like this, here it goes)
Paranoia, the destroyer
(here's to paranoia)
Paranoia, the destroyer
(hey hey, here it goes)
Paranoia, the destroyer
(and it goes like this)

Paranoia, the destroyer
(and it goes like this.)

You can pretend that you are part of a larger canyoneering community, or you can protect your own, selfish interest. Your choice. Hero or Goat.

Baaaaaaa.

Tom

[Cirrus2000]

Seems pretty picayune. The stated intention of the forum is to discuss a very specific topic. You can't see everything as a competitor. Is there any kind of assurance that would make you see the American Canyoneers discussion forum as not being a threat?

The fact that you set up this portion of Bogley was very generous, and a great service to the canyoneering community. It helped to create a place where ideas could be shared, and a new organization incubated. This type of organization, if it is to be effective, needs to be independent, though, not a subsidiary of Bogley. You gained a lot of goodwill, I think, by helping out this project as it got started. I don't think you should squander it by being petty now.

[restrac2000]

The fact that you set up this portion of Bogley was very generous, and a great service to the canyoneering community. It helped to create a place where ideas could be shared, and a new organization incubated. This type of organization, if it is to be effective, needs to be independent, though, not a subsidiary of Bogley. You gained a lot of goodwill, I think, by helping out this project as it got started. I don't think you should squander it by being petty now.

Well said (and thanks for adding picayune to my vocal).

I have gained a new appreciation for Bogley from the ongoing discussion here and the friendly IT environment. However, I would find it sad if the fear of competition led to further displacement in the community. I understand personal and financial investment in this forum; I have never run one but I can only imagine how much energy it takes to create a successful platform.

I don't know what can be done to facilitate a compromise but let us know. I think Bogley will remain an important canyoneering resource despite a topic specific new forum. I hope time proves me correct. But then again...I always default to collaboration as a first attempt (as can be seen by my responses that last 2 months, I due employ other tools later on).

At a minimum, thank you for voicing your decision and thoughts in open manner.

Phillip

[accadacca]

I wont participate in personal attacks or silly games. If this thread continues to head down to the gutters then I wont be back. I hope the board is more professional then some in this thread. Carpey and others have been very reasonable, but others are not painting a pretty picture of a neutral, friendly and diplomatic org. The orgs reputation is at stake.

Bogley will fully support the org when we have a better understanding of their mission. I look forward to finding out how Bogley can support their cause.

Bogley already has more content then any other community on this subject. We have supported the cause from day one. Not supporting? Quite the opposite.

[hank moon]

post deleted by author (that's me)

[Cirrus2000]

Apparently, my efforts here are just damaging the reputation of an organization that I support, but with which I have not yet become involved. Maybe I was a little too harsh with my expression of disgust. I'll recuse myself from the conversation.

[tanya]

The least the other mods can do is own up to NOT suppressing a link to a nascent canyoneering org.

It was not me!

I was in Zion all day with a bunch of 5th graders learning about geology.

There are so many mods now, that I don't even know who is one!

[mdd]

Seriously, people...

M

[accadacca]

I believe the thread was originally moderated because of our Linking Policy, which Carpey fixed on the AC site. Our mods do a great job and we rarely have issues or even see a need to moderate anything. That is well known.

The full history of the moderated thread doesn't matter at this point. It remains quarantined until we see the direction and attitude of the future organization. That has been made clear and I'll take full credit for that decision. When a mission statement is created and a board elected, then a partnership with Bogley is possible. The issues certainly matter to Bogley members and management. That is very evident in the sheer volume of discussions that have occurred about canyon access issues and the need for a new org.

I can see outbound traffic in my web stats going to the AC site and Bogley members that are interested have signed up. No reason to sling mud over it, as it doesn't help Bogley's cause or the org in its infancy. Energies need to be put into getting the org off the ground, not squabbling over turf.

[hank moon]

I Trust You to Trust Me: The Right Relationship With Your Customers

Jeroen van Geel on May 5th, 2011


Trust is an important aspect in day-to-day life. Most of our personal relationships are build on it and our best relationships highly depend on it. In fact: trust makes us put extra effort into our relationships. So why don’t we apply it more in the design of our services?

