Administration Forum Rules

[st.byron]

dear st byron.

ok , lets start this game of thrones episode.

... been sitting on the injectors drug cheating thread 'n cant believe how a similar story line (imo) ,
though clothed differently , has played out on these boards over the past 12 months or so.

this is gunna be a big story ... and to be honest , i cant be bothered doing the work to tell it.

.but i will.

first things first though.

earlier in this thread , you invited Cairnsman into a discussion with YOU ,
and then stood back as our Supreme Leader came over the top with his 'ways'.

piss poor behaviour imo ... but we move on.

at this moment , in 'this' thread ... our SL has removed himself from participating in this thread AND
removed himself from moderating this thread.

so , i am having a conversation with YOU ,
about issues SL is central to.
(not Simon as an individual ... but the issues & methodologies employed by SL around these parts
... since his arrival as saviour of the people)

are we on the same page ?

No...... we're not on the same page here.

Re my previous posts with Cairnsman in this thread. I didn't feel I was inviting CM to have a conversation just with me. If I wanted to do that I would do it via PM. Anything posted in a thread for public viewing is fair game for anyone else to comment on. The intention was to get out in the open whatever issues and gripes were festering so they could be looked at and for anyone with a view to put it forward. It still is my intention.

I don't agree that BFUSA - and by the way I think calling him 'Supreme Leader' and 'saviour of the people' is just more of the snideness and third party belittling that I previously referred to. Can we just have a conversation about the issues without personal abuse or belittling? All you're doing is perpetuating abuse whilst at the same time complaining about someone else's poor behaviour.
I don't agree that BFUSA 'came over the top' as you suggest. I invited CM to express his concerns and he did which was good. BFUSA responded to those concerns and I think he responded clearly, respectfully and appropriately. The whole point is to have the issues openly discussed. Especially in a climate where posters are concerned about bias and hidden agendas. So let's have it out in the forum for everyone to see.

Re BFUSA removing himself from moderating in this thread. A good decision IMO. He's copping a fair bit of derogatory verballing from you and it would be inappropriate for him to moderate on it.

If you want to have a conversation with me personally about site moderation, then we should do it via PM. Posting in the forum means it's open for anyone to comment on and that's the point. For everyone who has something to say about an issue to say it and not leave it festering. And for everyone else to be able to read it and respond if they want to.

Re the issues and methodologies used in managing and moderating the site, if you have issues with that, then let's hear 'em.

Also, a few posts back you wrote, "Dont see u pulling up Simon with his two faced s***". That's an implication that I'm biased and it's not one I appreciate.

Soooooo........ let's hear it :
What's slippery?
What parade of a big stick?
What two faced s***?

Let's have the issues with management and moderation on the table.

[asiu]

nice.

[st.byron]

nice.

Sometimes POQ I get frustrated with the unspoken meaning in your posts.

What's nice?

What do you mean? Is that sarcastic? Is it genuine? I don't know what you mean.

[asiu]

Principle of Q'uo wrote:



nice.

i woke up this morning ... rolled a ciggy ... put the kettle on ... drank a glass of water ... added a tea bag 'n sugar to my cup
... lit my ciggy ... removed the milk from the fridge ... poured boiled water across my teabag ... stirred it with my long handled teaspoon
... added a dash of cows juice ... picked up my phone ... connected to this interwebby thingo ... refreshed 'mates' ... smiled
... refreshed this joints Board Index ... smiled when i saw your green id in the Admin Forum ... clicked in "n read your post ... smiled
... and proceeded to post ... expressing my experience of the moment.

***********************************************

imo ,
your 'frustration' is your issue.
your inability to decipher if am being sarcastic* or genuine ... is your issue.

but , given your commonsense enquirery on the matter (which is the only practical methodology of communicating clearly)
i expanded on the circumstances / context in which i made this mornings post.

i hope that helps u decipher 'correctly' my morning participation.


*
sarcasm ...aint really my style , imo.
i have three ways of operating
seek out information , highlight hypocracy or support the peacemakers.

(but , i shall admit ... i have little but contempt for the political game playing charade imposted apon us by this latest version of
an orange hat wearing saviour of the people)

if thats coming out sideways as "sarcasm' .... oh well.
it is what it is.

contempt expressed.


why did i smile ?

your 'positioning post' has set the tone ... just as much as any 'positioning post' of mine.

[asiu]

Anything posted in a thread for public viewing is fair game for anyone else to comment on.

yep.

I don't agree that BFUSA - and by the way I think calling him 'Supreme Leader' and 'saviour of the people' is just more of the snideness and third party belittling that I previously referred to.

if thats the position he's gunna take , extoll his righteousness for and of ... the font of all 'pure fact' , overiding wisdom
'n omniscient understanding of context ... thats his right

but if its a falsity , as it is ... i have every right (in fact , it is a citizens duty) to show that the Emperor is wearing no clothes.

... imo , this deserves an appropriate call of , tough titties.

Can we just have a conversation about the issues without personal abuse or belittling? All you're doing is perpetuating abuse whilst at the same time complaining about someone else's poor behaviour.

i'm not perpetrating abuse st byron ... please retract that accusation.

i've been warned for abuse , in this thread already ... are you insinuating there are undealt with matters ?
nor am i complaining about 'the third parties' behaviour ... i am grateful for it ... i find it amazingly transparent ... copybook fascism.

