What happend to the NAC's topic?

Submitted by Tripp on Mon, 06/11/2007 - 18:46
Looks like it just went "poof". [8] FS4830
‹ Boat Speed with a painted bottom mainsail wrinkles ›

Comments

I believe his name is Ambrose Bierce [;)]

Submitted by roshambo on Tue, 06/12/2007 - 16:19.
I believe his name is Ambrose Bierce [;)]

The topic was deleted because it was decided detrimental and ven

Submitted by mmittman on Wed, 06/13/2007 - 05:25.
The topic was deleted because it was decided detrimental and venemous, not a good reflection on the class. I completely disagree. This forum is for discusion. While I disagree with breaking up the Championship fleet and applying round robin starts, I do strongly support the class and look forward to participating in a great Flying Scot NAC. I bet the others whom agree and disagree with the round robin start are also supportive of the class and the NAC. What lost opportunity. Something lively in the class! What could we and other classes learn from this year's NAC? This year will be a three day championship regatta bringing access to many sailors which could not otherwise attend a far away event were it the longer five days. A good number of other national one design fleets have switched to a three day format for national events and this too should be discussed and debated among the Flying Scot community. The break in the Championship fleet and Round Robin, if applied, will be an opportunity to learn what the competitors want and how future large fleets are managed. What will we learn? Show up with your Flying Scot and find out. It will be a great event. And to whomever pushed for deleting the thread discussing pros and cons of the round robins starting system ... Think more positive. Michael Mittman FS# 5804, Fleet 23 US Sailing Certified Race Officer P.T. Barnum: All publicity is good publicity.
quote:
[i]Originally posted by Tripp[/i] [br]Looks like it just went "poof". [8] FS4830

Michael Mittman

FS 5804, Fleet 23

Corinthian Sailing Club

White Rock Lake, Dallas, TX, USA

The reason I deleted the thread was because our discussion was n

Submitted by fssaeditor on Wed, 06/13/2007 - 07:57.
The reason I deleted the thread was because our discussion was no longer confined to class members. One web site in particular was taking delight in pointing out our fuss for all to see. Tell me that is not detrimental to the class. If you are having a family discussion/argument, one thinks you don't open the windows so every observer can gosip. Were there a way to keep the discussion as a debate among class members, that would be terrific. The forum technology doesn't allow that. So, I will re-post an edited summary of the central issues in the debate after I return home at the end of the week. If that seems too far off, for the time being, use the listserv to broadcast views. Eventually we will have a members-only forum. Had that been in place already, I would have been happy to see responsible debate continue. FSSA Forum editor

"Ignorant free speech often works against the speaker.

Submitted by jfluard on Wed, 06/13/2007 - 08:46.
"Ignorant free speech often works against the speaker. That is one of several reasons why it must be given rein instead of suppressed." Anna Quindlen

Editing the thread is a less desireable direction.

Submitted by mmittman on Wed, 06/13/2007 - 17:24.
Editing the thread is a less desireable direction. In regards to the outside coverage of our forums, I would say it is much like a National Enquirer quality - not worth consternating over. Regardless, the focus of the deleted thread is on pros and cons of the starting system for the FS NAC, which is ultimately controled by the PRO and / or Race Chairman. Experienced competitors appreciate we have this forum to share our views, which may not always come across as supportive but no less, we all will sail under and support the Race Chairman's decision without question once the event commences. So please take a neutral read of the forum thread before deciding to edit content that is not your own. And thank you for your work on this forum! Sincerely, Michael
quote:
[i]Originally posted by fssaeditor[/i] [br]The reason I deleted the thread was because our discussion was no longer confined to class members. One web site in particular was taking delight in pointing out our fuss for all to see. Tell me that is not detrimental to the class. If you are having a family discussion/argument, one thinks you don't open the windows so every observer can gosip. Were there a way to keep the discussion as a debate among class members, that would be terrific. The forum technology doesn't allow that. So, I will re-post an edited summary of the central issues in the debate after I return home at the end of the week. If that seems too far off, for the time being, use the listserv to broadcast views. Eventually we will have a members-only forum. Had that been in place already, I would have been happy to see responsible debate continue. FSSA Forum editor
Michael Mittman FS# 5804, Fleet 23 Corinthian Sailing Club White Rock Lake Dallas, TX

