In reply to GW0DSP:
I think these analogies are faulty.
We are indeed allowed to express our opinions, but we are expected to do so in, for want of a better word, a gentlemanly way. However SOTA and its ancillaries, including this reflector, are not a democracy, they are owned. Not, however, by us. We are invited to participate but have no intrinsic right to modify. We are taking part in a game, the rules of which have been laid down for us. We do not even contribute to the upkeep of the program, although the progress of the game is the sum of all our participations. If you like, we are like a collection of football teams playing in a league, we can by our own efforts progress in the league but we can’t argue with the offside rule.
It has to be said that the tenor of some of the posts advocating - no, demanding change, were a little waspish, and who other than the senders and the recipients know what was in the private communications? Personally I feel that the reflector would benefit from adopting a procedure from QRZ.com where somebody posting material beyond the line is given fair warning and if he continues he receives a temporary ban. If this behaviour continues on reinstatement then it can be followed by a permanent ban. However, it has to be said that the fireworks that are permitted on the Zed go far beyond what I would countenance!
I am sorry if I have been stating the blindingly obvious, but I do get the impression that some contributors feel that they have rights that don’t actually exist.
…and if you really want to stay with the football analogy, “participants” (players, managers etc.) can be (and often are) charged and punished by the FA for bringing the game into disrepute.
Brian … I could not have put my feelings in a more succinct way. I have refrained from posting prior to this. As I will only ever be a chaser, I feel that the discussions regarding anything to do with summits is beyond the scope of my experience. I know nobody in SOTA apart from my contacts with them on this Reflector or on the hills, so I have no fears of upsetting friendships.
Regarding the bans, I have for some time felt that there are 2 or 3 members whose opinions are expressed too forcibly and too often, therefore normal rules of moderation should be enforced, after due warning. I do not accept that we should use regional idiosyncrasys as an excuse for sarcastic or ungentlemanly posts.
Regarding the MT, whom I hold in the greatest esteem, for without their unstinting efforts on our behalf, there would be no SOTA to complain about, they have unwittingly allowed other associations to interpret the Rules as they see fit, and have not exercised their duty of care in enforcing uniformity. Having allowed this to occur, it would seem blindingly obvious that there is a need to introduce the lowest common denominator … allow all Associations to change to 100m separation. Each area could then work at its own pace to redesignate their summits onto the database. There would be no need to have a new starting date of 1st January 2009. As the database was updated, a new starting date is automatically decided.
Since joining SOTA in October, I have been very pleased to take part in this new activity. Please do not force the MT or any individual to leave due to bad feelings, unnecessarily created by thoughtless posturing. You have something here which is priceless but needs your constant nurturing.
We have to acknowledge that freedom of expression protects not the expressions we like but the expressions we don’t like. However, we also need to accept that whilst we have the right to freedom of expression we don’t have the right to force some 3rd party to publish those expressions.
That’s how it is. Censorship? Well I’m not going to comment on the case in hand. I’ll say I’m sad that Mick is not able to use the reflector at present. Would I like to see Mick back? Of course, but that is dependent on the MT and ultimately Mick.
To a degree I feel that it was my original question that provoked the comments that caused all of this. The comms problems between myself and the MT was the result of individual single points of failure at Hotmail and Yahoo. Once both sides knew there was a real problem we we’re able to fix it. If those who commented had only waited to find out the facts then we wouldn’t be in this position now.
They say patience is a virtue. So please exercise some!
Andy
MM0FMF
(my personal views and not to be construed as anything to do with any responsibilities/office/relationship I have with SOTA)
Andy, both you and David CMQ make valid points. We do have in sota a valuable gem, no doubt about that.
Mick is a valued friend to me and I’m finding it difficult to accept his exclusion for what was a harmless remark.
It’s done now and that’s a great shame. It’s all been said before, Mick is passionate about sota and would always help anyone in any shape or form, those who have had the pleasure of his company will agree.
Jon made a decision, I have to accept that decision as final.
I will now take some time to reflect on that decision and make some decisions of my own.
‘Regarding the bans, I have for some time felt that there are 2 or 3 members whose opinions are expressed too forcibly and too often, therefore normal rules of moderation should be enforced, after due warning. I do not accept that we should use regional idiosyncrasys as an excuse for sarcastic or ungentlemanly posts.
Regarding the MT, whom I hold in the greatest esteem, for without their unstinting efforts on our behalf, there would be no SOTA to complain about, they have unwittingly allowed other associations to interpret the Rules as they see fit, and have not exercised their duty of care in enforcing uniformity. Having allowed this to occur, it would seem blindingly obvious that there is a need to introduce the lowest common denominator … allow all Associations to change to 100m separation. Each area could then work at its own pace to redesignate their summits onto the database. There would be no need to have a new starting date of 1st January 2009. As the database was updated, a new starting date is automatically decided.
Since joining SOTA in October, I have been very pleased to take part in this new activity. Please do not force the MT or any individual to leave due to bad feelings, unnecessarily created by thoughtless posturing. You have something here which is priceless but needs your constant nurturing.’
David
I could’nt agree more with your posting, like you, I would also advocate that commonsense prevails. I think all should consider the points you make mention too. The MT and participants alike, should now take time to consider and after carefull reflection, move on without taking any serious action on any individuals. Further discussion on topic proposals put forward, should be encouraged and descisions made, for or against by the MT as appropriate. On descisions made, participants will decide whether the SOTA programme is for them or not as the case may be and the perogative to vote with their feet.
