Where is it going

[Stuart]

I hope the above provides explaination for my public warning to Leon-b

the above incident however does not entirley explain Adi fiddlers expressed concerns about over zealous moderators, fearful members, banned members and removed posts.

prehapes Adi fiddler you could provide another example

 

[Adi]

Adi, this forum is owned by Tony. It isnt now, nor has it ever been a pretence of democracy. Tony and the moderator team work hard to do what Tony wishes with the site. The direction and decisions made about this site, are his and his alone. He does take counsel, but from people of his choosing.
Oh so in your words Tony and Bushcraft Media ltd does not care about the members and how they are treated

I'm not being agressive, or dismissive, just simply stating the facts. The decisons made here are not democratic one, they never have been and never will be. The decisions are made exclusively and absolutely by the owner.
So Tony as the owner is not providing a service, i suggest you look up the meaning of service

Moderators dont consult the membership regarding disciplinary actions. We discuss matters with each other, in private. That is how it should be and how it will always be.
When I use the word member I am talking about forum member and not subscriber, I made this very clear in earlier posts, there should be no difference between the two and i am pleased you agree

It's natural for people to want input and explanation, but it simply isnt possible.
Why not? I mod on a forum which is vastly larger than this one with far fewer mods and over a 100+ people on line at a time and every decision concerning a member is communicated to them, it is considered common decency and good practice.
The issues surrounding disciplinary stuff are often very private and I doubt anyone wants all the dirty laundy aired in public. It would open debate up to factions, cliques, friends etc and no honest and fair resoultion would EVER be reached. It would be a destructive and damaging process, not just for the individuals concerned, but for many others as well.

Consulting the membership or even offering explanations is often simply out of the question. You have to decide whether youb can understand this and accept it or not. But you must realise it wont ever change.
Well it must change for BCUK to move on. Tony wants to go into the commercial world with Bushcraft Media ltd, this is the public face of that company so your little speal here and the current way things are done is not very productive for the commercial world.

[/quote]There are a number of bushcraft forums now and it is noticeable that since I joined BCUK many of the experienced bushcrafters that used to frequent these pages and had a lot to offer have drifted away, thanks to the fact that they have become disillusioned with the whole affair, gently pushed or banned. [/quote] Many of them are working to thier own agendas, commercial interests and power plays Adi. In some cases, their interests have conflicted with BcUKI's neutral position and have either been asked or told to cease and desist. In some cases, they have been unable to accept BcUK's commercial neutrality and have left, in other cases, they have been banned. It's sad, but BcUK isnt going to compromise it's values to accomodate 3rd part power plays and commercial interests. It's thier choice, they can either use BcUK under BcUK's terms and conditions, or leave. What they cant do is write thier own terms and conditions.

The abject lack of any significant success of any of these "other" forums,
should tell you that the agendas under which some of them have been created, is plainly clear to many people. If the content of these other forums and websites, was as good, as honest and agenda free as BcUK's then these forums would be as successfull or moreso than BcUK. As it stands, many of them rely heavily on mining BcUK for members, rather than generating thier own on thier own merits. an interesting statement is this the view of the owner and Bushcraft Media ltd or your own opinion.

[/quote]Tony I address this to you and I apologise that I am doing this in public but I think it only fear that you and the members paying or not have an open and honest discussion with how the forum should be run. [/quote]The members opinions are considered by Tony, but there will never be open consultation. This forum is owned outright by Tony. Members do not buy shares, they make voluntary contributions for a number of reasons, some because they are simply gratefull for the work and appreciate the costs involved and want to help out. Others contribute to gain higher level access to forum facilities. But in no case, can a member buy the right to have a say in how the forum is run. it's not promised or implied. No but considering BCUK offers a service whether that be free or not there are certain obligation that should be met. And, most importantly you or anyone else spouting rules and regs on Tony behalf or not in public has one outcome and that only hurts Tony, BCUK and Bushcraft Media ltd , so it is in his best interest to but some sort of input into a discussion.
Quote:
I, like many others are full members after paying a subscription. Many of use have voiced our concerns with how the forum is run but you have not had the decency to address any of these questions instead we continue to be palmed off by often aggressive replies from moderators and some of the moderator chose to use the PM facility to make there aggressive threats which I am sure there are many members that can verify that fact.
Tony is not obligated to address any of your concerns. Your concerns are heard, but frankly you presume too much. By what right do you think you should have a say in the management of BcUK? Were you ever promised such input? Was it ever offered or even implied? Tony has two options the first is keep his head in the sand the second is to lift it out and make this a place that people feel comfortable with. If Tony is to arrogant to see that there could be a problem well that’s Tonys, BCUK and Bushcraft Media ltd problem
Quote:
Tony you want people to give money and subscribe to BCUK to help you in the running costs, which people are willing to do but they are soon turned off if they do not perceive the service they expect