I don't agree that BFUSA 'came over the top' as you suggest. I invited CM to express his concerns and he did which was good. BFUSA responded to those concerns and I think he responded clearly, respectfully and appropriately.

we shall agree to disagree then.

The whole point is to have the issues openly discussed. Especially in a climate where posters are concerned about bias and hidden agendas. So let's have it out in the forum for everyone to see.
Re BFUSA removing himself from moderating in this thread. A good decision IMO. He's copping a fair bit of derogatory verballing from you and it would be inappropriate for him to moderate on it.

derogatory verballing huh.

...loaded words are not just mine , 'n SL's expertise , it seems.

If you want to have a conversation with me personally about site moderation, then we should do it via PM. Posting in the forum means it's open for anyone to comment on and that's the point. For everyone who has something to say about an issue to say it and not leave it festering. And for everyone else to be able to read it and respond if they want to.

out in the open ... find anywhere in my posting history where i encourage anything else.

Re the issues and methodologies used in managing and moderating the site, if you have issues with that, then let's hear 'em.

i have been ... for a year already.
... lets recap , is that what u mean ?

Also, a few posts back you wrote, "Dont see u pulling up Simon with his two faced s***". That's an implication that I'm biased and it's not one I appreciate.

withdraw that also please.
there was no implication of bias towards u in that comment.
... if i thought u were also 'biased' , i certainly wouldnt be wasting my time communicating with you.
... that was a description of my disappointment experienced when u failed to see or behave appropriately imo ,
with regards to the behaviour of another poster ... which u have previously described as appropriate

the ol , agree to disagree card gets layed on the table here as well.

that 'subject matter' , will no doubt get explored as i move backwards through this mess.

Soooooo........ let's hear it :
What's slippery?
What parade of a big stick?
What two faced s***?

Let's have the issues with management and moderation on the table.


thats what we are setting out to explore ... isnt it ?

[st.byron]

i'm not perpetrating abuse st byron ... please retract that accusation.

i've been warned for abuse , in this thread already ... are you insinuating there are undealt with matters ?

No I'm not insinuating there are undealt with matters. I'm saying that things like :

"we need a big noter with an entertainment account .
where could we find one of them ?"

"Supreme leader"

"two faced s***"

and a couple of other things you've written constitute derogatory third party comments. You're belittling BFUSA. Not enough to score a warning on any one statement, but belittling nevertheless. So nope. No retraction. It's not an accusation. It's a fact.



derogatory verballing huh.

...loaded words are not just mine , 'n SL's expertise , it seems.

See above



i have been ... for a year already.
... lets recap , is that what u mean ?

Yes that would be good.


"Soooooo........ let's hear it :
What's slippery?
What parade of a big stick?
What two faced s***?

Let's have the issues with management and moderation on the table."


thats what we are setting out to explore ... isnt it ?

Yep. So let's get on with it.

[GrumpyOne]

As an interested observer of this little stoush, I think it is better that everything is out in the open, rather than have things concealed in PMs. Just raises suspicions that things are being swept under the carpet. Had enough of that on this forum over the years.

Especially in regard to having some semblance of democracy on this forum. As I have said before, if it wasn't for the posters, this forum would not exist. Sometime I would like someone in Admin to acknowledge that.

[BackFromUSA]

As an interested observer of this little stoush, I think it is better that everything is out in the open, rather than have things concealed in PMs. Just raises suspicions that things are being swept under the carpet. Had enough of that on this forum over the years.

Especially in regard to having some semblance of democracy on this forum. As I have said before, if it wasn't for the posters, this forum would not exist. Sometime I would like someone in Admin to acknowledge that.

100% acknowledged that the forum is the sum of those that contribute. Contributors change over time. If contributors stopped posting the forum might die or it might take on a new life.

However either way the ownership remains the same. The posters do not own the forum. They are currently given a voice and asked to contribute thoughts whenever there is change floated via discussions in the fan forum (which then get moved into this admin forum)and remain there for all to view. And the decisions made by consensus and become rules sometimes differ to what the site owners and admin believe to be right but the rules are created to reflect the communities desires. The moderators then apply these rules - some of which they personally disagree with.

People are also given opportunity to voice concerns here and in PMs and have management of the site respond.

I think a form of democracy is in place.

I know others disagree.

[st.byron]

As an interested observer of this little stoush, I think it is better that everything is out in the open, rather than have things concealed in PMs. Just raises suspicions that things are being swept under the carpet. Had enough of that on this forum over the years.

Especially in regard to having some semblance of democracy on this forum. As I have said before, if it wasn't for the posters, this forum would not exist. Sometime I would like someone in Admin to acknowledge that.

Totally agree with you that issues to do with forum management and moderation are better openly discussed and not via PM's.

My intention here is not to have a 'stoush'.
My intention is to air and bring to the light whatever posters are harbouring that drives any ongoing bitter or derogatory personal comments. Full and frank exchange of disagreements are good, but for me, I don't like it when it crosses over into personal belittling and insult. Can't see any value in it at all.

[stinger]

As an interested observer of this little stoush, I think it is better that everything is out in the open, rather than have things concealed in PMs. Just raises suspicions that things are being swept under the carpet. Had enough of that on this forum over the years.

Especially in regard to having some semblance of democracy on this forum. As I have said before, if it wasn't for the posters, this forum would not exist. Sometime I would like someone in Admin to acknowledge that.

100% acknowledged that the forum is the sum of those that contribute. Contributors change over time. If contributors stopped posting the forum might die or it might take on a new life.

