Non-THSCC member access to the forums

Richard Casto · **Posted:** Sun Jul 16, 2006 10:51 pm

Quote:

I was also under the impression that this was a members only forum, and think that only Members should be able to post and read in here. I did not realize till recently that the TSCC president and VP were not members of our club. Since this is a private forum I assumed that every was under the idea that if you were a member of multiple clubs that things that were said in the this forum stayed in this forum.

This came from the thread about what to do about NCAC and CAC conflict...

http://www.thsccforums.com/viewtopic.php?t=5061

Ok, first, I LOVE the last statement about what is said in this forum stays in this forum. It's not Vegas people.

I hope you realize that ANY thing you say should be considered to be public information. THSCC (contrary to what some may think) is not a secret society in which all of us blood brothers can trust each other with secrets. Or if it is, I apparently haven’t reached a high enough level to be let in on the secret.

While typing this up, I had to look at the online Merriam-Webster dictionary for the definition of “club”. The one I like is…

“An association of persons for some common object usually jointly supported and meeting periodically”

So we are a group of people who have organized under a common object (North Carolina Amateur Motorsports). So it is logical to think that a person is either “in” or “out” of the club. Being “in” the club has benefits (otherwise, why join?) Access to the forum is one of a number of the benefits. While some clubs have open forums, we decided that a private forum added more value to the members. Also, with us having forum members limited to club membership, it allows us to fulfill another goal and that was to have real names behind the online personas. No anonymous handles to hide behind. There are pro and cons to what we do, but so far I think it has worked pretty well.

So, yes, club members in general should be the one people on the forum. Recently as a way to help foster NCAC 2006 communication, we allowed a handful of non-members to have access to the forums. Think of them as honorary THSCC members for a short period. I think the list is two people from THSCC and one from Highlands. The forum access for these people has always been planed to last for a finite period. We didn’t set an end date, but I had always thought that at some point, it would have out lived its usefulness and would be the right time to turn off access. I was guessing that maybe when NCAC 2006 was over would be a good time.

Now, I suspect that some people may think that they never should have been here in the first place. That being here would allow private club “information” to get out. The whole point in them being here was to keep them in the loop. Even then, “private” club discussions don’t (or shouldn't) happen in the forums that general members have access to. Members may not realize this, but there are some private forums here that only club officers can see. If "private" dicussions happen on this forum, that is the intended location and only club officers see this. As to my point above, the more public forums (that regular members access) should not be expected to be a haven for private conversations about other people or organizations.

So, for arguments sake, lets say that we never had any of these visiting officers as forum members? Do you really think that anything you would have said wouldn’t have filtered back somehow to whoever you were talking about? Membership in THSCC doesn’t mean you also can’t be a member in other clubs. I have no way of knowing who they are, but I am sure we have THSCC members who belong to other clubs. I just recently joined PCA myself. Or there may be people who just feel the need to pass information along. More power to them I say!

Comments welcome.

WalterHouston · **Posted:** Sun Jul 16, 2006 10:56 pm

Well stated. Nothing should be expected to remain "secret".

Kevin Hoff · **Posted:** Sun Jul 16, 2006 11:35 pm

On a related subject, I saw a few posts in the NCAC blow-up threads that seemed to imply a desire by some Tarheel members to make Tarheel membership exclusive; anyone who is a member of some other club couldn't belong to Tarheel. I think this would be a huge mistake and a giant step backwards.

I'd actually suggest letting the presidents and (if they are a different person) NCAC reps of the other clubs have free access to the forums for the whole year, let them see that there is no hidden agenda here in the big secret Tarheel forum.

--Kevin H.

David Teague · **Posted:** Sun Jul 16, 2006 11:37 pm

Richard Casto wrote:

[
Ok, first, I LOVE the last statement about what is said in this forum stays in this forum. It's not Vegas people.

I hope you realize that ANY thing you say should be considered to be public information.

Then why are the forums private? If thats the case then you should just make them public for everyone to read, they just can't post if they are not a member. I understand its a privilege of membership. However for example, if I get pissed off and NASA-VA, and come in here to vent and all Chris Cobetto and ass of gigantic proportions I would hope some would have the common courtesy to no repeat that to him without talking to me first.