Service? You are not buying a service, this isnt a transport cafe. Contribute financially if you want, if you think what you get here is worth contributing, then do it. But if you dont think it's good value, then dont contribute. It's your choice. Remember though, you are NOT BUYING A SERVICE! You are not buying anything.

I have highlighted your comment as you are speaking on behalf of Tony, BCUK and Bushcraft Media ltd and it proves you are talking out of turn and without consent of Tony as he would never alow that be said about his busness. Service does not imply that something is bought it is meeting a need, if Tony is arrogant enough to think that every thing is hunky dory and there is no need for improvement that is his, BCUK and Bushcraft Media ltd problem.
Quote:
...and most people want a forum that is friendly, helpful and informative but as soon as you have people with big sticks beating members down (and that is how some of the moderators come across) things need to change, at the end of the day the only person that losses out is you because the members will stop logging on and stop subscribing.
Then that's what will happen. The rules are there and if the members break them, they will be moderated and whining about it wont help anyone or anything. So someone bring up a genuine concern is whining? Yes you are right it wont help anyone mostly Tony and Bushcraft Media ltd

Quote:

I expect this thread to be deleted very quickly and I expect I will be banned with in a very short time. Which is a great shame as I am only publicly expressing the views of many people on the forum. It would be great to see this thread run with lots of constructive input from yourself and the members in a grown up manor. And, possibly we can make BCUK a places were people want to be again.


You have voiced your concerns and I doubt you will be banned for it, but you will be put straight. Put straight! So my concernse wont be addressed and they will be pushed under the carpet.

Yopu need to realise this forum is Tony's and Tony's alone. You dont buy right here, you contribute if you like what you get and many, many people do. If you are one of theose people who is unable to accept the authority of moderators, then you will alweays clash with them. But they are not going to make allowances for you sensitivity. The rules are there and they are going to continue to be enforced by moderators. You need to find a way to live with that.

Tony this is has really not done your cause any good promoting BCUK and Bushcraft Media ltd in this manor and in public. that's is not very advantageous.

Is that goglebot

 

[Stuart]

that’s a nice dissection of martyn’s post.

I expect that your previous comment:

by the way who brought up BB that has no relevance to BCUK.
I cant remember the last time i went to that site it complete rubbish.

was written with the sole intent of winding up BB's owner (martyn) an provoking a response.

However I see no explanation so far to indicate circumstances which led you to make your original post.

All you have done is deliberately provoke people to get an angry response, is that perhaps the intent of this thread..... to provoke anger?

I wont be provoked Adi fiddler, is that why you are refraining from answering my simple question.

I shall state it again, please provide instances previous to this post in which you feel moderators have acted inappropriately so that I might explain the circumstances

 

[Adi]

Ok i have just but my foot in it because i was not aware Martin was the owner but so be it the damage is done.

but Stuart you can think what you like i dont really care.

 

[Wayne]

I have been a member for a while and have had the pleasure of sharing a number of fire side chats with most of the older generation moderator team. I would even be so bold as to count a couple as friends.

I am trying to be very polite and non confrontation but Martyns post is dishonest. BCUK is no longer commerically neutral. Tony is quite rightly trying to earn a living working on his BCUK projects. This is not the first time a member of the moderator team has stated this untruth, Stuart you once stated quite strongly that BCUK was a non profit making organisation when you moderatorated Brian Curels post about his attempts at starting a non competitive primitive technology forum.

