robins72 Posted February 1, 2006 Report Share Posted February 1, 2006 Also I see that the anonymous ModMen is still a moderator, I thought we were going to know the identities of all moderators :Confused13:Try Jay's link up the top of the page Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StapleHillPhil Posted February 1, 2006 Author Report Share Posted February 1, 2006 Try Jay's link up the top of the page How does that help identify who ModMen is/are? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay Posted February 1, 2006 Report Share Posted February 1, 2006 It doesn't answer many of them however.Why did the ST take it upon themselves to agree to running OTIB and appointing moderators without consulting OTIB users?Why were some people who are not in the list of moderators shown in the pinned topic given moderator status in secret before any announcement?Nibor,Your questions are very valid. Before today, otib was owned by BCFC (Clik are the hosts). The club asked the ST directly as to whether they would like to take on otib. This was discussed, debated & finally agreed upon at the regular ST meetings. However, the Club asked that this information be kept to those that attend the meetings. The meetings are open to all & if you (or anyone else) had attended, you would have been privy to this information. As we were asked to not discuss this matter outside of the meetings, we had to appoint mods from within the group. However, the current ST mods that are in place are there due to there willingness to help run otib & assist the ST. As some people have already mentioned, everyone within the ST is in an 'acting role' until the EGM is called & people are elected officially. Feel free to become a member & vote. Anyone can run for any position. Meanwhile, every 'acting' position has been filled in order to stay within our constitution & in order to maintain a structure. If your main concern is the running of otib, then nominate yourself or someone you believe will handle the best interests when it comes to websites/forums etc.SE23 Red also asked about the ST going about their business in a way that satisfies the CLub before the fans. On this occasion, we hope that we will satisfy both. The fans forum gets to stay & is effectively run by fans (allbeit members of the ST & Clik at the moment) whilst th Club manages to reduce its administrative workload. All members of the ST are members that are passionate about this club and want to help improve things. I, as well as many others, was very disappointed to see the AskSteveL forum go. I also have issues regarding the cost & quality of catering at AG etc. Please understand that we share a common goal to improve the state of the club & the way the fans are represented.On a personal note, I think that both your (Nibor) & SE23 Reds comments & questions are well worded & deserve a decent response (which I hope I have provided). As previously mentioned, the ST meetings are open to all - feel free to come along & voice your opinion. Thanks for your posts.Also I see that the anonymous ModMen is still a moderator, I thought we were going to know the identities of all moderators :Confused13:Agreed - all mod identities should be known. The ModMen title is currently unoccupied & we will look to getting that removed asap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibor Posted February 1, 2006 Report Share Posted February 1, 2006 JayI don't doubt your good intentions or those of the ST. However I feel that the correct course of action would have been to recommend to SteveL that since the ST is only a small fraction of those that use the forum he should consult OTIB and not give the forum to the ST behind closed doors. You guys should have said thanks but no thanks.I appreciate that everyone is welcome at the meetings but not everyone can make them, and plenty of people who for whatever reason don't want to or are unable to be involved in the ST would have liked to have a say in the future of OTIB. It's the cloak and dagger way this was done that upsets alot of people, and that isn't good for the ST. It's not the first time the ST has been given advance knowledge of something by the club, and not informed the fans about it. We had members of the ST working party gloating on here about knowing the score ahead of the Stadium company being set up, and apparently the story about the forum changes were being gossiped about in the red and white on saturday too. You need to consider very carefully how this type of thing can alienate people, many of us will be left with a negative impression after the last few days.My preference would have been for OTIB to have been truly independent, and run by clik only - with moderators proposed and voted on by users.Nibor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 1, 2006 Report Share Posted February 1, 2006 Also I see that the anonymous ModMen is still a moderator, I thought we were going to know the identities of all moderators :Confused13:Thats because I haven't deleted it, yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhatWill Posted February 1, 2006 Report Share Posted February 1, 2006 Out of interest, can anyone please reveal the former forum usernames (if any) of Jay, Chris & Paul C?Seconded, I would like to know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibor Posted February 1, 2006 Report Share Posted February 1, 2006 I think the previous names were Honeycrack, Ciderred and North Bristol's Cider Army