Jump to content

TRR - new Forum Rules


Recommended Posts

20 minutes ago, MennoR said:

I nearly get the urge to ask the owner(s) of this fine forum to start a Forum Of The Banned for all our TR related matters...

What a mess!

 

I second that, and will support it with a donation equivalen to the TRR sub I am saving !

Peter

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 215
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

This is getting ridiculous.  I gave up on the CT board because it got so difficult to use, through adminstrators' ideas about design, and now the TRR because of administrators ideas about - I don't know, organising a school trip for infants probably.

I have argued long and hard that there were too many Tribes of Triumph, that they needed to unite,  but I never wanted this, that they should solve the problem by removing themselves.

And for the same reason, Menno and Peter, I oppose any group of the Exiled here on Sideways.     Cliquism, separation of groups, seems to be what has killed the TRR.    There must never be any subject that is forbidden (excepting those that any decent person would avoid) or area of the board that is exclusive.     I've suggested, to no avail, that it is unseemly to dicuss others' dirty washing.     I hope that the TRR comes to its senses, and meanwhile will be personally grateful if we look aside, and let them get on with it.

And meanwhile, long live Sideways! Thanks to our Founder, whose iconoclastic ways became those of this message board, and to those who continue it in the same way!     

John

Edited by JohnD
Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, JohnD said:

This is getting ridiculous.  I gave up on the CT board because it got so difficult to use, through adminstrators' ideas about design, and now the TRR because of administrators ideas about - I don't know, organising a school trip for infants probably.

I have argued long and hard that there were too many Tribes of Triumph, that they needed to unite,  but I never wanted this, that they should solve the problem by removing themselves.

And for the same reason, Menno and Peter, I oppose any group of the Exiled here on Sideways.     Cliquism, separation of groups, seems to be what has killed the TRR.    There must never be any subject that is forbidden (excepting those that any decent person would avoid) or area of the board that is exclusive.     I've suggested, to no avail, that it is unseemly to dicuss others' dirty washing.     I hope that the TRR comes to its senses, and meanwhile will be personally grateful if we look aside, and let them get on with it.

And meanwhile, long live Sideways! Thanks to our Founder, whose iconoclastic ways became those of this message board, and to those who continue it in the same way!     

John

John,  Yes, the new TRR forum rules display a certain psychopathology.

I dont see a Exiles subforum as being a clique. Just a way to keep TR posts in one place. And to free up the Ranting Arena for Brexit, Trump etc.  After 40 years in TRR there are TR folk I want to keep in touch with, in  friendly place. Thank you Sideways.

Peter

Peter

Link to post
Share on other sites

Rules. What rules. Rules be made to be broken!

 

This place only appeared as McJim commites public suicide and banned me cause I told him to F off in a private message.

 

I wonder if he still posts there. You know posting a load of useless crap and enjoying meaningless banter with his tribe of eager cliques.

When I hacked the CT board and read the private message board only moderators can read I was quite surprised to see what goes down in there.

Well, so long my loves, till the next time.

 

Yours. DaveNotSoSideways.

 

xxx

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, PGB BME said:

A deliberate ploy me thinks. I only renewed my membership on the 24/10/18, I've already resigned from Derbyshire Dales Group as a matter of principle (although according to our new VC i didn't need to as your a TRR Member only - still trying to work that one out)). Loathed to give the TRR the rest of my annual fee for nothing so quite happy to receive my TRAction and run down my membership.

Phil

Phil,

you are always welcome at the Trent Group. we don't bite 

 

Rex

Link to post
Share on other sites

As the initiator of this thread, I'm not looking for a separate area/subforum - although I understand Menno's and Peter's logic, I was merely posting my frustration here, in a friendly and open environment.

I really can't click I agree to those new rules and so I can't see me on the TRR forum until they are relaxed. I hope that more TR folk do come here and we can continue our banter away from draconian oversight. I will miss the technical stuff - and I am aware I have been far more a receiver than a giver - but again perhaps that support is here also.

Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Rex Wyer said:

Phil,

you are always welcome at the Trent Group. we don't bite 

 

Rex

Rex

Thanks for the invite I probably will pop along now and again, at least I will be able to catch up on the gossip:smile: - hope the other half is ok after the hospital visit and the housework is not preventing you finishing the TR 

Have you clicked "I Agree"?