‘Please do not force the MT or any individual to leave due to bad feelings, unnecessarily created by thoughtless posturing.’
Although some do tend to get carried away with the topics discussed, passionate or otherwise, and yes, perhaps at times are guilty of thoughtless posturing, I do not believe that any current participant should be asked to leave… Perhaps lessons have already been learnt? I would hope so.
Apologies for quoting the majority of your post, but felt like you had hit the nail on the head… I’m sure many others also agree with your respected opinion.
In reply to GW0DSP:
But in the football league any manager not up to the task is fired ==
Yes but what happens when a player is not up to scratch, No he is not fired but sold or let go on a free transfare, Is it a good thinkg that a good player,is no longer playing SOTA, as we have HJD is not going up to Scotland,
Does this mean another chaser up north has gone ?
Does this mean another spotter has gone, only the moderator/reflector knows the out come.
Steve m0sgb
There certainly is more to this than meets the eye Mike.
Mick has a direct manner, as I have, but he is (was?) passionate about SOTA, willing to help and support activators and chasers alike. He is suffering from frustration because it is his view that the SOTA MT a very reluctant to make changes, which is a view that I support.
The problem now is that the SOTA MT are using censorship to suppress open discussion about major issues within SOTA and the mistakes that have been made. Using censorship to control debate is a sign of a very oppressive regime whose motto might be “Don’t discuss – we know better than you”. If the management team STIMULATED discussion rather than sitting in their ivory towers trying to control it they would achieve a much more positive result with a lot less effort.
I hope you will all take some action to support Mick and protest about the crass censorship on this reflector. My protest is to stop providing input to the SOTA News and to have the link to the Flickr photo site removed from the SOTA websites. Jon please remove the links to Flickr now. What will yours be? You only need to put finger to keyboard to stop this censorship and gross injustice to Mick 2E0HJD. If you don’t do something I hope you can live with yourselves as you enjoy SOTA in the years to come.
My view is that the next major debate will centre around the award scheme which is now totally past its sell by date. An award scheme where a chaser can gain the first certificate in one day of chasing, the trophy level in a matter of weeks and 10 times the the points score for the trophy inside a year is crazy. Similarly there is little incentive for activators beyond the simple MG and as we now have 33 Mountain Goats on the database the activator awards also need reviewing. I raise this issue now because it illustrates the way the issues have not been addressed by the SOTA MT. The award scheme was fine at beginning but has been neglected and changes should have be DISCUSSED and implemented long ago.
One unfortunate result of the censorship on the reflector is that the discussion is likely to spill over into other national/international forums and the amateur radio press. Unfortunate, but perhaps necessary, to highlight and flush out the weaknesses now bubbling to the surface.
John, I respect your commitment to SOTA, for your contribution and personal support and help, I also consider my contribution to SOTA has always been positive, as such I have the right to say I AGREE WITH YOU 100%.
My protest will be to change my ‘club talks which promote SOTA’ such that it will now concentrate on the individuals contributing to the programme rather than the formal programme itself, and Mick HJD is one of the individuals who will figure in my presentation, after all he was with me on a joint activation when I got my MG.
Mick has been passionate, enthusiastic, he gives time and effort and always supported me personally, he is one of the top chasers, but he is more than that, he is a keen activator and has enough experience to be worth listening to, as it stands now he will be sorely missed.
I hope Jon reverses his action and offers re-instatement for the good of SOTA, because its not just about rules, regulations and lists, its about people and individuals.
I have said recently on this reflector, I will always climb my beloved hills - its my passion, but I may not always carry my radio’s.
John, where is this censorship you speak of? Has any of your post been censored? Do we know of ANY post other than abrasive ones that have been modified by the Powers-That-Be?
We have a single participant who, rightly or wrongly, has been ejected for sarcastic and abrasive posts. Otherwise there has been an extensive and free-wheeling discussion of perceived deficiencies in SOTA. This does not look like censorship to me; over zealous moderation, perhaps (as I pointed out the contents of private communications have a bearing here so possibly the moderation is not as over-zealous as it first appears) but censorship involves extensive suppression of debate and this debate seems to be progressing pretty freely.
To be honest, I think you are over reacting. Losing Mick is a bit of a shock, and yet he had the option to continue: he wasn’t asked to change his opinions or refrain from posting them, he was asked to post in a less offensive manner. He refused to do so.
I also think there is a degree of exaggeration in your comments on awards. 10 times the points score for the SS award in a year is 10,000 points, or 1,000 10 point contacts, approaching three a day. It would be an exceptional chaser who could achieve that! Arguably, somebody that assiduous would deserve his trophy, anyway! The answer is to recognise the “Supersloth” and look forward to the “Hypersloth” and perhaps eventually the “Megasloth”!
I’m posting this in a few places so hopefully people who don’t read all the threads will see it.
There is now an active discussion between the MT and AMs regarding issues relating to the SOTA rules. As Scottish Association Manager I need to know what those registered feel about these issues. I have my own views but I only activate, I’m not a chaser in any sense of the word. In order for me to accurately reflect the views of those who chase and activate in Scotland, I need to know what you think.
Is change needed to the prominance rule, currently 150m but should it be 100m? Should we change from using Marilyns to Humps or whatever? Are you happy that the rules between associations are different or should all associations have the same set of rules? Do the award schemes need revisiting?
You may want to discuss this publically, but in the 1st instance can you let me know by email to mm0fmf AT hotmail.com (of course, change the AT to @). Please only people currently registered with the GM Association.