Michael Mittman

FS 5804, Fleet 23

Corinthian Sailing Club

White Rock Lake, Dallas, TX, USA

Having been the admin for my web site for over five years I can

Submitted by wojtase1 on Thu, 06/14/2007 - 10:37.
Having been the admin for my web site for over five years I can relate to the thought process in regards to removal of that post. If I agree with the removal of the post is besides the point. The site is owned and operated by the fleet and like it or not the leadership bears the responsibility and burden of editing content as they see fit. Site content can be very sensitive. The people who do the work on large projects become very passionate, in this case two projects the web site and the NAC's. This thread did not get that dirty but it could have become a lot worse very quickly. It did have the traits of getting worse. The title alone drew attention by calling for flaming. In my opinion the editor has the responsibility to act as moderator to what is being posted. That's moderator NOT censor which can be a tough line. My club has been reluctant to put up a forum. For the public or just club members. The reason is that we are concerned that some members will start flame wars about issues that really do not matter, like increasing the price of hot dogs a nickel. We are considering moderated forums so we can approve posts, and ask for changes, before they are available for public consumption. Asking for rewording, toning down rhetoric, removing name calling are common practices in forums. Arguments can get ugly causing irreparable damage to the poster and whoever it is directed at. Even worse is that the content never really go away. This post is in the Google cache for everyone to enjoy for a while to come. I will not tell you what to search for but it is not that hard to figure out. I was surprised that this even made it onto the other web site, a coworker told me about it. Must have been a slow news day, or they were trolling to start an inter site flame war. Removing the post caused them to post a response that included pointless name calling... ...Sad. Not to say that I never go to that site. They sometimes have good stuff. Other times I cringe, but that is the point, they draw attention by inciting people. Personally I would prefer it if they did not resorted to name calling. Opinions are OK, but name calling? It just results in useless "I know you are but what am I?" debates. I googled "flame war psychology" and it popped up a few interesting things. Try it for yourself. In the future be very careful about what you post anywhere. Try not to incite emotional responses that can cause personal attacks/damage to you and those you directing your message at. Eric FS4224

quote:Eventually we will have a members-only forum.

Submitted by Transom on Mon, 06/18/2007 - 08:47.
quote:
Eventually we will have a members-only forum. Had that been in place already, I would have been happy to see responsible debate continue.
If it was responsible, why was it censored? Unfortunately, after my last post, I had to travel to India and back and never had a chance to see the reply or the on-going debate. And, now, the whole discussion has been removed, so I will never know. However, I find the excuse that others were reading this site slim. This is a public site; anyone can join. To expect others not to read this site only seems to apply when disagreements are posted. I am sure that when the benefits of FS are being discussed these are not being removed when others read them. Indeed, others are encouraged to read these postings. It is sad to think that if you post something in disagreement with the current FS management these postings may be removed arbitrarily by the same management that is being criticized. I suppose this will be removed as well. Oh well. [:(]

I just counted up the Championship registrants--unless I counted

Submitted by Gallus 102 on Tue, 06/19/2007 - 11:29.
I just counted up the Championship registrants--unless I counted wrong, there are now 60. Looks like some of the FBYC boats may have changed fleets. So: it looks like the big line dance may happen--and a very big thank-you to those who were gracious and generous in switching fleets.

Don't they need 59 to avoid round robins? [8] FS4830

Submitted by Tripp on Tue, 06/19/2007 - 15:34.
Don't they need 59 to avoid round robins? [8] FS4830

Thank you for contributing to this topic.

Submitted by gmittman on Fri, 07/06/2007 - 11:33.
Thank you for contributing to this topic. If you have a preference on whether or not the FS NAC should be a 3 or 5 day regatta, please consider contributing to that topic (already posted under its own thread).