[wingspan33]

Free/Warren Narron has recently been posting topics that, at first, hint to be about hang gliding, but then go on to be about some political talk show host. This talk show guy is over the top by almost anyone's standards. Beyond that this talk show guy does not talk about hang gliding - just national politics.

But even more recently Free/Warren posted a topic that is a veiled "attack" on Frank Colver. Please see - Frank Politics . In it he has written -

Frank has indicated in the past his allegiance to the leftist delusion/derangement . . . It's a leftist clown show and the Nation is the gambit.

I can't see this as anything but a negative POLITICAL attack on a good man and a current and historical hang glider pilot. The US Hawks is not about national politics and it certainly isn't about attacking another member about their differing views on national politics. I see this as something that should not be acceptable behavior on the US Hawks.

In Free/Warren's latest post to the "Frank Politics" thread he asks -

How could you explain "crazy conspiracy stories" when you admit to not knowing anything about me? What did you tell him?

Please note that in my post, that Free/Warren is referring to, I didn't say anything about telling my friend about Free/Warren. But Free/Warren assumes that I told my friend something (negative?) about him. In fact, I have never said a word to my friend about the US Hawks member known as "Free". But here Free/Warren is imagining/assuming that I am telling people something about him related to "conspiracy stories".

In this, his latest addition to the "Frank Politics" thread Free/Warren ends with a (what I see as sarcastic) final compliment to me. But like the old saying "Compliments will get you nowhere." I may smile in response, but only sarcastically.

My last comment would be this, I have talked to Bob about this issue and he makes good points about giving people the freedom to speak, but I believe I make good points about members who are very obviously posting (non-hang gliding) political content including statements that are divisive. It is not impossible that I completely agree with Free/Warren's general/national political views. But I also know that it is likely that people who visit or join the US Hawks are doing so to talk or learn more about the sport of hang gliding. They aren't doing so with the idea that they will be finding and talking with their new friend Free/Warren about their common interests in general/national politics.

Prior to my last point, I would like my fellow board members to look through the whole "Frank Politics" thread. Once that is done -

I would like to   move   that any post to the overall forum that has a clear and well defined general/national political nature be moved to the "Free Speech Zone". This would pertain to anyone and regardless of their stated or implied political viewpoint. Of course, Hang Gliding Political Topics can remain in the "Hang Gliding Politics" section.

If the Board would like to discuss how or if we should proceed with my motion, please go right ahead.

[Bill Cummings]

“ I would like to move that any post to the overall forum that has a clear and well defined general/national political nature be moved to the "Free Speech Zone". This would pertain to anyone and regardless of their stated or implied political viewpoint. Of course, Hang Gliding Political Topics can remain in the "Hang Gliding Politics" section.

If the Board would like to discuss how or if we should proceed with my motion, please go right ahead.”
///////////////:
Can someone change my mind. Would there be anything wrong with moving non hang gliding politics to
the free speech zone?

[wingspan33]

I've deleted my own post. It was flippant and distracting.

[Bob Kuczewski]

Prior to my last point, I would like my fellow board members to look through the whole "Frank Politics" thread. Once that is done -

I would like to   move   that any post to the overall forum that has a clear and well defined general/national political nature be moved to the "Free Speech Zone". This would pertain to anyone and regardless of their stated or implied political viewpoint. Of course, Hang Gliding Political Topics can remain in the "Hang Gliding Politics" section.

If the Board would like to discuss how or if we should proceed with my motion, please go right ahead.

Scott,

Your motion sounds like it is attempting to establish a policy that non-hang gliding political posts be moved to the free speech zone. I think that is already somewhat implicit in our forum categories and their descriptions/captions.

The hard part is making the actual determination in actual cases like the one you're describing.

For that reason, and since you've called out this particular instance, I'd prefer a more concrete motion on what to do with the actual topic and posts that concern you.

Also, please remember that topics where final decisions by the Board are rendered resulting in any actual actions will become public after a vote is cast.

[wingspan33]

I think I could have made my above "motion" a bit more specific, or at least simpler. So at this time I am withdrawing that motion.

However, I would like to make this revised motion -

  That Free's "Frank Politics" thread be removed from the Hang Gliding Politics forum and placed, in its entirety, into the Free Speech Zone.  

May I please have a second.

[SamKellner]

I   second   the motion that:

thread be removed from the Hang Gliding Politics forum and placed, in its entirety, into the Free Speech Zone.

While Hang Gliding politics is one thing, it seems those comments have drifted into National politics.

There does seem to be a lot of parallels these days, and many are wearing their opinions on the cuff, but IMO anything other than HG politics should

be restricted, AT LEAST to Free Speech Zone.

[JoeF]

  Yes on subject motion.  

I   second   the motion that:

thread be removed from the Hang Gliding Politics forum and placed, in its entirety, into the Free Speech Zone.

While Hang Gliding politics is one thing, it seems those comments have drifted into National politics.

There does seem to be a lot of parallels these days, and many are wearing their opinions on the cuff, but IMO anything other than HG politics should

be restricted, AT LEAST to Free Speech Zone.

[wingspan33]

Thanks for seconding the motion, Sam.

And I do believe that Joe has voted Yes to moving forward with the proposal.

Since it was my idea, I, of course also vote   YES   to move forward.

[wingspan33]

Sam, While you have seconded the motion, you now need to vote for or against it. Thanks in advance!

[Bob Kuczewski]

I've gone back and forth on this one several times in my head, so depending on when I actually sat myself down to start typing, I would give different answers and for different reasons ...

I'm glad I waited, because I just thought of a reason that I think trumps (no offense to anyone) all my other reasons.

There have been times when we've held Board discussions publicly where others could contribute, and times when we've had private discussions that only became public after the vote. I think it's important that we have a good understanding of when each is appropriate.

In my opinion, the only time we should conduct private discussions is when public discussions might lead to some kind of harm.

For example, one of our first private discussions was the planning of the 40th Otto Lilienthal Anniversary meet. We felt that discussing that in public might potentially harm our ability to make those plans, so we started those discussions privately and made them public as we gained confidence in the plans.

I'm not sure if the "fear of harm" applies to the case of moving Warren's topic to the Free Speech Zone. Warren is one of our longest members, and I doubt that he's going to go "hawk891" on us just because we move a topic to the Free Speech Zone. So I don't think we have justification to hold this discussion and vote out of the public square. More importantly, we're not giving Warren a chance to participate and defend his position.

Now in fairness to Scott, we may have had a bit more of a habit of these private Board votes than we've been able to justify. I haven't checked the record, but it wouldn't surprise me if I've done that myself. So this isn't a criticism of Scott's choice as much as a criticism of our own (and my own) habits. We should always be reviewing the habits we fall into to be sure we stay on the high road.

So, having said all of that, I would like to make 2 friendly amendments to the motion:

1. We put our votes on hold so that we can invite Warren to participate.

2. If we do move Warren's topic, we should leave a link in the original location so it can be found. I believe that such a link "decays" with age and doesn't stay on top even when updated.

Friendly amendments should have no effect unless accepted by the original maker of a motion and also approved by everyone voting up to that point. Since Scott introduced the original motion, I think his lead on accepting or rejecting my 2 amendments is key.

What do you think Scott?