However either way the ownership remains the same. The posters do not own the forum. They are currently given a voice and asked to contribute thoughts whenever there is change floated via discussions in the fan forum (which then get moved into this admin forum)and remain there for all to view. And the decisions made by consensus and become rules sometimes differ to what the site owners and admin believe to be right but the rules are created to reflect the communities desires. The moderators then apply these rules - some of which they personally disagree with.

People are also given opportunity to voice concerns here and in PMs and have management of the site respond.

I think a form of democracy is in place.

I know others disagree.

i don't...disagree that is....happy with things the way they are.......some posters have been trying ..by one means or another to take over this site for years....they don't accept that damien owns ss and can put who he likes in charge..and they never will...i think you guys are overly permissive in allowing posters who abuse you to continue to do so whilst you try and enter into discussion with them......experience has told me to ignore them...i suggest bfusa and st bryon that you give that a try....you can take or leave my advice....but it's tendered with the best interests of the majority at heart.....silent or otherwise...

[GrumpyOne]

As an interested observer of this little stoush, I think it is better that everything is out in the open, rather than have things concealed in PMs. Just raises suspicions that things are being swept under the carpet. Had enough of that on this forum over the years.

Especially in regard to having some semblance of democracy on this forum. As I have said before, if it wasn't for the posters, this forum would not exist. Sometime I would like someone in Admin to acknowledge that.

100% acknowledged that the forum is the sum of those that contribute. Contributors change over time. If contributors stopped posting the forum might die or it might take on a new life.

However either way the ownership remains the same. The posters do not own the forum. They are currently given a voice and asked to contribute thoughts whenever there is change floated via discussions in the fan forum (which then get moved into this admin forum)and remain there for all to view. And the decisions made by consensus and become rules sometimes differ to what the site owners and admin believe to be right but the rules are created to reflect the communities desires. The moderators then apply these rules - some of which they personally disagree with.

People are also given opportunity to voice concerns here and in PMs and have management of the site respond.

I think a form of democracy is in place.

I know others disagree.

We are given a voice, and we are asked to contribute, however those rights are by grace of the administrators and can be taken away any time without reason.

I can still remember when a certain Mod went feral and deleted posters on his way to the funny farm. I was one of them.

This cannot be allowed to occur again, and there are no safeguards currently in place to stop it.

That is why I am urging democracy for this place.

I think a form of democracy is in place.

To be honest, and without wanting to be insulting, the same could be said for North Korea.

[asiu]

Goooooood Mooooooorning Koorrrrrreaaah.
... don't ya just love the smell of napalm in the morning.

do i get outa bed 'n go home
do i sleep
do i party harder

last man standing.




on the walls of my local footy club
(now extinct)
(god bless the Seagulls)
(ironic huh)

spoke the Wisdom

"It aint the size of the dog that matters.
It's the size of the fight in the dog that matters."

but , here at this moment , discombobulation rules ,
... theres no long handled teaspoons.

woe is me ... can i adapt.

Questions , Questions , Questions.

i luvved gazrat.
... always the last man standing.

That mod that Gramps was talking about erased my Id and posting history
as well ... pretty sure he was also backed in by Stinger at the time.

and back full circle we go.
... bedmates are interesting things.

God Bless You Each.

(even You SL)

[GrumpyOne]

on the walls of my local footy club
(now extinct)
(god bless the Seagulls)
(ironic huh)

The Seagulls are still alive and well at Tooradin, mate.

[Cairnsman]

Ok.

On commercialisation of the site, back in January BFUSA and myself were debating (via PM) the "design brief" that BFUSA had passed to a consultant he had engaged to develop Saintsational.com. The following was a statement by BFUSA in a PM on the 23 January 2014:

I have no plans to sell advertising on the fan forum or the website - I believe we can remain self funding BUT in case we cannot ... do we want to rule it out completely ... I shall leave that for the majority to decide

The following statements were also made by BFUSA in a PM on 26 January 2014:

St Kilda and the AFL can shut down Saintsational whenever they want even now as we breach the AFL copyright property and we breach the license that St Kilda holds with the AFL.

FYI we exist only by the good grace of the AFL and St Kilda

we are ALL owners

Damien lives overseas and has no involvement at all anymore

his father funded it originally and I contributed and then started to raise funds to keep it going


I plan to ask the club for
==> permission to run their social media feeds on saintsational.com as a part of the content on the website
==> access to past players through their past player association for interview and maybe even forum posts
==> prizes to use to raise funds for saintsational itself AND club (e.g. Saintsational stools for open training)



Ok the points I would like to make:

1. Because BFUSA had commenced the building of Saintsational.com without IMO proper consultation with SS members, and because he posed the question re "not wanting to rule out selling advertising", I immediately become suspicious that there was a hidden agenda to commercialise the site and take away the free speach of the site and possibly be influenced by outside commercial entities including the AFL and club.

2. I have always made it clear to BFUSA that I am not opposed to his ideas to commercialise the site provided we can put something in place that protects the site's independence. This suggestion lead to ownership discussions and also the claim by BFUSA that there is nothing we could do to protect our independence because we are already at the mercy of the club and AFL. He claimed this by suggesting we already break copyright and licensing agreements. I claimed that this would be easy to tidy up. An example of a potential breach is various imagery used in avatars such as the avatar BFUSA uses. Now I wonder what the outcome would be if we tested the waters and run a vote that poses the following question: If the club or AFL threatened to shut us down because of a breach such as imagery in avatars would members vote to remove the breaches and protect their desire to speak and operate freely without influence from the AFL or club?

