[JoeF]

  MOTION: I move that the entire topic started by Frank Colver, "Remembering and honoring" be moved to Off-Mission Discussions sector (or its present Free Speech Zone).  

Members may wish to remember people and happenings over many cherished topics that are aside of the Mission Statement. Thanks, Bob for the space to carry on such aside conversations. Generous.

The billions of off-mission topics may go in Off-Mission Discussions, including every culture's holidays, special remembrances, favorite hobby developments, etc. General Forum:  mission-saturated topics and discussions. 
Frank's topic was important to him and others and myself; important, but off-mission for the General Forum.

Want to see a list of possible off-mission topics: open the dictionary, encyclopedia, Wikipedia; point at random to a word. If a note about the word is not on mission of the US Hawks, then topic starting on such word might become something for Off-Mission Discussions. Favorites causes by a poster may still be honored in the OMD sector ! It is not a bad thing to be discussing in OMD. There are millions of neat off-mission topics that could interest members!

[wingspan33]

Joe, I feel that Frank's topic, as a memorial to the Pearl Harbor bombing, is appropriate for the public space of the US Hawks. I don't think it should be moved. However, I do agree with comments made in that topic that suggest that certain posts to that topic be moved to the (current) Free Speech Zone.

To make a further point -

US air bases were also bombed on December 7th and pilots were killed in the process. Most of us may "only" be hang glider pilots, but pilots we are, and so were some of those killed in or around Pearl Harbor.

Considering this, Frank's topic about Pearl Harbor is relevant to us fellow pilots. I think showing respect for our fellow pilots, or for any and all of the wounded or dead resulting from the attack on Pearl Harbor, in fact does help PROMOTE the sport of recreational hang gliding. It quite literally demonstrates our ability to show such respect for the fallen. Posts like Frank's becomes part of the positive character of the US Hawks.

[Bob Kuczewski]

I'd like to offer a different perspective on the purpose of forum categories.

Forum categories are not intended to be strict, rigid labels of what they contain. We could never uphold that even if we agreed to do so. There would be too many gray areas and too many individual posts to consider. We might even find ourselves dissecting individual posts to exorcise the paragraphs, sentences, and words that we claim "don't belong" in that topic or subforum.

I think the wiser course is to see forums, subforums, and topics as guidelines to help people put information where it will most likely be found by people looking for that information. The actual content will wander. That's the very nature of human conversation.

When a topic wanders in a real face to face conversation, what do we do? Do we call on some higher power to silence or remove the offender? No. We jointly apply our own admonishments ("Jack, your comment isn't relevant to the conversation") or we simply ignore the off topic remark and continue as if it hadn't been said or heard.

I would much rather see our members exercising that kind of mutual community moderation than forcing top down draconian actions like moving posts or topics. Making those kinds of decisions will drive us insane.

I think Frank's original post was a fine fit for the General section. I also think that Warren's interjections were inappropriate. But I think the better approach to deal with them is to simply state that they are inappropriate, and otherwise ignore them. Community pressure from several people is a far more natural approach, and I think it will give us better results in the long run. It also makes topics easier to follow than having things chopped up or moved around after the fact.

[JoeF]

Changing my vote to No.
Can I withdraw motion? If so. Then withdraw.

[Bill Cummings]

Joe has withdrawn his motion.
I would have given my second to the motion.
I’m thinking that rules that are established should
not apply retroactively.

[Bob Kuczewski]

I’m thinking that rules that are established should
not apply retroactively.

I agree that rules should not be applied retroactively.

Thanks Bill.