TRR - new Forum Rules

[Rex Wyer]

35 minutes ago, PaulAA said:

John

Interesting.

A cynic might observe that there are at least 538 Neanderthals in a membership of approx. 16,000, who would have the club stay in the dark ages and communicate via carrier pigeon.  Equally, there are 169 members who want to bring it closer to the modern era, leaving a grand total of approx 15,500 who really just couldn't care less, so long as a glossy mag plops on the doormat once a month.

Paul

Hi Paul, looking at the income in the accounts, I think you will find that the total membership is approx. 6000 if not less. Apart from the 169 against the motion I doubt if the others actually

look at the forum or even know it exists some I think just did as they were told.

Rex

[Rod1883]

John - I had a very similar reply to my email.

I responded:

As I stated in my original email I cannot, with a clear conscience, sign up to rules that I do not agree with, and that I feel have been implemented with too much haste when all accept they are not fit for purpose as written.

I am intrigued by your comment "Even if you take out the Chairman’s proxy votes the resolution was passed by the membership."

Are you saying that votes cast via the Chairman as Proxy were instrumental in carrying this motion that you say yourself require redrafting? Were these positive voting instructions or 'as the proxy determines'? What would the voting numbers have been without those 'as the proxy determines' votes?

I also believe that my wife, as full paid up family member, used your good self as proxy, but she informs me that she voted against this resolution - can I be assured that her vote was correctly recorded?

 

I note your sign off - 'Longer term....'

I sincerely hope it is a much quicker timescale than Longer term that can be achieved in correcting this issue.

And Allan replied:

As a Board we decided where any votes given to the Chairman should be placed. We did feel that it would be wrong to vote against this members resolution as we had a number of complaints from the membership about the general tone of the At the Bar/Members chat section.

One member had tabled a resolution calling for the forum to become technical only but was persuaded by the board to withdraw that in favour of this other resolution introducing the rules.

I do not know the exact number of proxy votes that were left to my discretion as the proxy officer handled all the votes. I do however believe that even without my discretionary votes this resolution would have been passed.

I can assure you that if your wife voted for or against any specific resolution that was recorded as she wished.

Please be assured we will try to resolve this issue as soon as we can get a working party organised.

I find it disappointing that the Board clearly encouraged and were right behind this rule change, and are STILL going on about issues with ATB/Members Chat when the real problem was in another technical part of the forum and was quickly dealt with. Not encouraged by the responses so far it must be said, AND we have to wait for another working party before the forum rules are amended!

As Rex says membership is circa 6000 I think.  I'm convinced that many of the 538 votes for this will be those that offered their proxy to the Chair to be used as he determined!

 

[TR5tar]

Not that it's really any of my concern now, but it's still a mystery to me how the board could:

1. Recommend the membership to vote for the resolution.

2. Use the chairman's proxy to vote for it.

and then say that it's not what was wanted. If the board felt that it was correct to urge people to vote for it beforehand, because of the reasons stated, what has now changed? 

It's also worth noting that the clamp down on criticism and challenges to the board is now also part of the members' code of conduct, not that that has ever been ratified by the membership as far as I know. . 

I hope that the club does revise the forum rules, for its own sake. I'm sure John M will do his best in that respect. 

Darren

P.S. I think the membership is currently around 5'700. 

[JohnD]

Peter, Rod, I fear your paranoids are showing.     But I've not folowed this as closely as you.

But it does smack of legendary tactics in the Unions in the 50s(?60s?) when apparatchiks would draw out committee meetings with interminable proposals until any opponents had to go to their home/ pub.   Whereupon the Party would be voted into power by those still present.   Also known in chess as the "sitzfleisch" tactic, whereby you move as slowly as posisble taking all the time you have, to pressure your opponent's bladder.

John

[PeterC]

6 minutes ago, JohnD said:

Peter, Rod, I fear your paranoids are showing.     But I've not folowed this as closely as you.