3. Throughout a very lengthy debate between BFUSA and myself, BFUSA made it clear that he agreed the site was owned by all of the members and also made it clear that Damien and Battye had long abandoned the site. I and many concluded their contribution of value and money to the site was minimal by comparison to that of the many dedicated and passionate long time posters over a very long period. BFUSA was making it very clear that one of his main objectives was to eliminate or dilute the impact of posters he labelled the "toxic" and "nutjobs" and also develop a relationship with the AFL/club with Saintsational.com being the vehicle. I argue that there is plenty of club/AFL endorsed/run internet product and that creating Saintsational.com would only eventuate to another bland and sanitised AFL product.

4. Some random side points: the fact that I can say c*** on this website proves that we are a different and viable product. We have near-on 5000 members which is a decent audience and I am sure that point is not lost on BFUSA who clearly understands commercial mechanisms.

5. Now in my firm belief based on the above type of discussions, statements and claims, the very late backflip by BFUSA to claim/re-introduce Damien as the rightful owner of the site was only because he was losing the debate on independence. There were many good suggestions on how to set up a democratically elected administration, one even by BFUSA, (seven man board). There would be so many ways to set up a management system that was democratic and had integrity and wasn't just a corruptly elected admin by popularity vote (BFUSA's words, not mine). We even started going down this road lead by BFUSA before he left on compassionate leave. Then the backflip.

Forget the argument of ownership for a moment...red herring...why can't we make a formal declaration of independence and make it so that no matter what our dealings, the most valued and protected commodity of this site is it's independence.

Make a formal declaration of independence that is ratified by the owner(s) and implement it in a way that protects the site from legal implications.



Get some progress on this and then maybe we get some progress on how to have a proper democracy.

[asiu]

i'll say one thing to u people who are currently running this site

... if Saintsational loses Mart as a poster because of this ridiculous forum etiquette ruling ,
(which i would strongly suggest is a huge possibility)
u should hang your respective heads in shame.

u allow mart to be bullied into a position of "no win' ... nice work , NOT.
... nice understandings of the ' energies at work in the HAM Forum , NOT.

Where was the community discussion on forum etiquette that allowed this attrocious vehicle for poster 'n moderating bullying to be inserted into the rules ?????????


Mods reply as follows ... warning issued for refusing to follow forum ettiquate ... if you are unwilling to quote ... simply SPECIFY WHICH POSTER you are replying to!

QUOTATION POLICY

When answering a specific post, the responding poster is encouraged to quote the post or the part of the post to which they are referencing, otherwise they must specify which poster they are referencing in the response.

Failure to identify the post or poster being addressed is considered a breach of forum etiquette and repeated failure will result in a Saintsational warning.

... a little bit like the rule change on the pre post submit prompt that other posts had been made whilst u had been constructing your post.
... i personally loved that option , used it religiously , but on the bleats of 2 or 3 posters ... the option was removed ... instead of those posters being told the simple truth .... just SIMPLY hit submit once more ... instead we get another dose of "which way is the wind blowing today " politics.

[BackFromUSA]

Ok well I shall have to dedicate some time tonight after the game to respond to the above from Cairnsman, but it is fair to say that I am very comfortable in my ability to respond factually and I shall attempt to clear the air DESPITE having done so numerous times in PM and in previous posts.

[BackFromUSA]

i'll say one thing to u people who are currently running this site

... if Saintsational loses Mart as a poster because of this ridiculous forum etiquette ruling ,
(which i would strongly suggest is a huge possibility)
u should hang your respective heads in shame.

u allow mart to be bullied into a position of "no win' ... nice work , NOT.
... nice understandings of the ' energies at work in the HAM Forum , NOT.

Where was the community discussion on forum etiquette that allowed this attrocious vehicle for poster 'n moderating bullying to be inserted into the rules ?????????


Mods reply as follows ... warning issued for refusing to follow forum ettiquate ... if you are unwilling to quote ... simply SPECIFY WHICH POSTER you are replying to!

QUOTATION POLICY

When answering a specific post, the responding poster is encouraged to quote the post or the part of the post to which they are referencing, otherwise they must specify which poster they are referencing in the response.

Failure to identify the post or poster being addressed is considered a breach of forum etiquette and repeated failure will result in a Saintsational warning.

... a little bit like the rule change on the pre post submit prompt that other posts had been made whilst u had been constructing your post.
... i personally loved that option , used it religiously , but on the bleats of 2 or 3 posters ... the option was removed ... instead of those posters being told the simple truth .... just SIMPLY hit submit once more ... instead we get another dose of "which way is the wind blowing today " politics.

Hi POQ

I would strongly suggest that there is next to no possibility that BigMart would be banned or would be lost due to this etiquette rule. We are not asking him to use the quote button - just reference the poster he is responding to so that we can all understand the conversation. How hard is it to start his post with the name of the poster he is referencing? It is not like he receives a warning each time he doesn't. He has received 1 warning (that I am aware of) for continually breaching the forum etiquette. He has received PMs on occasions when it was impossible to tell who he was responding to and at other times we (as moderators) feel that the complaints made against him have been unjustified, because we felt that it was obvious to all who he was responding to ... either because it was the post above his or because the subject matter reflected the content of a post made within the past few posts on the forum in that thread. We are very aware of the "energies" that you speak of and we are moderating with fairness.