Admitted your removed your post when challenged.

Toddy was overly heavily handed locking Pumbas thread about BCUK and land access. OK he didnt express himself as well as he may have but the thread didnt break any rules I am aware of.

Chris Claycombe has been responsible for more locked threads than any other moderator. Chris intervention on the merits of steel was not necessary.

 

[Wayne]

Adi you have made some important points but attacking BB is not helping to produce the debate your after mate. I understand your frustration and displeasure but you need to maintain professionalism if your message is to be understood. Your first posts were good but the last few are not helping to promote the open friendly constructive improvements in the site your looking to acheive.

 

[Martyn]

Ok i have just but my foot in it because i was not aware Martin was the owner but so be it the damage is done.

but Stuart you can think what you like i dont really care.

Adi, with respect, I think you are trying to get banned. I think you want to wear it like a badge. You have raised some important points which Stuart is trying to deal with in a fair manner. But you are wasting the opportunity here. You seem intent on behaivng in an immature and provocative manner. If you want a sensible and intelligent debate, then you can have one, but you need to treat the people you are talking to, with the same respect that you would have them treat you. If you just want to throw stones, start arguments and insult people, then you will waste this opportunity and probably will get banned. It's really up to you.

 

[Martyn]

I am trying to be very polite and non confrontation but Martyns post is dishonest. BCUK is no longer commerically neutral. Tony is quite rightly trying to earn a living working on his BCUK projects.

Wayne, Tony's interest in this site is not really the point, it's his site. The commercially neutral point was with reference to others (who dont own it) trying to make money off it or further thier own ambitions off the back of it.

 

[Stuart]

I have been a member for a while and have had the pleasure of sharing a number of fire side chats with most of the older generation moderator team. I would even be so bold as to count a couple as friends.

I am trying to be very polite and non confrontation but Martyns post is dishonest. BCUK is no longer commerically neutral. Tony is quite rightly trying to earn a living working on his BCUK projects. This is not the first time a member of the moderator team has stated this untruth, Stuart you once stated quite strongly that BCUK was a non profit making organisation when you moderatorated Brian Curels post about his attempts at starting a non competitive primitive technology forum.

Admitted your removed your post when challenged.

Toddy was overly heavily handed locking Pumbas thread about BCUK and land access. OK he didnt express himself as well as he may have but the thread didnt break any rules I am aware of.

Chris Claycombe has been responsible for more locked threads than any other moderator. Chris intervention on the merits of steel was not necessary.

to date BushcraftUK the website and Bushcraft media ltd the company set up to handle the publication of the magazine has made ZERO profit

The BushcraftUK website is NON-PROFIT the donations made by members doesn’t make a dent in the thousands of pounds in dedicated sever costs incurred by the bandwidth of the website, even if you don’t take into account that a third of the donation given by full members goes to paying for the badges we give them as a thank you.

the hope is that the magazine and advertising will fund the costs of the site and possibly provide a meagre income to Tony who runs this website full time.

why the magazine AND advertising, well you don’t honestly think that a £14.00 yearly subscription actually covers the printers fee for printing this do you?

even the BUSHMOOT is entirely Non-profit, after paying the estates fees, flying Mors to the UK and providing for him whilst he is here and buying in a pig and a lamb for the Monday night hangi every penny of the entrance fee is gone

Tony has given up work to provide the time required to keep this site running and hopes that it will provide an income before he entirely bankrupts himself and his family

Tony will no doubt provide you with the total running costs of BCUK if you ask but I assure you it is in the thousands and BCUK isn’t even close to paying any wage to Tony for his time let alone making a profit

 

[Wayne]

I have a great respect for Tony and offer no critique of him or his attempts to earn a living we both know how much of his own money he has ploughed into BCUK for our benefit.