Phil

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, MennoR said:

I nearly get the urge to ask the owner(s) of this fine forum to start a Forum Of The Banned for all our TR related matters...

What a mess!

 

Menno I see your logic. 

But our host already has an “all other Triumph” area for Tr stuff. 

But the other posting areas The technical boards) here are populated By very knowledgable folk willing to share and help. 

We should be grateful for this asylum. 

H

Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, PGB BME said:

Rex

Thanks for the invite I probably will pop along now and again, at least I will be able to catch up on the gossip:smile: - hope the other half is ok after the hospital visit and the housework is not preventing you finishing the TR 

Have you clicked "I Agree"?

Phil

Hi Phil, yes I clicked  I agree to see what was happening. Think they are still in the fertilizer as some of the new rules do not agree with the independent report but we will wait and see.

Off to pick the better half up out of hospital shortly, two new hips in 3 months mean I have a lot of house work to do so the 6 will have to wait for a while.:biggrin:

Rex

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, DaveNotSoSideways said:

Rules. What rules. Rules be made to be broken!

 

This place only appeared as McJim commites public suicide and banned me cause I told him to F off in a private message.

 

I wonder if he still posts there. You know posting a load of useless crap and enjoying meaningless banter with his tribe of eager cliques.

When I hacked the CT board and read the private message board only moderators can read I was quite surprised to see what goes down in there.

Well, so long my loves, till the next time.

 

Yours. DaveNotSoSideways.

 

xxx

Dave!  Good to hear from you!  Hope you stay around - we need your attitude!

John

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Rod1883 said:

The risk that I see is that if many/most click I agree, then the BOD will see that as acceptance of the new rules and so will not see any need, or have any desire, to change them.

Rod,

I've been composing, and then rewriting, a message to TRR, via the "Contact"button on on the front page of the site: https://www.tr-register.co.uk/contact   No need to consent to the new Rules to do that.

Don't know how far up the hierarchy it would get, but I presume that Wayne, the Press Officer and general factotum,  will read it.  If there are many others explaining their objections, I think he will present the file to the BoD.      Probably about as effective as asking for a Second Referendum, but it's all I can do.

JOhn

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Rod1883 said:

The risk that I see is that if many/most click I agree, then the BOD will see that as acceptance of the new rules and so will not see any need, or have any desire, to change them.

Unless one challenges it from the inside. I and a few others are pointing out the conflict between IRP recommendations and the current rules. 

H

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks John, Hamish

I understand the 'from within' argument, it's just that I can't bring myself to Agree with those rules to do it - Catch 22!

Your approach John via the Contact button is a great idea. I'll compose something myself too....

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, JohnD said:

Hamish,

"IRP"?    Google finds  refreences to match-fixing in tennis, the oil industry and hosital re-organisation.    What do you refer to?

John

Sorry. 

The TR Register organised an

Independent Review Panel

of 3 members to look into some club procedural issues.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

That Forum Of The Banned is only venting my frustration. No need to open up a special forum, I agree. (Mmmm wondering... would a similar suggestion be translated as braking the new rules? After all, it's airing the fact that one is not satisfied with what the BoD 'offers' me...

Stil, l I can not get over the fact that every shred of criticism is 'Verboten!' on the TRR Forum, but at the same time, these people are committing genuine character assassination in TRA #308!

Menno

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Hamish said:

Well I have clicked “I agree”

for my own reasons. 

Mainly it’s a good community of helpful like minded enthusiasts. 

And I find they have re named members chat “Alec’s Inn”

a welcome tribute and a compromise as a stand alone forum of this name was voted against. 

I also belive that in time the discussion restrictions around the club and its management will be relaxed as recommended by the 3 wise men review ( IRP)

H

Hi Hamish

I look at it differently.  I agree with you that the TRR forum has long attracted helpful, like-minded enthusiasts and, like you, I have benefited hugely from skilled and experienced contributors there.  But the generosity has come from individual members devoting their own time to answering questions and providing advice.  For a while, it also provided an amusing and informative source of conversation, but that is no longer the case.  The Register's input is to provide a hosting service and to co-opt moderators to follow the party line.  I recall being upbraided 'publicly' by a director, but (allowing for my poor memory) at no point do I recall an officer or director providing helpful or constructive input to technical discussions.