As for the pre-post submit prompt. That function was removed because a large number of posters found it hindered their ability to contribute during game day threads. I do not remember any lobbying at the time (wanting to keep the prompt feature) but I do remember overwhelming complaint about it as a feature in the thread that opened this up for debate and we felt that the administrative change was made to reflect the community opinion. It could be returned as a feature if the community wanted it. You are welcome to open up a thread in the Fan Forum to see if there is community support for it's return.

Simon

[asiu]

i'm not perpetrating abuse st byron ... please retract that accusation.

i've been warned for abuse , in this thread already ... are you insinuating there are undealt with matters ?

what follows , disappointingly is an example of slippery posting ... from you.

i asked for a retraction on your accusation that i was "All you're doing is perpetuating abuse ..."



with which u replied with ...

No I'm not insinuating there are undealt with matters. I'm saying that things like :

righteo ... before your up coming change of tack (wording) ... u admit in writing that there are no matters of 'abuse' outstanding.
ie : that i AM NOT perpetuating abuse ... coz obviously i'd be copping another warning if i was !

then off you go on some repeated rant about belittling of your boss and third party commentary.
i didnt ask for a retraction on the charge of belittling ... I ASKED FOR A RETRACTION ON THE FALSE CHARGE OF perpetrating abuse.

ie ...

and a couple of other things you've written constitute derogatory third party comments. You're belittling BFUSA. Not enough to score a warning on any one statement, but belittling nevertheless. So nope. No retraction. It's not an accusation. It's a fact.

well , with your own written statements ... we've proved its not a fact and actually is and always was ... an ACCUSATION

i ask again ... please withdraw it.





derogatory verballing huh.

...loaded words are not just mine , 'n SL's expertise , it seems.

See above.

see above what ??????

the point i made , requires acceptance , not some glib ... see above comment , that had nout to do with it anyway
is that YOU are guilty , like i am guilty , like your boss is guilty of using 'loaded words' if it suits your / our purpose.

no arguement about it .... pure fact , in fact.

<insert picture of the irony throne here>

dont play politics if u are no good at it ... but dont play politics more importantly , expecting that the 'game' wont be shone back in your face ... coz that'll be an ending in tears ... the ol mirror of self deceipt 'n community betrayal.

retraction please.

[asiu]

next example of 'slippery posting'

when asked to prove his comment as below

That is pure fact! I could compile dozens of A4 pages to print out where you guys have posted and responded to each other or commented within the same thread.

or , as i wrote

back up your pure fact or otherwise i will feel free and justified in calling you a bald faced liar 'n simmering propagandist.

i was given

Well obviously not all good.

Seems like I have a cut and paste project for tonight.



Where would you like me to send the PDF?

then

P.S. I shall gladly apologise if I cannot find the volume I pereceived under the exact assertion made.

lol @exact assertion made.

which then changed to
ie ... the slippery bit

Looks like there is no need for me to prepare a PDF - although the filing suggestion was quite creatively worded.

POQ - I am sincerely sorry that you are so obviously upset at being connected with Cairnsman and my perception of your relationship on Saintsational.

Anyway - I am going to sign out from this discussion and go read the fan forum.

NOTE to all - I am not going to personally moderate this thread as it would be a conflict of interest and I shall leave it to the other mods to get a consensus on the various reports made. I am happy with whatever they decide.

to which i replied

i'm not upset at or with my connection with Cairnsy.
i was deeply disturbed at your expressed perception of that relationship.

untruths are very very dangerous ... especially in the modern world of pencil pushers
over zealous admin types & proponents of political propaganda.

why have u given up on assembling 36 pages so easily ?
... u said u would and if you couldnt you would apologise.

get the evidence and i'll give u an email address for your pdf.
... dont get the evidence ='s a fair dinkum apology.

enough already of this less than authentic communication game u are playing.
Please.

wheres my deserved 'fair dinkum' apology ???????????????????????????????????????????

that has been weasled out of being given.

[asiu]

the Irony Throne

[BackFromUSA]

Responding within the quote so each issue can be addressed:

Ok.

On commercialisation of the site, back in January BFUSA and myself were debating (via PM) the "design brief" that BFUSA had passed to a consultant he had engaged to develop Saintsational.com. The following was a statement by BFUSA in a PM on the 23 January 2014:

==> Correction 1: There is NO commercialisation of the site, there was NEVER any planned commercialisation of the site and despite me continuing to say so, it is how you start??? How is this helpful? Do you feel the only way you can garner support is to paint me as someone wishing to make a $ out of Saintsational? It is really poor form.
==> Correction 2: There was no consultant engaged - I volunteered my website guy to do the website IF it was to go ahead - i provided him with a brief to get a quote in hours (so i knew for my own purposes what this was going to cost me in time) and it was being done at ZERO cost to Saintsational and was going to be my donation to the site

I have no plans to sell advertising on the fan forum or the website - I believe we can remain self funding BUT in case we cannot ... do we want to rule it out completely ... I shall leave that for the majority to decide

==> this quote from my PM (a rule breach) is me asking a question of what should happen if Saintsational could not be funded in the future
==> It was in response to allegations that this was my plan (which it is not and has never been)
==> I clearly state there were NO plans to sell advertising on the site (how many times do I have to say that?)
==> I clearly state that IF there was a need to fund the site in the future, which i doubt as we have managed to be funded by donations for about a decade - the issue should be raised for members to decide the outcome - I am sure that many would be against advertising (as would I personally) and wouold rather tip in their own coin (as i would)
==> AND I have stated on many occasions that I believe that the site will always be funded by the members whether it be me, a few members or dozens of members
==> I think that your proposed constitutional suggestion that prevented Saintsational from ever considering advertising was questionable and for the members to decide

The following statements were also made by BFUSA in a PM on 26 January 2014:

St Kilda and the AFL can shut down Saintsational whenever they want even now as we breach the AFL copyright property and we breach the license that St Kilda holds with the AFL.

