Page 6 of 6

Re: Poetic Justice

PostPosted: Sun Feb 01, 2015 11:27 pm
by Bill Cummings
Bob K. wrote:"--- I would like the participants in this Trial Board to make their decisions as if the consequences might actually fall on their shoulders.
While the decision you reach will be advisory (to me), I'd like each of you to imagine that the decision you make will stand.”

I think I’m on the same page with you Bob. We are volunteering as a “trial board” of directors as a test run of how an official board of directors would conduct themselves. Only after an official membership vote installing an actual board of directors would any real weight be given to a resolution by the board.
The current situation has the Trial Board only in an advisory position.
It is also my understanding, and correct me if I have this wrong, that any decision by the official board that could put you at legal risk could be over ruled by you as, let’s say, CEO.

Bob K. wrote:“Finally, I'd like to set one ground rule for membership on this Board.
I'd like to have a real phone number for each person who decides to participate so I can call them up and talk to them as real people.
The phone number doesn't have to be public, but I do encourage all Trial Board members to share their phone numbers privately with each other.
I can't count the number of misunderstandings I've seen between people on forums that were easily resolved just by talking to each other.
Anyone who feels this is too much of an invasion of their privacy is probably not serious enough about the Board to participate.”

I posted a Personal Message (PM) to Bob a while back with my home and cell phone number. I would be willing to exchange my phone numbers with other members serious about working on the continued viability of the US Hawks.

Free wrote:“Thanks Bill, for the vote of confidence but I'm thinking, anyone that wants to be boss of anything probably shouldn't be considered for the job.
I get a bad taste in my mouth in consolidation of power by corporate fictions.”

Bill C. RESPONDS: A good example of that would be the Federal Government --
(No fly list for us right?)
I’m thinking once the members vote and install the actual Board that 99.9% of that bad taste will disappear. If not we can move to another website.

Free wrote:“That said, a "Board" making a decision would be a diffusion of power from a single "decider" making all calls.”

I see this as a good thing. Members having a say.

Free wrote:“Bob, picked you for Board President and I think maybe he is looking in the fine print for reasons to ban my postings, anyway!”

Now that has to be the NSA’s level 3 on the Paranoia no fly list.
Let’s do like The Duluth Skyline Sky Dogs Club did one year. We printed up a “T” shirt for every member that said, Sky Dog President, on the front and for the real president his shirt said, Sky Dog Member.
Just so we don’t allow this Sara hate mail topic to get lost in committee let’s (The Trial Board) declare all board members to be president and send along some strong advice to the CEO concerning hate mail that should become US Hawks policy.
I have to admit the closest look that I gave the terms of service is what you researched and posted. I’ll have to finally read all the damn rules so I don’t end up banning myself. --------Can we say da##?

Free wrote:“---It wouldn't be the first time, and if that is the case, I'll take the job!”

Let’s do this!
It just might keep our pseudo CEO (AKA Jail Hawk) from moving to step two of the, repeat offender’s, Three Strikes and You’re Out Clause.
Still I would like some questions answered from my previous post above.
Also should the US Hawks trial board refer to its resolution as, The Sara Clause?

Re: Poetic Justice

PostPosted: Mon Feb 02, 2015 12:17 am
by Bob Kuczewski
Hi Bill,

I believe your sense of humor and level head will go a long way toward helping the US Hawks flourish. Thanks.

I'm sorry if I didn't get to all your questions earlier. I found a bunch of them below, but if I've left any out, please let me know...

billcummings wrote:What are the feelings of the club on a rotating board presidency going to the originator of a discussion taken up by the practicing board members?

The biggest potential problem is conflict of interest since the person bringing up a matter generally has a stake in it. It might be better to have a disinterested party lead the discussion if an issue looks like it might contain such conflicts. Having said that, we'll probably find that many of us have an interest in many similar topics (we're all hang glider pilots, after all). So we can just do our best. In this case, if I were a Board member, I think I might not want to chair this topic since I've had a long-term involvement. I would say the same for Free. Given the small size of our Board, I don't think we should be prohibited from participating (it's only a trial board anyway), but I think it would be better to have someone without so much history chairing the discussion.

billcummings wrote:I see that the phpBB Group has indemnified themselves with a disclaimer that, “---, the phpBB Group are not responsible for what we allow and/or disallow as permissible content and/or conduct.”
So who is the IP provider here?
Is it Bob K. or phpBB Group?

