The AO Platform, My Analysis

DR928;10703 wrote: OMG STAN!! Please reconsider this, OR at least put this to an Emergency Trustee Vote.. this is a perfect example at what a lot of non-members perceive as one of the negatives about the 928OC.

This is also exactly what I am taking about as an abuse of power, this should NOT be your sole choice to do this without consulting others.

The 928OC was intended to have, and as well as I can remember, always had a "non-member" email list or forum discussion area....to have it and then take it away shows we are HIDING something, or can't deal with any feedback from non-members.

It is sad to watch the 928OC IMPLODE like this before my eyes!!

PLEASE RECONSIDER THIS!!!

There are non-member areas still available. This has not changed. A key intent of the 928 OC is to provide value to the *members*.

I am not going to burden the moderators with trolls in the member only areas.

Guys, I think we're ALL getting a little carried away with this. Implementing new policies both at the board level and here at the forum at this time seems a little spur of the moment. Stan, I agree that this should be a member only forum and this is certainly a member only topic. Brad, while I think it is sad that this controversial election process appears to be the only way to attract forum participation from so many members, I don't feel we should silence them from any certain discussion simply because their post count isn't much. I'll at least agree with Dave on that point. While I believe it should be fine for a moderator to have his own opinion, I think it is equally important that we allow others to have their opinion even if it is in conflict with what we think. In the case of shutting down the troll, job well done. Again, this conversation should include members only as it concerns the election; something only members get a vote on anyway. Let's hope that this was an isolated incident though. I don't see any new policy necessary at this point. Certainly not one where post count dictates how much voice one has.

Now that this forum is set to include only members and so long as we can continue to play nicely, I have no issue.

Wow Stan! Locking this forum to members only? That's convenient, isn't it? Mclovin has some good questions for you and rather than address them you decide to lock him out. That is a huge abuse of power if I ever saw one. If you are willing to lock out people with opposing views now. What hope do we have of any fairness or transparency in the governance/administration of an election where you clearly have a desired outcome? You purport to be a staunch libertarian. You're certainly not acting like it.

You continue to insinuate that I would have Roger administer things here. I never said that and your comments about that are the first I've ever heard of that. Stop putting words in my mouth!

Furthermore, you (and Jerry) somehow want to link me to President Obama. Your implied comment of "Hope and Change" is inflammatory and completely out of line. I do not associate myself with Obama (or any other politician for that matter). Your attempts to associate me with these people is purely to illicit a negative response and has no basis in reality or in this "election". I believe you owe me a public apology for these mud-slinging tactics. And if you do not, I think it will be a clear signal to everyone the type of person you really are and the type of person you have picked to be your successor.

I have been completely above board and have been running a positive campaign. Yes, I want change. Change is uncomfortable - I get it. And to once again be clear - I, personally, do not mean it as a negative reflection on you. I have repeatedly said that I appreciate your efforts to date. I think you deserve life-time membership in the OC for all the selfless work you have done for this organization.

But the fact is I have differing ideas for the direction of the OC. You say more than half of the 600+ member are here on this forum. I haven't been here since last year - and I'm one of the more active posters in this club! SO don't try to pull the wool over people's eyes. You know this place is dead. This is the most lively discussion this place has seen in over two years. This forum still should serve a purpose, however. But not as your filter to control as you see fit.

I can see now the fix is in.

Queue the talking monkies!

Andrew Olson;10716 wrote: Wow Stan! Locking this forum to members only? That's convenient, isn't it? Mclovin has some good questions for you and rather than address them you decide to lock him out. That is a huge abuse of power if I ever saw one. If you are willing to lock out people with opposing views now. What hope do we have of any fairness or transparency in the governance/administration of an election where you clearly have a desired outcome? You purport to be a staunch libertarian. You're certainly not acting like it.

As stated this is a members only forum, there are non-member forums, the non-members are welcome there. The non-member that posted here, had no questions for either candidate, so served no purpose to those who might be watching this conversation. If you think the questions were valid, you are certainly welcome to ask them of James, in a polite manner, that is all we ask here.

I do not have a desired outcome. If you win, I get my life back and go on my merry way. If James wins, I will continue to work on his behalf as I assured him I will. I would also be quite happy to transition quickly to James if that is what he desires. There is nothing to gain for me by continuing to work for the members of the 928 OC if they see no value in what I have done.

Andrew Olson;10716 wrote: You continue to insinuate that I would have Roger administer things here. I never said that and your comments about that are the first I've ever heard of that. Stop putting words in my mouth!

I have asked numerous times how you intend to handle it, and the only response was from Roger. You did not disavow it, nor offer an alternative, so what should I, and the other members, think?

Andrew Olson;10716 wrote: Furthermore, you (and Jerry) somehow want to link me to President Obama. Your implied comment of "Hope and Change" is inflammatory and completely out of line. I do not associate myself with Obama (or any other politician for that matter). Your attempts to associate me with these people is purely to illicit a negative response and has no basis in reality or in this "election". I believe you owe me a public apology for these mud-slinging tactics. And if you do not, I think it will be a clear signal to everyone the type of person you really are and the type of person you have picked to be your successor.