==> 100% true. And I have provided links to Cairnsman of the instances where the AFL and clubs have shut down similar forums and websites or forced them to go "private"

FYI we exist only by the good grace of the AFL and St Kilda

==> This is also true. The AFL and clubs allow all fan forums and websites and social media sites to use the trademarked properties until they feel it is against their interests.

we are ALL owners

==> my continued stated position is that the site is technically owned by Damien and managed by his appointed administrators BUT we all have ownership in the sense that (a) we can decide things as a community and (b) we can take ownership of our own contributions that combined make up the content of this site AND (c) each individual has all rights to their own posts and they cannot be re-published currently without their permission and Saintsational clearly does not take ownership of the opinions or contributions made.

Damien lives overseas and has no involvement at all anymore

==> I was wrong here. Damien was back from overseas. He did not post anymore and he was not managing the site as an administrator HOWEVER he was and is still owner.

his father funded it originally and I contributed and then started to raise funds to keep it going

==> 100% true. However from mid 2000s (i think around 2008 ... Mr. Magic could confirm this) those funds raised ran out and then various donations were called for to help pay the expenses for the site. Despite your assertion Cairnsman that you contributed, I am unable to find your name in the spreadsheet, but this is irrelevant anyway.



I plan to ask the club for
==> permission to run their social media feeds on saintsational.com as a part of the content on the website
==> access to past players through their past player association for interview and maybe even forum posts
==> prizes to use to raise funds for saintsational itself AND club (e.g. Saintsational stools for open training)

==> the above set of ==> were suggestions made NOT decisions made (I wasn't even admin back then) and I still believe that they are good suggestions. The club has backed this place before - providing us with memorabilia to auction, coming online to contribute and communicate, giving us ... thanks to the hard work of two (ex?) posters ... the space for Moorabbin Wing and even now their support of Eastern's March demonstrates that the club is generally supportive of fan involvement.

Ok the points I would like to make:

1. Because BFUSA had commenced the building of Saintsational.com without IMO proper consultation with SS members, and because he posed the question re "not wanting to rule out selling advertising", I immediately become suspicious that there was a hidden agenda to commercialise the site and take away the free speach of the site and possibly be influenced by outside commercial entities including the AFL and club.

==> I did not commence building a site ... I put up a proposal on this site
==> It can be viewed here: viewtopic.php?f=30&t=81753
==> It was put up to gain the opinions of posters (ummm isn't that consultation)
==> I had no power to do anything at the time as I was not an administrator
==> "not wanting to rule out selling advertising" is a misquote and out of context (see previous answers above)
==> I have no control over Cairnsman's (or anyone's) suspicions
==> there is NO hidden agenda to commercialise the site (how many times must I say that?)
==> there is a specific free speech rule and posters are free to post what they want (this has never changed) but they also take responsibility for what they post
==> HOWEVER like any forum contributions should be made with other rules in mind for the harmony of the forum AND to remain within legal boundaries
==> for the reasons of harmony and legality, the moderators have the right to remove, edit, move etc posts posts that overstep the mark (and always have had that right)
==> every poster agrees to that when they originally registered to join Saintsational AND it remains within the rules of the forums
==> how or why would the AFL or club want to influence us suddenly after 15+ years UNLESS we do something against their interest and YES they then can shut us down
==> our past experience has been that the club has been really supportive and involved with the site / fan forum and even helped us raise funds etc - why would it change?

2. I have always made it clear to BFUSA that I am not opposed to his ideas to commercialise the site provided we can put something in place that protects the site's independence.

==> I have never AND never had any idea or intention to commercialise Saintsational (how many times do I need to say this?) and this is an accusation that disgusts me
==> Saintsational is independently owned (by Damien) and thus is protected and is independent to the club and the AFL

This suggestion lead to ownership discussions and also the claim by BFUSA that there is nothing we could do to protect our independence because we are already at the mercy of the club and AFL. He claimed this by suggesting we already break copyright and licensing agreements.

==> 100% fact. The AFL have used this to shut down 2 fan forums in the past. I have provided Cairnsman to the newslinks covering the occurance and how they were shut down through the AFL removing their rights to use AFL owned trademarked property AND I certainly do not want this fate for Saintsational

I claimed that this would be easy to tidy up. An example of a potential breach is various imagery used in avatars such as the avatar BFUSA uses. Now I wonder what the outcome would be if we tested the waters and run a vote that poses the following question: If the club or AFL threatened to shut us down because of a breach such as imagery in avatars would members vote to remove the breaches and protect their desire to speak and operate freely without influence from the AFL or club?