Your post though is misleading. BCUK is Not as has not been for quite some time commerically neutral. Please accept i am trying to be neutral and keep this thread on track so to speak. Your right that BCUK is not a democracy. Adi is stating some of the disquiet I have been aware of for sometime. The final choices to act or not are yours. You pay the bills. However as with all forums people give of their time and knowledge freely for the good of the forum as a whole. Without the membership the form is an empty shell.

 

[British Red]

Stuart,

Please understand that I don't want to get involved in any of the heat that this thread has generated, but I would like to offer some personal insight if I may?

I think perhaps the crux of this issue is twofold.

1) That moderators discuss forum discipline in private to spare contributors blushes

2) That this specific incident resulted in a public rebuke.

However, you need to understand what forum contributors perceived from the combination of:

the 'unseen background' to this as it were, .

And

I did not make any specific attempt to be polite.

The perception that can be occasioned by the combination of unmentioned previous communication attempts in a strongly worded public rebuke can be that the public rebuke is a harsh first communication rather than a final reluctant step in a chain.

I believe that it would have been impossible for some of the members to put the rebuke within the thread in question in context as they weren't privy to earlier attempts to rectify the situation privately. Their reactions were perhaps understandable as those who seek to protect the young and inexperienced. They may have viewed, as I did, any mistakes made on the youngsters part as "cockup not conspiracy" and moved to defend him in a laudable, if arguably uninformed, way.

It is not my intention to criticise, but, had perhaps that particular posting begun with something on the lines of

Leon, I have tried to contact you privately about this but without success...in your own interests as wel as those of other forum users, I feel it necessary to inform you that.....

then perhaps people might have reacted differently.

I understand that your job is a difficult one, striking a balance as you must between keeping the forum on the straight and narrow and not stifling debate. However I feel on this occasion, some members reactions were not driven by petty rudeness or one upmanship by but a commendable desire to look after new and young members. Since these people could not know that previous communications had been unsuccesful, they did not make any allowance for this. If their responses were extreme, I feel their motivations were sincere.

Please don't take this as any criticism, I have merely tried to understand what has caused many kind and pleasant people to come to such a state of antagonism. I believe, quite genuinely, that the motivations of all concerned were wholesome and that by both sides of the debate understanding why the others reacted as they did, we can put the matter behind us

Respectfully

Red

 

[Martyn]

I understand that your job is a difficult one, striking a balance as you must between keeping the forum on the straight and narrow and not stifling debate. However I feel on this occasion, some members reactions were not driven by petty rudeness or one upmanship by but a commendable desire to look after new and young members. Since these people could not know that previous communications had been unsuccesful, they did not make any allowance for this. If their responses were extreme, I feel their motivations were sincere.

I think most of the moderators realised this Red and you are quite right. But you hit the nail on the head. An awful lot of what we discuss behind doors simply cant be repeated, it just wouldnt be appropriate to air all of the dirty washing and offer it up for public debate. So we have no alternative but to be authoritarian. Some of the moderation calls simply have to be "because I say so" ...we cant give the forum explanations and open it up for 100's of people to comment. There must be some faith in due process by the moderators. It's not democratic and it cant ever be. We know that people want to understand, and it's a dilemma. There is really no way to sugar the pill, people ask for explanations and we have to insist they go without.

There is also a question of personaliuties. We all have one, they differ and we differ in the way we handle things. We are not professionals, we dont get paid and we all have bad hair days. Sometimes we use language that doesnt consider all the parameters. It happens. We also get pillaried, accused of all sorts, generally abused ...it goes with the teritory.

The bottom line is, sometimes we have to make hard decisions. Sometimes unpopular decisions. Sometimes authoritarian decisions. That's just the way it is.

 

[Martyn]

...Tony has two options the first is keep his head in the sand the second is to lift it out and make this a place that people feel comfortable with. If Tony is to arrogant to see that there could be a problem well that’s Tonys, BCUK and Bushcraft Media ltd problem

Adi your purpose of this thread was to start an argument, not open a debate. You have an agenda, that is clear. I think probably most people can guess where it's comming from. Your purpose is to try and hurt people, hurt Tony, the site and the mods and it's gone on long enough.

You are banned for 7 days Adi.

I'm sure you will feel it's very unfair.

Thread closed.