Bangitintrnet wrote: March 25th, 2023, 11:58 am

Amberexile wrote: March 25th, 2023, 10:45 am

Bangitintrnet wrote: March 25th, 2023, 9:53 am
The thing is that people are simply not putting themselves forward for election. Now is part of the disincentive, the fact that everything published by the club is immediately rubbished? Does that encourage or discourage people who are willing to offer their expertise, time and energy for free, just to be rubbished?

I don't think a handful of numpties on an unofficial message board would put off people who are capable of doing the job.

People will express their views, it comes with the territory.

Maybe, maybe not, the point is all the accusations that just unravell over time, does it actually achieve anything?
If it puts some people off, and is not achieving it's objective, surely it's a just an obstacle, a pointless hindrance?

Amberexile wrote: March 25th, 2023, 12:48 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: March 25th, 2023, 11:58 am

Amberexile wrote: March 25th, 2023, 10:45 am

Bangitintrnet wrote: March 25th, 2023, 9:53 am
The thing is that people are simply not putting themselves forward for election. Now is part of the disincentive, the fact that everything published by the club is immediately rubbished? Does that encourage or discourage people who are willing to offer their expertise, time and energy for free, just to be rubbished?

I don't think a handful of numpties on an unofficial message board would put off people who are capable of doing the job.

People will express their views, it comes with the territory.

Maybe, maybe not, the point is all the accusations that just unravell over time, does it actually achieve anything?
If it puts some people off, and is not achieving it's objective, surely it's a just an obstacle, a pointless hindrance?

Yes, but a very very small one hardly worth bothering about

Bangitintrnet wrote: March 25th, 2023, 3:14 pm

Amberexile wrote: March 25th, 2023, 12:48 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: March 25th, 2023, 11:58 am

Amberexile wrote: March 25th, 2023, 10:45 am

Bangitintrnet wrote: March 25th, 2023, 9:53 am
The thing is that people are simply not putting themselves forward for election. Now is part of the disincentive, the fact that everything published by the club is immediately rubbished? Does that encourage or discourage people who are willing to offer their expertise, time and energy for free, just to be rubbished?

I don't think a handful of numpties on an unofficial message board would put off people who are capable of doing the job.

People will express their views, it comes with the territory.

Maybe, maybe not, the point is all the accusations that just unravell over time, does it actually achieve anything?
If it puts some people off, and is not achieving it's objective, surely it's a just an obstacle, a pointless hindrance?

Yes, but a very very small one hardly worth bothering about

Whether or not it puts people off, if it doesn't lead to more openess, surely it achieves nothing, so wouldn't it be better to actually spend energy trying to build, rather than constantly trying to demolish?

Amberexile wrote: March 25th, 2023, 3:21 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: March 25th, 2023, 3:14 pm

Amberexile wrote: March 25th, 2023, 12:48 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: March 25th, 2023, 11:58 am

Amberexile wrote: March 25th, 2023, 10:45 am

Bangitintrnet wrote: March 25th, 2023, 9:53 am
The thing is that people are simply not putting themselves forward for election. Now is part of the disincentive, the fact that everything published by the club is immediately rubbished? Does that encourage or discourage people who are willing to offer their expertise, time and energy for free, just to be rubbished?

I don't think a handful of numpties on an unofficial message board would put off people who are capable of doing the job.

People will express their views, it comes with the territory.

Maybe, maybe not, the point is all the accusations that just unravell over time, does it actually achieve anything?
If it puts some people off, and is not achieving it's objective, surely it's a just an obstacle, a pointless hindrance?

Yes, but a very very small one hardly worth bothering about

Whether or not it puts people off, if it doesn't lead to more openess, surely it achieves nothing, so wouldn't it be better to actually spend energy trying to build, rather than constantly trying to demolish?

Or do what most sensible people do and ignore the worst of the nonsense?