The removal of AtB was evidently the first step in a progressive locking down of the forum, to restrict it to technical exchange.  As I've commented before, a wealth of information not directly related to TRs has been removed from general access and I would question the TRR's moral authority to do that.  I know that others have a different view, along the lines of something which is given for free is, in fact, worthless.

I am also surprised that there is not greater objection to Alec's name being used in connection with the removal of freedom.  I would have thought, judging by his extensive contributions to the forum and an all-too-brief series of conversations with him at Spa last year, that restricting knowledge and withholding opinion was the very opposite of his standpoint.

I'm not convinced that the matter is better tackled from within.  The more members who click 'yes', the stronger the case for the BoD's restrictive policy towards the forum.  I look somewhat cynically on the purpose and execution of the Darren Cummins review panel but, in any case, it would appear that once a member has clicked 'yes', he cannot object, lest he be in breach of the regulation and therefore subject to exclusion from the forum.  It also seems that this was all prepared well in advance of the AGM and the 'go' button was clicked as the last member was leaving the meeting.

It feels like a bit of an own goal.  At a time when interest groups have the opportunity to talk, exchange and meet via free social media, it would seem logical to create a welcoming and beneficial environment for like-minded TR owners to share and get the sort of warm and fuzzy feeling that might lead them to coughing up their subs every year.  The TRR seems intent on building a more... hostile environment, but maybe, in view of the age range of the BoD (early 60s+ at the last count), their interests are more short-term and selfish.

Another reason for those of us without a physical 'group' to belong to, to say thank goodness for Sideways.

Paul

Link to post
Share on other sites

My letter about to go into the Register:

Dear TR Register
 
I have been a member for circa 40 years, buying my first TR2 in 1978/9 and my second '2' in 1980 - the car I still own today.
I have been active and non active during that time, but a continuous member nonetheless. In my time I have been an active member of Trent and South Downs Groups and attended a few Wessex Group meeting in the late 70's.
My car was off the road from ~1987 to 2011, and although I became an active member of Goodwood TR Group when that was formed (attending in our Stag), it was the forum that helped me immensely in getting my TR2 back, and keeping it, on the road. The technical assistance is second to none, but just as important the camaraderie and social friendships made through the 'At the Bar' subforum have been instrumental in me making a wider circle of friends. It enabled such events as TRchaeology and has provided support and kindness to those struggling with health or other matters. Attending the IWE became a far better experience for me because I knew far more people - having already met them physically or even only electronically through the forum.
 
I voted against the new forum rules via my Proxy at the AGM, and I feel I cannot Agree to them now. I am extremely disappointed that the new rules appeared so hastily yesterday evening, and now I cannot access the forum I dearly value. I am doubly disappointed because the new rules so hastily put in place are not in line with the recommendations of the Independent Review Panel.
There is an argument that one needs to be in something to affect change - well I will not sign up to rules I cannot accept as that would infer that I have accepted them. If I did I would be in breach of clause 1.3!
Please please urgently review sub clauses 4.1.12 and 4.1.14. Debate and the ability to challenge authority, in a civil manner and in the right places, is the lifeblood of a healthy and robust organisation. Please do not suppress debate through the use of these rules.
 
I would also query clause 3.1. I would resist the display of my membership number on an open forum. I fear it could lead to misuse of that Personally Identifiable information. Clause 4.1.4 also seems draconian - surely if someone wishes to post a picture of their own child in their own car, at a TRR event - the IWE for example - then surely that is fine?
 
I understand, but have not seen, that Members Chat has been renamed Alec's Inn - but it remains a members only area. I feel that social discussion is a great recruiting tool - showing we are able to engage on a wider front than just oily bits. If it isn't too presumptuous, I suggest Alec would have wanted a sub forum in his name to be for all. A separate Members area for delicate club matters to be discussed is of course also required.
 
I hope you will accept these comments and suggestions in the spirit intended, from a longstanding TRR member and former regular Forum user, and I also hope that the rules will be amended very soon to enable me to return.
 