respectively.Nibor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay Posted February 1, 2006 Report Share Posted February 1, 2006 JayI don't doubt your good intentions or those of the ST. However I feel that the correct course of action would have been to recommend to SteveL that since the ST is only a small fraction of those that use the forum he should consult OTIB and not give the forum to the ST behind closed doors. You guys should have said thanks but no thanks.I appreciate that everyone is welcome at the meetings but not everyone can make them, and plenty of people who for whatever reason don't want to or are unable to be involved in the ST would have liked to have a say in the future of OTIB. It's the cloak and dagger way this was done that upsets alot of people, and that isn't good for the ST. It's not the first time the ST has been given advance knowledge of something by the club, and not informed the fans about it. We had members of the ST working party gloating on here about knowing the score ahead of the Stadium company being set up, and apparently the story about the forum changes were being gossiped about in the red and white on saturday too. You need to consider very carefully how this type of thing can alienate people, many of us will be left with a negative impression after the last few days.My preference would have been for OTIB to have been truly independent, and run by clik only - with moderators proposed and voted on by users.NiborNibor,Thanks for replying. Whether you chose to believe this or not, the ST took on the care of otib in order to keep this a forum run by fansthat have both the interest of the fans & club at heart. As you are probably aware, there are other independant forums available for people to use should they so desire. I hate having to be secretive about something this important to fans but at the same time we (ST) had to respect the wishes of the club as best we could. We aim to listen to all views - if you have a well structured proposal of how otib should be run then please post on the ST forum & lets discuss it.Regarding your comments about the ST knowing information in advance to the general public, this is not denied. You pick up on two recent events that we found to be very disappointing.Bottom line is, we're all human an we can occasionally make mistakes. We have put measures in to place that should stop this happening. In a perfect world, nothing would be 'secret' & it is the disclosing party that asks for us to keep information confidential.Your comments about the mods are noted. We do feel however, that we have not even been given the chance to prove ourselves yet. I don;t doubt that everyone would have their own choice for mod but the fact remains that, for the time being, there are mods in place. Two years ago, nobody knew who Tom was but it would seem that most users of this forum are happy with his level of moderating. We hope that you are prepared to give us the benefit of the doubt regarding this issue.Jay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibor Posted February 1, 2006 Report Share Posted February 1, 2006 JayThis isn't personal at all, for all I know the five of you will be the best mods the board has ever had. And just to be clear I have no interest in being a mod, I've done it before and it's a headache.To put it simply, I don't see any reason whatsoever why the supporter's trust should have any more or less say at all about otib than any other otib users. I don't see why the ST should be in the decision making position ahead of many people who in lots of cases have used otib for longer and more often.As for a proposal as to how it should be run... I would have suggested that clik run the site, hopefully generating enough from advertising and/or donations to pay their rates, and they run a selection process of nominations and votes for mods.Nibor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
City Exile Posted February 1, 2006 Report Share Posted February 1, 2006 Um.I am entirely willing to accept myself that this is a case of good people trying their best to do the 'right thing'. In hindsight, it might be better to maybe accept that some of the calls made could have been handled differently. It would I suspect have caused less agro for instance if this had all waited until the ST had gone through a democratic process. The choice of moderators does seem a little random, and I would suspect it is a much harder jon than many believe. Presuamably there is no reason why the ST could not in due course review the starting list of moderators, and allow people who are not neccessarily part of the ST to be moderators here. And without getting all heavy, has anyone checked the legal situaton? If libel is say proved, presuamably the people in the dock are the ST rather than the club?Me? I just want the forum to carry on broadly as before! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay Posted February 1, 2006 Report Share Posted February 1, 2006 JayThis isn't personal at all, for all I know the five of you will be the best mods the board has ever had. And just to be clear I have no interest in being a mod, I've done it before and it's a headache.To put it simply, I don't see any reason whatsoever why the supporter's trust should have any more or less say at all about otib than any other otib users. I don't see why the ST should be in the decision making position ahead of many people who in lots of cases have used otib for longer and more often.As for a proposal as to how it should be run... I would have suggested that clik run the site, hopefully generating enough from advertising and/or donations to pay their rates, and they run a selection process of nominations and votes for mods.NiborNibor,I am not taking anything personally but I appreciate the comment. You mention that the ST shouldn't have any more say in the way otib is run than anyone else. As mentioned in one of my previous posts today, we are open to suggestions regarding the running of otib & we will actively encourage users of of this forum to tell us their suggestions. It's great that people feel so passionately about this forum & I hope that we respond as well as possible to comments such as yours. I won;t keep banging on about it but the ST Forum is set up for topics such as this. You don;t need to be an ST member to register in the forum. Clik host otib as you know. They have been supportive by offering mod training & giving up their time. Regarding your comments about how you feel otib should be run, for the immediate future the mods in place ought to be given benefit of the doubt. As previously mentioned, not all mods are ST members/supporters.Comments/concerns such as yours will be discussed at the next ST meeting. We will do our best to read through otib posts in order to pick out the major concerns of the users of this forum & then report back at the next meeting. I appreciate that you chose not to attend ST meetings but ,if you can, do feel free to attend (even if it is just the once), so that you can help voice the opinion of the concerned users/members. We do not wish to create division. Once again, we appreciate your comments.Jay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay Posted February 1, 2006 Report Share Posted February 1, 2006 Um.I am entirely willing to accept myself that this is a case of good people trying their best to do the 'right thing'. In hindsight, it might be better to maybe accept that some of the calls made could have been handled differently. It would I suspect have caused less agro for instance if this had all waited until the ST had gone through a democratic process. The choice of moderators does seem a little random, and I would suspect it is a much harder jon than many believe. Presuamably there is no reason why the ST could not in due course review the starting list of moderators, and allow people who are not neccessarily part of the ST to be moderators here. And without getting all heavy, has anyone checked the legal situaton? If libel is say proved, presuamably the people in the dock are the ST rather than the club?Me? I just want the forum to carry on broadly as before!The ST is planning to go through its democratic process very soon. The date is TBA but should be around May. The information should be finalised be on the ST website within the next 2 weeks.I am in danger of repeating myself from other threads but just to reitterate: The mods (outside of Clik) are volunteers from the ST working party. As you mention, there is no reason why the ST, in due course, can't review the list of moderators & allow other users to get involved. We are simply asking for benefit of the doubt at the moment. All libel posts will be removed.Like you, we hope that the forum carrys on as broadly as it ever has!Thanks for your comments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nickD Posted February 1, 2006 Report Share Posted February 1, 2006 Nibor,Your comments about the mods are noted.a sign of things to come..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibor Posted February 1, 2006 Report Share Posted February 1, 2006 JayThanks for taking the time to respond and I appreciate you're now giving us the option to make suggestions.I think the bottom line for me is that I object to the fact that decisions have already been made, and the ST has somehow ended up with the decision making.I know you will read the comments and consider them but at the end of the day the ST working group who are self appointed will be making the calls and to me that is fundamentally wrong.To me, the division has already been created by taking authority over otib without popular consent.By the way, I'm one of many fans who from Monday to Friday is very rarely in Bristol, so I can't attend the meetings anyway.Nibor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay Posted February 1, 2006 Report Share Posted February 1, 2006 JayThanks for taking the time to respond and I appreciate you're now giving us the option to make suggestions.I think the bottom line for me is that I object to the fact that decisions have already been made, and the ST has somehow ended up with the decision making.I know you will read the comments and consider them but at the end of the day the ST working group who are self appointed will be making the calls and to me that is fundamentally wrong.To me, the division has already been created by taking authority over otib without popular consent.By the way, I'm one of many fans who from Monday to Friday is very rarely in Bristol, so I can't attend the meetings anyway.NiborYou are right about the self-appointment of the ST working group but this will change soon. The EGM date will be set very shortly & any member is free to run for a position. People will then be officially elected rather than self appointed.Maybe if I wasn't part of the ST, I'd share your opinion but that fact remains that I am & proud of it. Like any group, there are a mixed bag of personalities but we all strive to achieve the same things for the good of the fans & the club. I joined the ST as I felt that my views were valid & not being given the appropriate respect & consideration. We knew that there would be people unhappy with the circumstances as they are & we hope that we can earn their respect & trust in time.It is of concern that there are supporters who don't live/work in Bristol & will struggle to attend meetings. We are currently looking in to an 'on-the-road' group tht will arrange meetings in certain areas of the country in order to accomodate people such as yourself. I for one, would love to discuss this topic (amongst others) with people such as yourself. Watch this space! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibor Posted February 1, 2006 Report Share Posted February 1, 2006 You are right about the self-appointment of the ST working group but this will change soon. The EGM date will be set very shortly & any member is free to run for a position. People will then be officially elected rather than self appointed.200 or so members, 4100 otib users. No otib member should need to join the trust in order to vote for the people that decide what happens to otib.Maybe if I wasn't part of the ST, I'd share your opinion but that fact remains that I am & proud of it. There are what... 20 in the working group? And 4100 users.The ST don't have any right or consent to govern otib yet they took control of otib anyway. That, coupled with the knowledge that certain people were given secret mod rights and have since had it revoked, along with the fact that this is the second time that we've had the ST informed of issues before the fans and leak it, makes me extremely uneasy./end pro democracy rally. I'll give this thread a break now.Nibor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave L Posted February 1, 2006 Report Share Posted February 1, 2006 Although the handover of the responsibilty for running otib could have been handled in a more transparent manner, jay's explanation of the reasoning behind this makes sense to me. Hindsight is a marvellous thing, but I'm reassured by his promises that once the ST is properly constituted then we will all be in a position to have a say on who moderates this forum. In the short term I am pleased that we at least know the names of the current moderators - something that hasn't always been the case in the past, and that has led to accusations that some of those in that position of power may not always have used it responsibly.It will hopefully also encourage more fans to get involved with the ST. The more that join, the more it can claim to be truly representative of fans views. I've not been involved with the setting up of the ST, but I've no reason to doubt the motives of those who have given up huge amounts of their time to make it work. Whether it will be a success remains to be seen, but it certainly won't founder due to a lack of effort or commitment. Whatever mistakes might have been made, they are to be congratulated for having the bottle to get up of their bums and try and make things happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swindon Hater Posted February 1, 2006 Report Share Posted February 1, 2006 Sorry but I can't believe that all this has been done behind the supporters back, I thought it was a supporters trust?It's simple, all fans should have been notified etc.How can anyone trust that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dinky Gems Posted February 1, 2006 Report Share Posted February 1, 2006 In fairness it doesnt look like they were given much choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swindon Hater Posted February 1, 2006 Report Share Posted February 1, 2006 In fairness it doesnt look like they were given much choice. So they're basically they're a 'yes' trust.Sorry but they have to stand up to the club surely and say, 'no supporters have paid money and we have to let them know'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dinky Gems Posted February 1, 2006 Report Share Posted February 1, 2006 We don't know what was said between them and the club. Surly we should have a little more faith in the trust and what they choose to do, i agree it wasnt an ideal way to go about it, and as a few of them have already said, they may have done things a little different, we cant look back on it now, its allready been done, I'm sure they will prove themselves to be more than capable of looking after the forum. xxx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Man In Black Posted February 1, 2006 Report Share Posted February 1, 2006 Can I ask why a post where someone who was questioning a forum rule and it's application across all members of the board (whether I agree with that rule or not) was removed?Surely it would be more sensible to have let the thread stay and people argue about it?Will it be the case that in the future if anyone posts anything against the mods or to debate the rules the post will be removed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DrFaustus Posted February 1, 2006 Report Share Posted February 1, 2006 Can I ask why a post where someone who was questioning a forum rule and it's application across all members of the board (whether I agree with that rule or not) was removed?Surely it would be more sensible to have let the thread stay and people argue about it?Will it be the case that in the future if anyone posts anything against the mods or to debate the rules the post will be