Bangitintrnet wrote: March 25th, 2023, 4:10 pm

Amberexile wrote: March 25th, 2023, 3:21 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: March 25th, 2023, 3:14 pm

Amberexile wrote: March 25th, 2023, 12:48 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: March 25th, 2023, 11:58 am

Amberexile wrote: March 25th, 2023, 10:45 am

Bangitintrnet wrote: March 25th, 2023, 9:53 am
The thing is that people are simply not putting themselves forward for election. Now is part of the disincentive, the fact that everything published by the club is immediately rubbished? Does that encourage or discourage people who are willing to offer their expertise, time and energy for free, just to be rubbished?

I don't think a handful of numpties on an unofficial message board would put off people who are capable of doing the job.

People will express their views, it comes with the territory.

Maybe, maybe not, the point is all the accusations that just unravell over time, does it actually achieve anything?
If it puts some people off, and is not achieving it's objective, surely it's a just an obstacle, a pointless hindrance?

Yes, but a very very small one hardly worth bothering about

Whether or not it puts people off, if it doesn't lead to more openess, surely it achieves nothing, so wouldn't it be better to actually spend energy trying to build, rather than constantly trying to demolish?

Or do what most sensible people do and ignore the worst of the nonsense?

You seem to be suggesting that at least some of it is nonsense. Does that mean that the bits that aren't, in someway lead to openess? And if so how?

I have no doubt that the trust are not perfect, but are they really as bad as is made out?

I find it very odd indeed that there is an overwhelming vote of 82%? in favour of a hybrid model. Then when John Pratt is involved, it is pointed out that the model trust rules - upon which the NCAFC trust is built - states that a 75% majority is required to amend the rules. The percentage is then described as something from a North Korean dictatorship, when the percentage required has actually already been surpassed, however the statement goes completely unchallenged........

Bangitintrnet wrote: March 25th, 2023, 4:10 pm

Amberexile wrote: March 25th, 2023, 3:21 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: March 25th, 2023, 3:14 pm

Amberexile wrote: March 25th, 2023, 12:48 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: March 25th, 2023, 11:58 am

Amberexile wrote: March 25th, 2023, 10:45 am

Bangitintrnet wrote: March 25th, 2023, 9:53 am
The thing is that people are simply not putting themselves forward for election. Now is part of the disincentive, the fact that everything published by the club is immediately rubbished? Does that encourage or discourage people who are willing to offer their expertise, time and energy for free, just to be rubbished?

I don't think a handful of numpties on an unofficial message board would put off people who are capable of doing the job.

People will express their views, it comes with the territory.

Maybe, maybe not, the point is all the accusations that just unravell over time, does it actually achieve anything?
If it puts some people off, and is not achieving it's objective, surely it's a just an obstacle, a pointless hindrance?

Yes, but a very very small one hardly worth bothering about

Whether or not it puts people off, if it doesn't lead to more openess, surely it achieves nothing, so wouldn't it be better to actually spend energy trying to build, rather than constantly trying to demolish?

Or do what most sensible people do and ignore the worst of the nonsense?

You seem to be suggesting that at least some of it is nonsense. Does that mean that the bits that aren't, in someway lead to openess? And if so how?

I have no doubt that the trust are not perfect, but are they really as bad as is made out?

I find it very odd indeed that there is an overwhelming vote of 82%? in favour of a hybrid model. Then when John Pratt is involved, it is pointed out that the model trust rules - upon which the NCAFC trust is built - states that a 75% majority is required to amend the rules. The percentage is then described as something from a North Korean dictatorship, when the percentage required has actually already been surpassed, however the statement goes completely unchallenged........

Amberexile wrote: March 25th, 2023, 4:49 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: March 25th, 2023, 4:10 pm

Amberexile wrote: March 25th, 2023, 3:21 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: March 25th, 2023, 3:14 pm

Amberexile wrote: March 25th, 2023, 12:48 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: March 25th, 2023, 11:58 am

Amberexile wrote: March 25th, 2023, 10:45 am

Bangitintrnet wrote: March 25th, 2023, 9:53 am
The thing is that people are simply not putting themselves forward for election. Now is part of the disincentive, the fact that everything published by the club is immediately rubbished? Does that encourage or discourage people who are willing to offer their expertise, time and energy for free, just to be rubbished?