I think it's me. I pay a service that actually hosts the site, but I don't think they get involved unless they feel anything that we're doing violates their terms of service. If we wanted to establish Terms of Service that were incompatible with theirs, then we could look for other options like hosting our own server (which I've done in the past). I doubt we'll need to do that. The phpBB Group writes (and updates) the software that runs the forum. I downloaded that software and then installed it on the server that I pay for.

billcummings wrote:Why can they, phpBB, indemnify themselves and does or dose not Bob K. also have that ability?

Good questions, and I don't know all the answers. I think their position is that they just provide the software in an "as is" basis, and they take no responsibility for how it's used or any defects.

billcummings wrote:Can we, US Hawks, legally change the phpBB terms or is our only other option, “---please do not use and/or access----” US Hawks Hang Gliding Association?

I think we can make our own Terms of Service to be whatever we like. If we continue to use phpBB (which is likely but not mandatory), then we have to comply with their terms, but I think their only terms are that they're not liable for anything that we do with their software. The terms that come with the forum are probably just good safe terms for anyone hosting a forum these days, and that's why I didn't change them. But I think we should proceed as if we can use whatever Terms of Service we want. We can be more restrictive or less restrictive as long as we remain within the law.

billcummings wrote:If we the US Hawks find ourselves bound by the terms set forth by the phpBB Group this could turn out to be a short discussion.

I'm pretty sure that our only commitment to the phpBB folks is to not involve them in our problems.

billcummings wrote:Should it present itself as a grey area when voting whether or not to ban a member violating the terms of service I can foresee an appearance of impropriety arising. I personally have been under verbal attack here. If I’m on a volunteer board that is tinkering with the rules trust in the procedure may come into question when the votes are tallied to ban someone in violation.

In the interest of protecting trust in the procedure should this situation come to fruition I will abstain from any vote to have the antagonist in my recent situation removed.

That's admirable, and the conditions for such abstention will be part of what the US Hawks will have to establish as a policy. At this time, (especially in the "Trial" stage) it might not hurt to have some members of the Board have conflicts of interest to see how such conflicts can be mitigated. Again, in most real-world situations, we're going to find many degrees of conflicts, so it will be good to have an idea of how to resolve them - especially when people don't want to admit they have a conflict. The only really sensitive position is the Chairman, and that's why I think neither Free nor myself, nor anyone else having voiced strong opinions in the matter should be Chairman.

How does all that sound to you?

Poetic Justice Paranoia

PostPosted: Mon Feb 02, 2015 11:35 am
by Free
bobk wrote:
Free wrote: (speaking to Bill)"]Bob, picked you for Board President and I think maybe he is looking in the fine print for reasons to ban my postings, anyway!
It wouldn't be the first time, and if that is the case, I'll take the job!

It's not the case that I'm looking for reasons to ban you Warren, so there's no need to take the job on that count.

There are plenty reasons not to take the 'job'.

I would, however, like to figure out how to reduce your paranoia so you don't think that everyone who's ever worked for a defense contractor is a CIA operative out to get you.

Bob, I would like to figure out a way to reduce the stress you are going through regarding the senseless suicide of Sara Martin. That job is very difficult as long as you remain in denial, pointing fingers at others with nary a sign of contrition on your part.

I have a lot of work ahead of me on that one!!

"That one" being the work of publishing lies and distortions about me in order to shed accountability of your own actions or lack of actions?
Bob, I don't think you are an actual CIA operative but that assertion from you is pure textbook CIA propaganda playbook. :clap: :clap:

And what is your work?
Neural linguistic programming research that is used by social engineers to control the mass mindset in order to control the world, financed by the big pharma/psycho/military/industrial complex? :shock:

I never said you were a CIA operative. Please stop the lies and distortion.

Re: Poetic Justice

PostPosted: Mon Feb 02, 2015 9:19 pm
by Bill Cummings
Topic originator, bigbird
Postby BigBird » Wed Oct 29, 2014 5:56 am
bigbird wrote:"I read with interest the discord the Lakeview Hawks have caused in Lakeview Oregon.---"

Bill C.’s two cents:
Since Phil started this topic we found out about Sarah’s death.
Then we changed course a little and after some past quotes resurfaced and with a little finger pointing we started to zero in on the bigger problem at hand.
Terms of Service! The Pandora’s Box on which, wingspan and free effectively focused my attention. (You will see their QUOTES below.)