But it does smack of legendary tactics in the Unions in the 50s(?60s?) when apparatchiks would draw out committee meetings with interminable proposals until any opponents had to go to their home/ pub.   Whereupon the Party would be voted into power by those still present.   Also known in chess as the "sitzfleisch" tactic, whereby you move as slowly as posisble taking all the time you have, to pressure your opponent's bladder.

John

 

11 minutes ago, TR5tar said:

Not that it's really any of my concern now, but it's still a mystery to me how the board could:

1. Recommend the membership to vote for the resolution.

2. Use the chairman's proxy to vote for it.

and then say that it's not what was wanted. If the board felt that it was correct to urge people to vote for it beforehand, because of the reasons stated, what has now changed? 

It's also worth noting that the clamp down on criticism and challenges to the board is now also part of the members' code of conduct, not that that has ever been ratified by the membership as far as I know. . 

I hope that the club does revise the forum rules, for its own sake. I'm sure John M will do his best in that respect. 

Darren

P.S. I think the membership is currently around 5'700. 

5699

 

[David Butterworth]

5698

[David Butterworth]

5 minutes ago, David Butterworth said:

5698

My membership was due on this Friday so I cancelled the direct debit today. I think I'll go and agree to the terms now.....lol

Dave

[JohnD]

If - IF - the agenda was anti-message board, then it parallels my experience at the TSSC AGM after their board went down and wasn't back up, months later.  I went to the meeting to ask for expedition, and was amazed by the attitude of several members from the floor, who clearly considered computers and all their worksto be the Spawn of the Beelzebubbe!

John

 

[DeTRacted]

This is a bit of a digression and I am going to display my woeful ignorance of voting procedures now, by asking whether it is common practice for a proxy vote to allow the nominated proxy to use the vote as he/she wishes rather than as directly instructed.  I can see the logic in having someone cast your vote for you in the way that you predetermine, but just giving away your vote to be used at discretion seems to me to be contrary to the basic democratic principle of one-person-one-vote. 

Surely the correct thing to do if you have no opinion on a matter, is to abstain  - otherwise its akin to allowing the squire to tell you who to vote for.

I have done a bit of web-searching on the topic but the only examples I can find have 'for/against/abstain' as the voting options..........

 

(pondering on 5697 but not due to renew until May.......)

[David Butterworth]

1 minute ago, DeTRacted said:

This is a bit of a digression and I am going to display my woeful ignorance of voting procedures now, by asking whether it is common practice for a proxy vote to allow the nominated proxy to use the vote as he/she wishes rather than as directly instructed.  I can see the logic in having someone cast your vote for you in the way that you predetermine, but just giving away your vote to be used at discretion seems to me to be contrary to the basic democratic principle of one-person-one-vote. 

Surely the correct thing to do if you have no opinion on a matter, is to abstain  - otherwise its akin to allowing the squire to tell you who to vote for.

I have done a bit of web-searching on the topic but the only examples I can find have 'for/against/abstain' as the voting options..........

 

(pondering on 5697 but not due to renew until May.......)

They wouldn't accept abstaining.

Dave

[DeTRacted]

?? one of the four options on the proxy from WAS to abstain.

[Rod1883]

Dave - the four options on this resolution were; For, Against, As my Proxy Determines, and Abstain.

John - to answer an earlier question - yes the new rules as proposed by the resolution were available to see on the TRR website and in the AGM info sent out with TRaction.

[PeterC]

22 minutes ago, JohnD said:

If - IF - the agenda was anti-message board, then it parallels my experience at the TSSC AGM after their board went down and wasn't back up, months later.  I went to the meeting to ask for expedition, and was amazed by the attitude of several members from the floor, who clearly considered computers and all their worksto be the Spawn of the Beelzebubbe!

John

 

My guess: the Register mass vote was organised by Group Leaders offering to act as proxy for their group. I can envisage GLs seeing their status/importance threatened by fora. Its why I very much doubt Allan or Diane or John the Mod will succeed in changing that ethos. No Gang Leaders on Sideways....hooray. 

Peter  

 

 

 

[David Butterworth]

Hi Rod, good to be here. I was told (or thought I was told) that you could not abstain by the member that held my poxsy votes.

Dave

Is there an edit button on here?