You don’t see it that often anymore: fruit or vegetables placed alongside a country road, unguarded. All you have to do is take the amount you want and leave money behind in a box. This system has been around for centuries and is an easy way for farmers to earn some extra money. It is completely build on trust. And the fact that the owner puts trust in me puts a smile on my face and makes me (and others) honor that trust.

I came across an even more special story about a shop owner in a small town (I can’t remember where I found the story). Whenever he left the shop during the day he didn’t close down. Instead he put a sign on the counter asking people to leave the money they owe. Nobody ever damaged the trust the owner gave them. Why? Because trust is a special thing.

What is trust?
There are many different interpretations of trust, but this is one I can agree on. Trust is:

• the willingness of one party (trustor) to be vulnerable to the actions of another party (trustee);
• reasonable expectation (confidence) of the trustor that the trustee will behave in a way beneficial to the trustor;
• risk of harm to the trustor if the trustee will not behave accordingly; and
• the absence of trustor’s enforcement or control over actions performed by the trustee.

Source: Wikipedia
But what does it give us back? According to the above description trust is a one-way thing: the trustor gives it to somebody else and becomes vulnerable… This feels very unbalanced. If we would open up all the stores in a city and let people put money on the counter we’d be pretty certain that within days the stores will be empty and the owners a lot poorer. A healthy relationship is well balanced and goes two ways: both parties are trustor and trustee. Putting trust in somebody isn’t an anonymous process, but only works when there is a clear relationship between two parties. As the trustor you must make it very clear that you are willing to put trust in somebody and that you are making yourself vulnerable in the process, but that when people honor that trust you are giving them something in return that’s worth their effort.

Design for a balanced trust
One of the best examples in this is Zappos.com, the online shoes and clothing store that offers free shipping both ways and has a 365 days no questions asked return policy. What they have to offer you is a huge collection of products that you can try out at home for free. All that they ask in return is that you don’t abuse their trust and that when you send something back you will return it undamaged. As you can see there is a clear balance between the trustor and trustee, it’s a win-win situation.
Another good example is the release of Radiohead’s 2007 album ‘In Rainbows’. When they released it they didn’t set a price, but instead asked their audience to pay whatever they wanted to pay for the album. They put trust in the honesty of the audience that if they liked the music they would pay a normal price for it. A lot of people and companies thought that Radiohead was crazy and would only lose money, but it paid off: ‘In Rainbows’ is Radiohead’s best selling album.

Turn it around
Recently the NY Times announced their paywall as a means of earning money from their users. This caused a lot of heated discussions. The main counter argument is the fact that everything has been free for ages and must suddenly cost money when you read too many articles. People acknowledge that the quality of the articles is worth money, but at the same time they feel mistreated and are finding new ways of getting free access. In my mind something is wrong with the trust balance: people do claim that they value the articles, but they hate the concept of the paywall. I would say that this is because people have the feeling that the NY Times uses force over trust. If they would turn things around and would ask for a reward (micro-payments) each time you liked an article they would have happier users and earn more in the process. The mistake is that they now force the masses that haven’t got a relationship with the NY Times (but only want cheap news) instead of building on the trust relationship they can have with the core of their users.

So, what now?
When you look at the current examples you immediately notice that these are both big players. You’ll probably think “They can afford to trust people and lose something if it fails, but most companies don’t have this luxury.” I don’t agree with this statement and believe that companies of all sizes can apply trust to build up a better relationship. All around me I see that trust is a wonderful thing when balanced. People don’t give it that easily, but when they do it’s important to cherish it with everything you’ve got.

Trust me on this.

What are your experiences on this topic? Do you know of any companies that use trust in their relationship? How would you design it into a service? I am really curious what your thoughts are on this subject.

[Wolf]

Bogley members:
We at AC are not trying to take your business away or affect your livelihood. We would simply like bogley members who are interested, to participate in the development of a BOD for access issues, conservation and safety. There is a link on AC for Bogley, I think you provide a very valuable product to the Canyoneering community. We would like to develope a broad based organization for the members by the members in a "not for profit" organizational structure. All are welcome...

WOLF

[tanya]

I totally agree with what Wolf said!


I support going to the American Canyoneers site. Go register and vote for the BOD.

Your vote is important! You finally have a say. Do it! If you have someone to nominate. Do that too.