My comment was not intended to link you to Obama. Albeit I will accept it was a poor choice of words if it offended you. It does seem that you are offering "change" without any plan of how it will be implemented, so I consider that to be "hope". Thus the term, so often seen in the media, jumps to mind, and came out.

I certainly apologize if you thought I was somehow linking you to any politician, as I was not.

Andrew Olson;10716 wrote: I have been completely above board and have been running a positive campaign. Yes, I want change. Change is uncomfortable - I get it. And to once again be clear - I, personally, do not mean it as a negative reflection on you. I have repeatedly said that I appreciate your efforts to date. I think you deserve life-time membership in the OC for all the selfless work you have done for this organization.

I don't consider a campaign based on:
"What value am I getting for my membership?"
"And frankly, my answer has been, "Not much!"
to be positive, and I do find it offensive, as you have quite clearly acknowledged that you don't even know what programs were offered when you wrote that. To me, it is like questioning the value of a restaurant's food when you choose to never eat there.

Andrew Olson;10716 wrote: But the fact is I have differing ideas for the direction of the OC. You say more than half of the 600+ member are here on this forum. I haven't been here since last year - and I'm one of the more active posters in this club! SO don't try to pull the wool over people's eyes. You know this place is dead. This is the most lively discussion this place has seen in over two years. This forum still should serve a purpose, however. But not as your filter to control as you see fit.

I can see now the fix is in.

Queue the talking monkies!

This forum is not dead to those who want to discuss 928s, it just lacks the 90% content of other forums that is unrelated to the 928s.

I have no idea where you get the idea you are one of the more active posters, unless you mean your post count at other forums. As I said just posting about nothing does not add value. What you want is at Rennlist, so why re-create it here, when there are those who don't want Rennlist?

If your intent was to improve the club, you wouldn't have run away 2 years ago. You have never volunteered to do anything to move the club forward. You have big ideas and no plan of action. I keep asking and you don't respond with anything.

KilnRed;10708 wrote: Guys, I think we're ALL getting a little carried away with this. Implementing new policies both at the board level and here at the forum at this time seems a little spur of the moment. Stan, I agree that this should be a member only forum and this is certainly a member only topic. Brad, while I think it is sad that this controversial election process appears to be the only way to attract forum participation from so many members, I don't feel we should silence them from any certain discussion simply because their post count isn't much. I'll at least agree with Dave on that point. While I believe it should be fine for a moderator to have his own opinion, I think it is equally important that we allow others to have their opinion even if it is in conflict with what we think. In the case of shutting down the troll, job well done. Again, this conversation should include members only as it concerns the election; something only members get a vote on anyway. Let's hope that this was an isolated incident though. I don't see any new policy necessary at this point. Certainly not one where post count dictates how much voice one has.

Now that this forum is set to include only members and so long as we can continue to play nicely, I have no issue.

just to clerify

I said
[If you have less then a 50-100 post its obvious that you do not spend a lot of time here. (nothing wrong here)


To gain credibility on any forum its best to hang out and ask a few questions relating to the thread (yip sounds right)

If you come here and slam us with 2 post to your name you wont make many more. (we dont slam here incase someone has a hang over)

I will not tolerate any rudeness.
You have been warned. ]

And I have not locked anyone out yet but its getting close as I have been personally attacked twice now but I have think skin.

BTW Dave I would never have expected the dog comment from you. Shame.

928mac;10721 wrote: BTW Dave I would never have expected the dog comment from you. Shame.

FWIW, I wasn't thinking of you when I said that, it was a metaphor as to how I (and others) perceive Stan is behaving in this election cycle, BUT I can see now how you would take it that way, for that I apologize.

While we are on the subject, it would be nice to know who asked for you to close Andrew's Nominated for President thread forums.928oc.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=1435 in the other Forum area.

Your last post in that Thread" "This is the 1st time I have had to close a thread or even step in. This thread has left the topic and I have been asked to step in. So ill close the thread ."


I find it interesting and again one-sided that Andrew's thread was closed due to no action/post by him .and yet James's stays open. As an experienced Moderator myself I find this poor judgement, even more so in what should be a a fair election and related to Official Nominee Threads. IF 2 people were being out of line in Andrew's Thread ( I assume Stan and Roger since their posts were deleted) , THEY should be penalized or action taken against them...NOT Andrew' or his Official Nomination thread.

On the outside looking in, it sure looks like any excuse was used to close Andrew's Official Nominee Thread. IMHO, it should be opened again along with an apology to Andrew for closing it.

You guys can call all of these comments "attacks" all you like, but there is a CLEAR pattern of unfair and biased actions going on here by those in "Control",.. and it does damage to the credibility of the 928 Owners Club more and more with each of these actions....and more so than you guys seem to realize,....and from where I am sitting lately,...seem to care.

Cheers,