==> Is it better to prevent the AFL wanting to shut us down (i.e. prevent ourselves from acting against their interests) OR removing all trademarked property in a pre-emptive move to allow us to then gleefully post and act against the AFL e.g. provide phone numbers for umpires so we can all call and complain? What would need to be removed - lets start with the banner. The two player images and their names would need to be removed. Any use of the jumper, logo, name St.Kilda Football Club, St.Kilda Saints or AFL Saints would need to be removed from the site whether put up by admin or posted by a poster. Moderators would need to remove each posting that posted these things. Impossible and futile. We have NO NEED to do any of this because the AFL and club allow us to use their trademark property on the understanding we will do our best to ensure that we do not act in such a way that is horrifically against the fundemental interests of the AFL ... for example coordinate a campaign against an umpire. They allow and strangely welcome criticism of the AFL in these forums as they monitor them to gain an insight into the way fans are feeling on various issues. This will not change.

3. Throughout a very lengthy debate between BFUSA and myself, BFUSA made it clear that he agreed the site was owned by all of the members and also made it clear that Damien and Battye had long abandoned the site. I and many concluded their contribution of value and money to the site was minimal by comparison to that of the many dedicated and passionate long time posters over a very long period. BFUSA was making it very clear that one of his main objectives was to eliminate or dilute the impact of posters he labelled the "toxic" and "nutjobs" and also develop a relationship with the AFL/club with Saintsational.com being the vehicle. I argue that there is plenty of club/AFL endorsed/run internet product and that creating Saintsational.com would only eventuate to another bland and sanitised AFL product.

==> I believe the posters have ownership as describved several times (we can contribute our thoughts and make community decisions) and we should take ownership of our contributions AND we own our own individual posts BUT Saintsational is owned by Damien.
==> Damien did not abandon ownership - he appointed an administrator - battye
==> battye did abandon his role as administrator and let the the site fall into a lack of moderation (as the moderators also abandoned their role) due to abuse
==> any monetary contributions made were DONATIONS not share purchases and Damien retains ownership
==> I am not hiding from the fact that I want to moderate to ensure the rules (that already existed) were and are enforced properly
==> i want no poster eliminated
==> i want no poster diluted
==> I do (and did) want the abuse / bickering / bullying to stop
==> In the most part it has
==> The community is thriving as a consequence
==> Just about every night this week around 9pm there was over 120 people reading saintsational
==> I want (and wanted) toxic posting to stop
==> I am not sure that I ever called anyone a "nutjob" but i stand to be corrected (hopefully it was well deserved)
==> Asking the club for support for a fan site is a LONG WAY from handing it over to them ... if that was the case then this could have happened years ago

4. Some random side points: the fact that I can say c*** on this website proves that we are a different and viable product. We have near-on 5000 members which is a decent audience and I am sure that point is not lost on BFUSA who clearly understands commercial mechanisms.

==> Of course you can currently say that word on here BECAUSE the community decided that it was acceptable
==> Do I or others agree? Irrelevant! Because that is what the majority decided and as admin we instigated and the moderators moderate to
==> We had almost 5000 members BEFORE using the word (given it is masked by the swear filter) was allowed on the site
==> The very mechanism that allows that word to be used now, may lead to it not being allowed in the future
==> If a change is proposed and the community wants it to change, then admin might change it
==> whether we had 500 or 5000 members is irrelevant
==> there is NO commercial outcomes here
==> we are our own community
==> Saintsational is NOT a product

5. Now in my firm belief based on the above type of discussions, statements and claims, the very late backflip by BFUSA to claim/re-introduce Damien as the rightful owner of the site was only because he was losing the debate on independence. There were many good suggestions on how to set up a democratically elected administration, one even by BFUSA, (seven man board). There would be so many ways to set up a management system that was democratic and had integrity and wasn't just a corruptly elected admin by popularity vote (BFUSA's words, not mine). We even started going down this road lead by BFUSA before he left on compassionate leave. Then the backflip.

==> Let's be clear here.
==> I was made admin on Feb 3 by battye handing over the reigns with Damien's blessing
==> until then I had no contact on these matters with Damien because that was not my role (it was battyes)
==> Cairnsman insisted that if Damien was owner that he be contacted to ask for this to become a voting democracy
==> cairnsman asked damien come onto the site and debate him
==> I contacted Damien
==> he made clear his intentions for Saintsataional
==> He came on to deal with the tech issues
==> He posted during that period
==> He decided not to take it further
==> He allows admin to manage the site
==> That is what i am doing

Forget the argument of ownership for a moment...red herring...why can't we make a formal declaration of independence and make it so that no matter what our dealings, the most valued and protected commodity of this site is it's independence.

==> ownership is not a red herring
==> Damien owns Saintsational
==> Saintsational is independently owned (by Damien)
==> The posts made by posters are owned by THEM
==> The forum rules declare:
===> EDITORIAL CONTRIBUTION DISCLAIMER: The editorial opinion or contributions of the individual posters in no way constitutes the view of the Saintsational website or it's fan forums, or it's administrators, moderators, or voluntary personnel.

Make a formal declaration of independence that is ratified by the owner(s) and implement it in a way that protects the site from legal implications.

==> Not sure how a "declaration of independence" (ratified or not) protects the site from legal implications in regards to cyber-bullying, trademark impingement, liable/slander etc, so perhaps someone with a qualified legal mind could explain this to me ... I am certainly open to be educated by qualified legal experts with legitimate professional advice

Get some progress on this and then maybe we get some progress on how to have a proper democracy.

==> The site ownership is not a democracy - it is owned and managed SIMPLE
==> Members are given a voice to make community decisions on rules etc
==> other rules are required to ensure we comply with laws of Victoria and Australia
==> we have all agreed to the rules by entering into Saintsational
==> If you want a pure voting democracy - you are free to start your own fan site
==> a previous poster / moderator has done so and has over 5000 members on facebook

I hope that I have adequately and politely addressed all matters raised, despite having previously (sometimes on a number occasions) answered each of the above.