Yours etc.
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/26/2018 at 9:12 PM, Rod1883 said:

Not sure I really want to agree to the new rules that contain:

4.1 When using this Forum, you agree not to: 

4.1.12 Post content that is critical of the Club, its members, staff, officials, board of Directors, Advertisers, A-Plan (TR Register Insurance) or other Club partners. 

4.1.14 Post content in relation to Club director elections, or other matters relating to AGM’s or EGM’s.

Trouble is, you can't get in now without clicking the 'I Agree' box!

Might leave it a few days and see how many more come here.

 

 

Apologies that I've been off the radar for a bit. I've not been keeping my head down as such, I've just had lots to deal with and been spending time thinking about what I want to do in terms of being part of a club.

I'm sure most of us would agree that there is a need for some club/forum rules, and there's merit in some of the new forum rules being implemented. However, rules 4.1.12 and 4.1.14  do no more than aim to maintain the status quo. When that's the aim, then there's clearly something very wrong, and I'd want to know why it is that some directors are so desperate to hold on to their position. What every government knows is that controlling the lines of communication is one of the key elements to maintaining power.  That's exactly what we have here.  

As I am banned I do not have the option, but if I did I could not agree to 4.1.12 or 4.1.14. Rules that do not tolerate hate speech and personal attacks are a must, but ones that limit legitimate criticisms of the regime are not acceptable to me.  How long will it be before somebody is banned by the Reg for using this forum or another to criticise or challenge the board? 

On 11/26/2018 at 9:24 PM, DeTRacted said:

 ... it would seem that only members who attend local group meetings will be able to discuss such topics.  I thought one of the recommendations of the recent 'wise men' review was the forum should be treated as a group i  its own right.

RobH

You might think that "only members who attend local meetings will be able to discuss" the matters restricted by 4.1.12 and 4.1.14, but I believe there are some that will go to any lengths to stop that too. Look at what happened in my case. A number of my group members and I were critical of some decisions made by the board. Many of us were unhappy, but we had a couple of members who felt that these things should not be discussed and decided to tell the board. They seemed to feel that their feelings/views were somehow more important and valuable then those of us that were unhappy with the way the club is heading.

What I think you will find Rob is that GLs will be told that they are TRR managers and that they have to silence any criticisms of the club. It will be the job of the new area directors to see that GLs keep in line. I hear that these area directors will also be overseeing group accounts, too.  It would not surprise me to find that the number of "official groups" will dwindle, and that those remaining will have a GL appointed, rather than elected in the future.      

On 11/26/2018 at 9:28 PM, Toronto Tim said:

I am hoping (and, possibly, even expecting) those two parts of the new rules to be changed - as mentioned, they rather fly in the face of one of the recommendations from the three wise men.

Apart from anything else, looks like I might have to moderate the Chairman's recent post...!!!

It would be nice to think that clauses 4.1.12 and 4.1.14 will be removed Tim. I hope you are right. Unfortunately, the BODs can now argue that as the rules were voted for they have to accept the membership's decision. 

Now, with regard to the three wise men, I'm rather mystified by what was said in the report. Having spent several hours in conversation with them, I got the distinct impression that while they felt the forum was a useful tool, they were not in favour of discussion that was critical of the regime. That seems slightly at odds with what is stated in their report, but several statements were made to me that makes me think something is amiss here. Happy to chat in private about that. 

It will be interesting to hear whether the forum GL is appointed or elected. 

On 11/26/2018 at 9:39 PM, PGB BME said:

A deliberate ploy me thinks. I only renewed my membership on the 24/10/18, I've already resigned from Derbyshire Dales Group as a matter of principle (although according to our new VC i didn't need to as your a TRR Member only - still trying to work that one out)). Loathed to give the TRR the rest of my annual fee for nothing so quite happy to receive my TRAction and run down my membership.

Phil

You raise a point here Phil that is of particular importance. What is the relationship between club and groups? It's stated by the club that groups have "no legal standing".  However, one of my group members is an accountant and has some legal expertise. He says that while groups might not have any legal standing in the eyes of the club, these groups would be considered as unincorporated associations in terms of the law. What this means is that group members (not just leaders and committees) have certain liabilities that the club would not cover. At best, the relationship is one of recognition, i.e. the club recognises a group and endorses it.  Clearly, any of these groups could continue to exist as a group, with the same members, regardless of Reg recognition or not. Although, if not, it wouldn't be able to call itself a Reg group. 