removed?Seeing as this is going to get removed, you're a **** mate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Man In Black Posted February 1, 2006 Report Share Posted February 1, 2006 Seeing as this is going to get removed, you're a **** mate. I'm reaching for the report button as we speak Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedTop Posted February 1, 2006 Report Share Posted February 1, 2006 So they're basically they're a 'yes' trust.Sorry but they have to stand up to the club surely and say, 'no supporters have paid money and we have to let them know'.Sorry, but you'd better get used to the ST keeping things from you. That does not make them a 'yes' trust.In order to be able to give a 'fans' input into decisions etc before they are made, the ST are going to have to be trusted with information which must be kept confidential until a decision is actually made and announced. The whole point of the ST is to influence decision-making at the Gate, and this can only happen if they are allowed 'in' on certain issues. It stands to reason that in order to maintain confidentiality they must then keep this information from their members until the time is right. They cannot afford to be seen to leak, otherwise the club cannot trust them with sensitive information.If the ST achieves its goal of a seat on the board, then the fans' director will ultimately know far more than your 'average' fan - the level of salaries, players we are after, the cost of redevelopment plans and whether they will go ahead - and will not be allowed to spill the beans. That does not make it wrong. The alternatives would be that none of us knew anything and the decision was taken without any input. But that is why it must be an ELECTED official of the ST and the officials must be elected regularly.I've sent off my form for membership today (no excuse for the delay other than being busy and appallingly disorganized) but am staying at a lower level of membership, withholding any money that would be spent on shares etc, until I am satisfied that the ST is being as well run, is as democratic and as worthy of my trust as it looks like it might be. I also want to satisfy myself that the assurances I was given that the ST does not have a goal of actually taking over the club as I don't think that would be in the club's best interests.As for the forum, well the change was not particularly well-handled. I agree with the point that the ST should have gone through a democratic process before taking over the forum. But they are to be congratulated in making the names of all moderators public. That is crucial. There are problems of principle which could lead to a few members feeling little option but to leave, such as whether those who oppose the ST should be moderated by its members, but we'd all better get used to the ST speaking on our behalf, whether we like it or not. Personally, like DaveL I am of the opinion that anyone who gets off their bum and tries to do something positive deserves a chance to show themselves worthy of it.And if people are going to sulk every time they find out the core ST people know secrets about the club and its workings that they do not, they're going to do a hell of a lot of sulking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest The Codfather 0312 Posted February 1, 2006 Report Share Posted February 1, 2006 At the end of the day if the trust didn't take over the frum what would of happened to it? The club would of most likely just dumped it on the scrap heap and there may not of been ayone else willing to take it over.I can think of much worser people to take it over than the ST. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Man In Black Posted February 1, 2006 Report Share Posted February 1, 2006 At the end of the day if the trust didn't take over the frum what would of happened to it? The club would of most likely just dumped it on the scrap heap and there may not of been ayone else willing to take it over.I can think of much worser people to take it over than the ST.I wouldn't be so sensationalist. There are plenty of people with the nous to carry on the forum or even create a whole new one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 1, 2006 Report Share Posted February 1, 2006 At the end of the day if the trust didn't take over the frum what would of happened to it? The club would of most likely just dumped it on the scrap heap and there may not of been ayone else willing to take it over.I can think of much worser people to take it over than the ST.At the end of the day, you acutally don't know.Clik would have done everything within its capabilites to make OTIB survive had the ST option not been viable and will do in the future should the situation arise again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimtastic Posted February 1, 2006 Report Share Posted February 1, 2006 BCFC will pay the hosting for the next 6 months, and after that if the Trust have sufficient revenue raised from advertisement, etc. then the costs will be transferred to them on a permenant basis.Can anyone give me an idea of bandwidth requirements? Might be able to help with this ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gazareth Posted February 1, 2006 Report Share Posted February 1, 2006 Can anyone give me an idea of bandwidth requirements? Might be able to help with this ...Tom said in the past 24 hours or so that it was in the region of 200gb a month. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.