As you read the QUOTES below it should be obvious that a focused discussion needs to take place and a decision needs to be made on where to draw the line on what is acceptable speech and what speech legally needs to be removed from the US Hawks Hang Gliding Forum.
As it stands now there are differing opinions among the membership as to which side of the Terms of Service acceptable and unacceptable speech will be found.

flystraw wrote:"Unfortunately one disgruntled idiot waged an internet campaign against her on which
ended up with a bunch of anonymous, fictitious characters attacking her and her mother in a vicious, incite
full and hateful way on this very forum and still resides in the new user forum."

Bob K. wrote:"----Should I think I'm so much better that I wouldn't start removing posts that were critical of me or my friends?
Using that power - even once - puts myself (and this forum) on the slippery slope toward what we've tried not to become.
I'm hesitant to do that until we've come up with some process or procedure to ensure that it isn't abused."

wingspan33 wrote:To Free and Bobk,
I've been doing some research on the legality of the attack posts made against Sara (a resident of Oregon at the time).

Here's Oregon's State law on Harassment :

Oregon State Law § 166.065 Harassment

(1) A person commits the crime of harassment if the person intentionally:
(a) Harasses or annoys another person by:
. . .
(B) Publicly insulting such other person by abusive words . . . in a
manner intended and likely to provoke a violent response
. . .

(2)(a) A person is criminally liable for harassment if the person knowingly permits any telephone or electronic device under the persons control to be used in violation of
subsection (1) of this section.

(3) Harassment is a Class B misdemeanor [a crime - involving possible jail time].

Bob K. wrote:"We can be more restrictive or less restrictive as long as we remain within the law."

free wrote:"Bob, you've stated several times that you didn't trust yourself on the "slippery slope" of censoring people.
I have problems in some of your logic but in this case I would have to agree.

This would be the place to implement a panel of accountable members, or a "Board" if you like, to review and moderate this discussion group.

This should not be left up to a single tone deaf dictator, like a Davis Straub or Jack Ax.

If this can be reasonably worked out in some fair configuration, I may volunteer to this task, along with others.
Accountability to actions taken would need to be key in this endeavor.

As wingspan33 points out above this is a serious topic for discussion and immediately above me free has indicated that this would be the place to implement a panel of accountable members or a “Board” if you like, to review and moderate this discussion group.

Being mindful that we volunteers are an unelected “Trial Board,” let’s not let ourselves be side tracked like Kissinger was in 1969 when for weeks he and the North Vietnamese, (while people were dying), couldn’t agree on the shape and size of the negotiating table. Let us try and maintain focus on the “Terms of Service,” topic. Once that is out of the way we can back track and clear up any other issues that were not resolved along the way.

Re: Poetic Justice

PostPosted: Tue Feb 03, 2015 1:45 am
by Bob Kuczewski
Let us try and maintain focus on the “Terms of Service,” topic. Once that is out of the way we can back track and clear up any other issues that were not resolved along the way.

Good leadership Bill!!!

I suggest starting a new topic for the Terms of Service discussion in the "Building the US Hawks" forum. We can always refer back to this topic, but anyone wanting to discuss the Terms of Service shouldn't have to wade through all this.

Re: Poetic Justice

PostPosted: Tue Feb 03, 2015 3:24 pm
by Bill Cummings

Bob K. wrote:“I suggest starting a new topic for the Terms of Service discussion in the "Building the US Hawks" forum.
We can always refer back to this topic, but anyone wanting to discuss the Terms of Service shouldn't have to wade through all this.”

Bill C. Responds:

Okay Bob I’ll move my posts about the, “Terms of Service,” to the “Building the US Hawks,” thread even though I think that move is premature.
The move to the, “Building the US Hawks,” thread I realize carries your desire to focus discussion exclusively on, “Terms of Service.”

However, my preamble there at, “Building the US Hawks,” will touch on the possibility of you, Bob, having the Terms of Service wrong and Davis Straub possibly having it right.
After my preamble over there I will restrict any of my unfocused rambling back here on this thread.

Warning, anyone with high blood pressure aggravated by even the hint of flame wars and possible verbal train wrecks should refrain from following me to the, “Building the US Hawks,” thread.

The value of wiki

PostPosted: Tue Feb 03, 2015 11:59 pm
by Bill Cummings
I thought wiki had some number of louder posters that pushed aside the work that you and Joe put up?

If I have that correct then even a wiki would have serious limitations for advancing a goal.

How then can any collaborative work be accomplished on the internet?

Reply here or
Back to building the Hawks, Terms of Service