[BrianC]

"...a proxy vote to allow the nominated proxy to use the vote as he/she wishes rather than as directly instructed" is fine as long as the nominated proxy is trusted by the member (so not the Chair) as it (in theory) allows the proxy holder to vote according to any new information arising on the day either via private discussions or public debate.  Sadly the latter was ruled out by the Acting Chairman as "it would have taken too long"

"They wouldn't accept abstaining":  Abstentions were allowed but not counted.

[PGB BME]

Peter C

I think your on the right lines, however the GL's may have seconded other group member to act as Proxy's, just so there isn't a trail back to them.

Regards

Phil

[PaulAA]

3 hours ago, Rex Wyer said:

Hi Paul, looking at the income in the accounts, I think you will find that the total membership is approx. 6000 if not less. Apart from the 169 against the motion I doubt if the others actually

look at the forum or even know it exists some I think just did as they were told.

Rex

Thanks, Rex. Unbelievably, I checked the income on the TR website, divided by the annual subscription and arrived at the figure of 6,000... then typed in 16,000. Brain taking a(nother) short vacation...

Paul

[Hamish]

1 hour ago, PeterC said:

My guess: the Register mass vote was organised by Group Leaders offering to act as proxy for their group. I can envisage GLs seeing their status/importance threatened by fora. Its why I very much doubt Allan or Diane or John the Mod will succeed in changing that ethos. No Gang Leaders on Sideways....hooray. 

Peter  

 

 

 

Not in all cases. 

The Redrose group was encouraged to vote. Either on line or by post. 

No hint of proxy or volunteering to be proxy. 

Roger was my proxy.

H

[TR NIALL]

2 hours ago, Rod1883 said:

Dave - the four options on this resolution were; For, Against, As my Proxy Determines, and Abstain.

John - to answer an earlier question - yes the new rules as proposed by the resolution were available to see on the TRR website and in the AGM info sent out with TRaction.

Hi Rod I did try to Abstain on one or two of the Proposals but once I did that my complete Voting Form was rejected.

[MennoR]

3 hours ago, Rod1883 said:

One member had tabled a resolution calling for the forum to become technical only but was persuaded by the board to withdraw that in favour of this other resolution introducing the rules.

Must be the same member who provided the anonymous emails to the BoD regarding Darren...

Menno

[PGB BME]

Hamish - I do know where group members were asked to bring their postal proxy votes to the group meeting which would  then posted by a single group member, no doubt ensuring their votes counted. Group Members were also encouraged allegedly, to vote for the standing member/s. I know of 2 local members who were furious at this practice - is it wrong?,  i'll let you judge.

Menno - Good to see you over here.

Regards

Phil

 

 

[Hamish]

8 minutes ago, PGB BME said:

Hamish - I do know where group members were asked to bring their postal proxy votes to the group meeting which would  then posted by a single group member, no doubt ensuring their votes counted. Group Members were also encouraged allegedly, to vote for the standing member/s. I know of 2 local members who were furious at this practice - is it wrong?,  i'll let you judge.

Menno - Good to see you over here.

Regards

Phil

 

 

Doesn’t surprise me. 

But just wanted to say some groups are open and honest and have the cars and members at the forefront. 

Out of the 6000 membership I would think the majority don’t vote. 

And the majority of those that do will go with the recommendations. 

 

A very big big thing to change that habit. 

 

H

Edited November 28, 2018 by Hamish
Sp

[PGB BME]

Hamish

I think you are right in what you say, what gets me is the self righteous attitude shown by some Board Members and their willingness to play by different rules to everyone else.

Phil

[BrianR]

What I did find interesting was that a certain Mr Tucker ,to my mind one of the main instigators of all the recent troubles, was absent. Typical management tactic get your own way by hook or by crook and then duck responsibility.

Re the forum rules J.M. is already on the case so watch this space or for those that still can, watch the other space.

Brian

[David Butterworth]

Why would a new visitor sign up if he/she was thinking to join? I wouldn't sign up if I couldn't see any info about the club and having to agree to the terms and rules first. Not very welcoming is it.

Dave