I would also ask if non-members are given access then the membership should be known of this fact and why, like I said I had assumed that the TSCC people I saw posting here had double-membership. I think a better solution would to create a "public" board for everyone and a hidden members only board.

David Teague · **Posted:** Sun Jul 16, 2006 11:39 pm

Kevin Hoff wrote:

On a related subject, I saw a few posts in the NCAC blow-up threads that seemed to imply a desire by some Tarheel members to make Tarheel membership exclusive; anyone who is a member of some other club couldn't belong to Tarheel. I think this would be a huge mistake and a giant step backwards.

--Kevin H.

They only think I saw Kevin was that Scott mi-understood what Donnie was saying and thought he implied that, I think that would be silly because of all the dual SCCA/NASA/PCA... members we have in this club.

Richard Casto · **Posted:** Mon Jul 17, 2006 1:38 am

Kevin Hoff wrote:

On a related subject, I saw a few posts in the NCAC blow-up threads that seemed to imply a desire by some Tarheel members to make Tarheel membership exclusive; anyone who is a member of some other club couldn't belong to Tarheel. I think this would be a huge mistake and a giant step backwards.

Someone somewhere really has to have either come up with a stupid idea (exlusive membership is stupid and unworkable). Or just misunderstood someone.

Kevin Hoff wrote:

I'd actually suggest letting the presidents and (if they are a different person) NCAC reps of the other clubs have free access to the forums for the whole year, let them see that there is no hidden agenda here in the big secret Tarheel forum.

I generally agree, but tend to think they should have full membership rights vs. just forum access.

Richard Casto · **Posted:** Mon Jul 17, 2006 2:06 am

David Teague wrote:

Then why are the forums private?

As mentioned above, we consider it a membership perk.

David Teague wrote:

...just make them public for everyone to read, they just can't post if they are not a member.

I have no problem with a healthy discussion about changes to the forum policies such as allowing anyone "read" access or even opening up the entire forum to anyone.

One point I would like to make is that while I have said that what is posted should not consider it to be private, I do feel that everyone has had a reasonable expectations of a "some" privacy. Both in the content of the posts and there online ID. Some people may prefer to never post in a public forum with their real name (as we require today). Some people may prefer that some older posts not be opened up to the entire world.

So If we WERE to open everything up, I think we would have to have a plan on how to handle issues like that. Basically what do we do with existing user names and old posts.

David Teague wrote:

I would also ask if non-members are given access then the membership should be known of this fact and why, like I said I had assumed that the TSCC people I saw posting here had double-membership. I think a better solution would to create a "public" board for everyone and a hidden members only board.

As mentioned above it really kind of doesn't matter if they are members or not. They easily "could" be members as all they would have to do is join the club to get access. Even you mention that they "could" have had a double membership (you thought they had). If they did, would it have made any difference as to what was said by anyone or the outcome of NCAC/CAC issues? I see no reason it would have. You are looking to put up a hurdle that could be easily sidestepped if it was that important for someone to get around. In hindsight, I do think that this exception should have been better communicated to people. While I think it is/was not a big issue, others apparently do. So I think that if we bend the forum rule again, we will post some type of notification.

Nobody has mentioned it yet, but I will. There is another reason to currently not allow non-members access (except for special reasons). We recently went through and removed access to the forum for a number of people who frequented the forum on a regular basis but had let their THSCC membership lapse and didn’t (and still haven’t) renewed. It basically isn’t fair to let non-members on and then push away recently expired members who actively participated in the discussions on the forums.

Bernie Baake · **Posted:** Mon Jul 17, 2006 7:55 am

I see nothing wrong with the current policy of the THSCC forums. If anyone is foolish enough to believe that posting statements on a forum with 500 members is going to be a well kept secret, they need to wake up and smell the coffee. What happened with the NCAC was NOT because of the Forums. Many Tarheels have multiple car club memberships I also belong to the TSCC and NCR-SCCA. However I do have the common sense to filter what might be inflamitory and keep it to myself. Even with that thought in mind someone somewhere will always slip up at sometime or another and say something to someone that will raise the ire of another club... the moral of this story is if its a secret don't post it.

David Teague · **Posted:** Mon Jul 17, 2006 8:43 am

I think I did not make my issues clear, so I will attempt to state them more clearly.