I don't think a handful of numpties on an unofficial message board would put off people who are capable of doing the job.

People will express their views, it comes with the territory.

Maybe, maybe not, the point is all the accusations that just unravell over time, does it actually achieve anything?
If it puts some people off, and is not achieving it's objective, surely it's a just an obstacle, a pointless hindrance?

Yes, but a very very small one hardly worth bothering about

Whether or not it puts people off, if it doesn't lead to more openess, surely it achieves nothing, so wouldn't it be better to actually spend energy trying to build, rather than constantly trying to demolish?

Or do what most sensible people do and ignore the worst of the nonsense?

You seem to be suggesting that at least some of it is nonsense. Does that mean that the bits that aren't, in someway lead to openess? And if so how?

I have no doubt that the trust are not perfect, but are they really as bad as is made out?

I find it very odd indeed that there is an overwhelming vote of 82%? in favour of a hybrid model. Then when John Pratt is involved, it is pointed out that the model trust rules - upon which the NCAFC trust is built - states that a 75% majority is required to amend the rules. The percentage is then described as something from a North Korean dictatorship, when the percentage required has actually already been surpassed, however the statement goes completely unchallenged........

In a nutshell I am saying that you can,t stop idiots making up crap so when they do it is best to ignore them. Using this message board as an example every one of these threads withers and dies within a week or so, the more they are ignored the quicker that happens. Regardless the club continues because their impact is zero.

Your 75% example, being described on here as North Korean should be laughed off. The time to get vexed is if an attempt to circumvent this vote is made but let's not go there

OLDCROMWELLIAN wrote: March 25th, 2023, 5:41 pm

Amberexile wrote: March 25th, 2023, 4:49 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: March 25th, 2023, 4:10 pm

Amberexile wrote: March 25th, 2023, 3:21 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: March 25th, 2023, 3:14 pm

Amberexile wrote: March 25th, 2023, 12:48 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: March 25th, 2023, 11:58 am

Amberexile wrote: March 25th, 2023, 10:45 am

Bangitintrnet wrote: March 25th, 2023, 9:53 am
The thing is that people are simply not putting themselves forward for election. Now is part of the disincentive, the fact that everything published by the club is immediately rubbished? Does that encourage or discourage people who are willing to offer their expertise, time and energy for free, just to be rubbished?

I don't think a handful of numpties on an unofficial message board would put off people who are capable of doing the job.

People will express their views, it comes with the territory.

Maybe, maybe not, the point is all the accusations that just unravell over time, does it actually achieve anything?
If it puts some people off, and is not achieving it's objective, surely it's a just an obstacle, a pointless hindrance?

Yes, but a very very small one hardly worth bothering about

Whether or not it puts people off, if it doesn't lead to more openess, surely it achieves nothing, so wouldn't it be better to actually spend energy trying to build, rather than constantly trying to demolish?

Or do what most sensible people do and ignore the worst of the nonsense?

You seem to be suggesting that at least some of it is nonsense. Does that mean that the bits that aren't, in someway lead to openess? And if so how?

I have no doubt that the trust are not perfect, but are they really as bad as is made out?

I find it very odd indeed that there is an overwhelming vote of 82%? in favour of a hybrid model. Then when John Pratt is involved, it is pointed out that the model trust rules - upon which the NCAFC trust is built - states that a 75% majority is required to amend the rules. The percentage is then described as something from a North Korean dictatorship, when the percentage required has actually already been surpassed, however the statement goes completely unchallenged........

In a nutshell I am saying that you can,t stop idiots making up crap so when they do it is best to ignore them. Using this message board as an example every one of these threads withers and dies within a week or so, the more they are ignored the quicker that happens. Regardless the club continues because their impact is zero.

Your 75% example, being described on here as North Korean should be laughed off. The time to get vexed is if an attempt to circumvent this vote is made but let's not go there

Agree that the time to get vexed is if an attempt to circumvent the 75% vote is made, by for example suggesting that the % required has been surpassed by a survey undertaken by among others non trust members, I.e. people not elligle to vote, for a hybrid proposition that hadn't been made.