This just in: Tim from the Stormtrack forum has made a decision concerning the massive upheaval with CFDG members vs. Stormtrack members. Here it is:
"Myself and the moderators have had a long pow-wow on the highly controversial CFDG issue that boiled over on this board last week. Our decision is that suppressing discussion about the group is a departure from our editorial policy and is against the best interests of Stormtrack.
However, for the past 30 years, the spirit of Stormtrack has been to share weather knowledge and strengthen the social bonds within the severe weather community. Our members are fully expected to adhere to these standards. Alienating other people within the chase community does not fix anything... working for positive change does.
To further defuse any perceived conflicts of interest, I resigned my CFDG membership this morning... that way you can be assured that from here on out I am representing the interests of Stormtrack.
Tim"
Paragaph one:
Man, oh man, do I sometimes wish I was a fly on the wall in the ST administrative hidden thread. It must have been interesting - I am glad that they were open and honest with their pow wow. That's good to hear, and I am glad that moderators were chosen who (I hope) expressed their true opinions and feelings regarding the actions of the administrator. I am even more pleased to read of the decision not to suppress discussion about a group. That's great!
But pardon me, I need to get this off my chest. HELLO!!! HELLO!!! This should never have come to this point! Read again what Tim said. "Suppressing discussion about the group". So that was it! It was NOT that the thread had gotten out of hand, as Tim said when he locked the thread in question. It was that CFDG was being discussed, which in turn eliminated their secrecy even more then it was. It's clear that the whole point of Tim locking the thread was to suppress discussion. Sad, sad, sad. This is something I am hopeful will never, EVER be repeated again. I'm glad the decision was made to NOT suppress discussion but hello, this is a no-brainer, people.
Paragraph two:
This is disturbing still. It's almost as if Tim has to get his digs in to say " Ok, fine. Talk about it then, have it your way. But don't say anything that could alienate another member". Let's be clear about how internet forums operate. Remember, I am an admin myself, I have a vested interest in these areas.
This internet forum, Stormtrack, has an area called "Chase Bar and Grill". It's hidden to guests, and you can talk about anything you like in there.
Let's look at rule 12 of the Stormtrack rules.
12. Content disclaimer. Although the owners of Stormtrack have discretion to delete offensive material according to their personal judgement, these rights are rarely exercised. We depend on the free flow of debate and discussion to keep Stormtrack healthy and reduce administrative load. You must discontinue using Stormtrack and find another venue if you feel that the moderators or administrators are not censoring content to your satisfaction.
This is the rule that should continue to be the rule. It is pointless for Tim to come out in point 2 and say they are fully expected to adhere to standards that "do not alienate people". Here's the thing: People are going to have differences of opinion, different thoughts and different processes and reactions. In a forum where free flow is allowed (AS IT IS STATED HERE, FREE FLOW OF DEBATE AND DISCUSSION), what then defines conduct or activity that "alienates" others? Alienation is when a member leaves because they disagree with an opinion in the forum world. If they disagree and want to leave that's their choice. The duty of an administrator and/or a moderator is not to dictate what is talked about so long as it is of legal content and does not directly attack or is hostile to another member as per the ad hominem guideline. Therefore, it is not the concern of the administrator, the moderator, or the member if it alienates another member whatsoever. That is between the one who made the post and the one who took issue with the post. The administrator and the moderator team are there to ensure there is no violation of forum rules. There should never be, outside of illegal or previously restricted content (such as religion or politics) administrative action placed on conversation, especially civil conversation about a civil matter. Period. Don't put an umbrella over people's heads telling them to think twice about what to talk about if it is outside of politics and religion. The day that happens is the day I am gone.
Paragraph Three:
Bravo. HUGE Kudos to Tim here, this was the proper decision and the best one he could have made. He alleviated the perception of a conflict of interest and has pledged his allegiance to Stormtrack. Good move, yes. Now let's make sure that the "CFDG group" doesn't still appear to be "running the board" behind closed doors by complaining to Tim every time someone says something about their group and demanding suppresion of conversation. So long as discussion - ANY discussion - is civil, straightforward, and is not in violation of any established rule, let it be, so this kind of needless and senseless fiasco is avoided in the future from now on.
Ending comment: None of this had to be in the first place. This is a positive step. I'm concerned about the veiled "members are expected to adhere to these standards" statement because it appears to be a broad, wide open policy with unnamed consequences. It would have been best just to leave that out. But over all, a great step in a better direction.
Man, come on spring, just get our minds off all this bull and give us some freakin storms already!