1. Are these forums Private?
We all know the answer is yes, so to me that means the infomormation in here should be considered private, no I don't expect it to be secret, howeve there should be some form of decorum should be shown, and talking about the information on here in other forums should be done with caution, if for no other reason that the other people can not come back here and read what was said, and something may be lost in translation.

2. Membership should be informed when someone who is not a member is givin access.
One of the first rules in participating in this forum is, that you have to be a member in good standing. When this policy is not followed the membership should be informed. Personally I think there is no reason to let non-members have access to this forum. If officers from other clubs need access to this forum to see that we do not have a hidden agenda... well then I am not sure I want to work with someone who need proff of that.

Wes Eargle · **Joined:** Mon Oct 27, 2003 9:47 am **Posts:** 3683

Bernie Baake wrote:

However I do have the common sense to filter what might be inflamitory and keep it to myself. Even with that thought in mind someone somewhere will always slip up at sometime or another and say something to someone that will raise the ire of another club... the moral of this story is if its a secret don't post it.

What is this "filter" that you speak of? :wink:

Richard Casto · **Posted:** Mon Jul 17, 2006 9:12 am

David Teague wrote:

...howeve there should be some form of decorum should be shown, and talking about the information on here in other forums should be done with caution, if for no other reason that the other people can not come back here and read what was said, and something may be lost in translation.

I do think that is a valid point. People who have access and pass along info/gossip such as "X was saying Y on the THSCC forums!!!!" does put those downstream in a position of having no way to confirm what actually was said is a down side.

David Teague wrote:

Membership should be informed when someone who is not a member is givin access.
One of the first rules in participating in this forum is, that you have to be a member in good standing. When this policy is not followed the membership should be informed. Personally I think there is no reason to let non-members have access to this forum.

As I mentioned above, I didn't think this would be a big issue, but said if we would do something like this again, there would be some notification to forum members. Lesson learned on my part.

David Teague wrote:

If officers from other clubs need access to this forum to see that we do not have a hidden agenda... well then I am not sure I want to work with someone who need proff of that.

I don't think the goal was to open the doors to let them into some type of THSCC "inner chambers" or to show that we didn't have anything to hide. It was to just make it easy for them to participate in any NCAC dicussions that might happen in the forums. These same people were already working with our Autocross VPs on NCAC planning at a higher level.

I think the expectation was that THSCC member might have questions about NCAC that would be posted in the open forum areas. Questions about how the event would run, etc. Maybe some of those could be items that those officers could answer. Maybe those officers could learn what peoples concerns and questions were. Maybe it was or wasn't a bad idea, but it was done all in good faith and I don't think it was a significant factor in the resulting NCAC train wreck. If you watched postings on the TSCC forum, they seemed to center around behind the scenes stuff and not things that transpired via THSCC forum discussions.

Rick Butters · **Posted:** Mon Jul 17, 2006 9:41 am

Perhaps the better solution (as far as future NCAC discusions) would be to have a NCAC forum or bulletin board.

David Teague · **Posted:** Mon Jul 17, 2006 9:50 am

BTW I am not blaming the NCAC train wreck on people having access to these forums, it just showed some things that I did not agree with in general, and using some of the things that when on as an example.

Ricahard wrote:

I don't think the goal was to open the doors to let them into some type of THSCC "inner chambers" or to show that we didn't have anything to hide. It was to just make it easy for them to participate in any NCAC dicussions that might happen in the forums. These same people were already working with our Autocross VPs on NCAC planning at a higher level.

I'm just reapeating the reason that was givin in another thread.

Personally I like that this are private. I personally would not like to see people who are not members posting in some of our after event threads, espicially since some people seem to like to play kill the nebie, I am sure a non members comments would be taken in the spirt in which they were offered

.

Richard Casto · **Posted:** Mon Jul 17, 2006 9:51 am

Rick Butters wrote:

Perhaps the better solution (as far as future NCAC discusions) would be to have a NCAC forum or bulletin board.

That makes sense to me. I expect that there will be a number of lessons learned from NCAC this year that I hope will be the foundation for a better NCAC in the future.

Bernie Baake · **Posted:** Mon Jul 17, 2006 11:16 am

Wes Eargle wrote:

What is this "filter" that you speak of? :wink:

Most people have that filter located between their ears, in some its located elsewhere on the anatomy

THSCC Forums

Non-THSCC member access to the forums

Who is online