Thanks

Simon

[BackFromUSA]

next example of 'slippery posting'

when asked to prove his comment as below

That is pure fact! I could compile dozens of A4 pages to print out where you guys have posted and responded to each other or commented within the same thread.

or , as i wrote

back up your pure fact or otherwise i will feel free and justified in calling you a bald faced liar 'n simmering propagandist.

i was given

Well obviously not all good.

Seems like I have a cut and paste project for tonight.



Where would you like me to send the PDF?

then

P.S. I shall gladly apologise if I cannot find the volume I pereceived under the exact assertion made.

lol @exact assertion made.

which then changed to
ie ... the slippery bit

Looks like there is no need for me to prepare a PDF - although the filing suggestion was quite creatively worded.

POQ - I am sincerely sorry that you are so obviously upset at being connected with Cairnsman and my perception of your relationship on Saintsational.

Anyway - I am going to sign out from this discussion and go read the fan forum.

NOTE to all - I am not going to personally moderate this thread as it would be a conflict of interest and I shall leave it to the other mods to get a consensus on the various reports made. I am happy with whatever they decide.

to which i replied

i'm not upset at or with my connection with Cairnsy.
i was deeply disturbed at your expressed perception of that relationship.

untruths are very very dangerous ... especially in the modern world of pencil pushers
over zealous admin types & proponents of political propaganda.

why have u given up on assembling 36 pages so easily ?
... u said u would and if you couldnt you would apologise.

get the evidence and i'll give u an email address for your pdf.
... dont get the evidence ='s a fair dinkum apology.

enough already of this less than authentic communication game u are playing.
Please.

wheres my deserved 'fair dinkum' apology ???????????????????????????????????????????

that has been weasled out of being given.

I think that the perfect example of slippery posting would be quoting posts and editing out parts that do not suit you? Am I correct?

The context of the quote above where I say:

Looks like there is no need for me to prepare a PDF - although the filing suggestion was quite creatively worded.

is the post just after where you tell me to file the pdf where the sun don't shine (i.e. stick it up myself) which was in response to me merely asking where to send the PDF!

However perhaps you were NOT slippery when you omitted this from your series of quotes on this matter ... perhaps you just forgot?

Postby Principle of Q'uo » 12 Jun 2014, 14:27

something about the sunshine and on whom and where it graces itself
comes to mind
... stick your pdf file on your NEW apology pinboard ,
it'll look good with all the others that are gunna join it.
'No obsessive who has ever made a mark is free of character flaws. By their very nature, their character flaws are a product of what it is that makes them successful in pursuing an ideal.'

.sing your death song 'n die like a hero going home.

[/quote][/quote]

AND YOU LOST YOUR RIGHT FOR AN APOLOGY (IF ONE WAS EVEN DUE) WHEN YOU TOLD ME TO SHOVE THE PDF UP MY ....

AT THAT POINT I DISENGAGED FROM MODERATING THIS THREAD.

[BackFromUSA]

And with that ... I am going to the footy.

[BackFromUSA]

i'm not perpetrating abuse st byron ... please retract that accusation.

i've been warned for abuse , in this thread already ... are you insinuating there are undealt with matters ?

what follows , disappointingly is an example of slippery posting ... from you.

i asked for a retraction on your accusation that i was "All you're doing is perpetuating abuse ..."



with which u replied with ...

No I'm not insinuating there are undealt with matters. I'm saying that things like :

righteo ... before your up coming change of tack (wording) ... u admit in writing that there are no matters of 'abuse' outstanding.
ie : that i AM NOT perpetuating abuse ... coz obviously i'd be copping another warning if i was !

then off you go on some repeated rant about belittling of your boss and third party commentary.
i didnt ask for a retraction on the charge of belittling ... I ASKED FOR A RETRACTION ON THE FALSE CHARGE OF perpetrating abuse.

ie ...

and a couple of other things you've written constitute derogatory third party comments. You're belittling BFUSA. Not enough to score a warning on any one statement, but belittling nevertheless. So nope. No retraction. It's not an accusation. It's a fact.

well , with your own written statements ... we've proved its not a fact and actually is and always was ... an ACCUSATION

i ask again ... please withdraw it.

derogatory verballing huh.

...loaded words are not just mine , 'n SL's expertise , it seems.

See above.

see above what ??????

the point i made , requires acceptance , not some glib ... see above comment , that had nout to do with it anyway
is that YOU are guilty , like i am guilty , like your boss is guilty of using 'loaded words' if it suits your / our purpose.

no arguement about it .... pure fact , in fact.

<insert picture of the irony throne here>

dont play politics if u are no good at it ... but dont play politics more importantly , expecting that the 'game' wont be shone back in your face ... coz that'll be an ending in tears ... the ol mirror of self deceipt 'n community betrayal.

retraction please.

ACTUALLY - one more thing.

I am not moderating this thread BUT I see that two recent posts in this thread by you POQ had been reported for abuse and IMHO they were abusive (one was borderline) ... they remained open for a while, however it seems that St.Byron has closed the reports - probably as an act of goodwill and certainly in the spirit of wanting you to continue to have your say. It seems that he is much more generous and forgiving than some.

[asiu]

of course i didnt forget.
.... do u think i move my pieces haphazardly ?