My member, the accountant, argues that there should be a change so that the relationship between club and groups is more formal. In doing this, group members would be covered by the same protections that club directors enjoy. However, there is a downside to this, in that there would be more admin for GLs and Reg control would then be absolute. GLs really would be club managers. 

Although I understand the arguments in favour of organisation as outlined above, I've said to the member in question that I cannot see it working. I do not imagine that most group committees will want the extra workload that this structure would entail. Yes, it would be nice to have the extra protection, but the risks are minimal.       

 

On 11/26/2018 at 10:00 PM, JohnD said:

Odd mixture of the reasonable and extreme rules.    No criticism of the governing committee, or about club business, no pictures of children even your own, no passing on of viruses (as if people, most people , do.itde!iberately!),, No politics,  and so on.     I've always considered that a Message board is like a pub - the conversation can go anywhere.    There are no.rules but if you break them you're banned!    It's the owners place, they decide, but you can decide too, and go elsewhere.

Sidewayzers!   Prepare to welcome boarders!I

John

I see your point John, but your pub analogy doesn't quite work for me. That pub is the owner's business, to be run as he or she pleases. I think that most Reg members consider themselves to be equal owners of the club, and as such feel that they have a right to speak if they disagree with the way it is going. Certain directors do, however, consider the club as a business and have said so to me. They also believe that because they have been elected they can govern as they see fit, without consulting the membership. My view has always been that for legal and administrative purposes the Reg is a business, but aside from that it should be a club where everyone who wants to input should be able to. Once people start seeing it as a business, or even their business, the scope for abuse is obvious. No "official" should be making a gain out of their position in the club. 

Yes, members can decide to go elsewhere John and I'm sure many will. But think of it like this, many long standing members have invested decades of time and effort  into the club. It is not so easy for them just to let go. Those are the members I wanted to fight for. As for myself, if I do not get the service I want, I'm always happy to look elsewhere.       

 

On 11/26/2018 at 10:19 PM, Hamish said:

I believe that will be amended. 

The new chairman has posted and it appeared to be a very measured and bridge building balances statement. 

Time will obviously tell. 

But I am an advocate of being in a position to have a say to effect a change. 

H

I can understand why you would advocate staying in position to bring about change Hamish, but I think there are many here that will testify from experience that your chances are slim. As I think others have said, bringing about any change is now that much harder, because open discussion on the forum is banned. I fully respect your support of the Reg Hamish and I know that you get something of value for your membership, especially in terms of the motor sport opportunities I believe, but others now more than ever seem to question the value of a club in which they feel disenfranchised. To me, the the value in the club is its people.  What I've found is that the friends I've made via the club continue to be my friends now I'm outside it. And that's the thing, classics, Triumphs, TRs ... it's a big community. Nobody "needs" to be part of a club to be part of that community. 

 

On 11/26/2018 at 10:33 PM, BrianC said:

There is no point whatsoever in the Chairman posting on the Forum after blowing up the bridges in the certain knowledge that the 'TRoublemakers' (as the Hon. President branded us) will not sign up to 4.1.12 & 4.1.14.   Whilst some people did post recklessly and without sufficient thought, the majority of us posted constructively with concern only for the good reputation and future of the club in which many of us have been active members for many years.  It's all just a TRagedy :(

 

Brian, as a long standing member, makes the point I was getting at above. It's hard for long standing members to walk away from the club, but their passion for it is now being tested to limit. I think that for many this gagging order with threat of expulsion might be the last straw.   

We all have a choice. You can keep fighting from within in the hope of changing things in order to make it the club you want it to be, or you can decide to do something new. It's all about enjoying the friendships and the cars. As someone said recently  "... like-minded friends with an interest in owning, maintaining and driving old cars is far more important in the grand scheme of things than a large club obsessed with winning accolades."   

Edited by TR5tar
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Craig. 

I've thought for a while that, given the increasing numbers of TR owners joining, it might be useful to have sections along the lines of what you have now created. I held back from making the suggestion because I've only been part of Sideways since the start of the year. 

Best wishes, 

Darren

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...