Members or not members

[keith_h]

I have been reminded of an old golfing story in the days when the ladies would sit on the terrace whilst the menfolk played their round. As with most clubs this particular club had the 18th right near the clubhouse and the problem was the ladies could overhear the appalling language that the gents used whenever a chip or putt failed. There was a complaint which the committee took very seriously and after some very serious debate the solution became obvious - the ladies were banned from the terrace!

In line with the above sentiment it occurs to me that the flag which is creating so much passion on the forum is the red statement "MOC Member:Yes" or "MOC Member: No" at the head of each thread response. Perhaps if we remove it, it will help to calm things down a little. Sue, as an experiment, is it worth removing it for 2 or 3 months and see what happens

[stevejgreen]

Re: Members or not members

Keith has a good point.

It is the propietorial ownership of the forum by certain members that is in my opinion the 'shame' of the MOC.
When I publish an article on the forum or Pitstop I do so for the benefit of all, members or not, I make no distinction. I do not expect my work to be restricted to members only by others.

Keiths suggestion would take minutes to implement and return the forum to its original state when it was first introduced.

The argument of funding is used to counter this potential freedom. Many members do not attend the meets, Stoneleigh etc. It would be churlish of them to say that their membership subscription should not be used for legitamate club expenses made in the setting up of the events.

[stevejgreen]

Re: Members or not members

A little research shows early 2008 as being the date that this feature was added. I thought it was a lot earlier. I wonder what the logic was back then?

[James]

Re: Members or not members

This really is a tough egg isn't it. Reading Forum threads it seems to me that there is an implicit issue that needs to be addressed before making any decision about the new website. The thing is, we do not appear to be of one mind on the subject of what we want/expect the website to do for the club (it is after all the CLUB website). Surely the objectives of the club as expressed in the club constitution must be of guidance in forming the website – or, the constitution needs amending. I specifically think of the following parts of the constitution (§2.2, §2.3 & §10:3) that really do need to be considered. Should the website and the club be mainly for and by the members or is membership more or less arbitrary?
The constitution states:
§2. Objectives
§2.2 To encourage the improvement of the standard of kit car construction by providing facilities for the exchange of news and technical information between the Members and between the Club and those companies as described in 2.1 above.
§2.3 To represent and safeguard the interests of the Members at kit car events and at other venues, committee meetings, etc. as appropriate.

§10 Subscriptions
§10.3 No Member whose subscription remains unpaid at the 31st March in any year shall be entitled to attend any meetings or otherwise participate in the proceedings of the Club and will be removed from the Register of Members by the Committee. This does not preclude the Member from rejoining after 31st March in that year. (My italics)

It seems to me that the very strong position of the members as expressed in the constitution needs to be aired at the AGM, perhaps it is time to rethink the club objectives and find other financing than membershhip fees for our club?

[stevejgreen]

Re: Members or not members

James has some interesting points but rather than look for what non-members are not entitled to, let’s make a list of things that members are entitled to.

It’s much more important that we understand our Rights of Membership.

Only on the Membership application do we find that we are entitled to
Discounted car insurance
Annual subscription to the bi-monthly PITSTOP magazine
Free windscreen sticker and membership card!

There is no mention of member’s entitlements in the constitution apart from your rights as a voter at meetings assuming you have a paid up subscription etc as detailed in Paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 that deal with these general membership matters. (Paragraph 10.3 has been quoted as being relevant but it deals specifically with lapsed membership. Consider a non member visiting the MOC web site for the first time on 1 April, Para 10.3 clearly does not apply)
There is no mention of members enjoying the benefit of the forum as a specific item anywhere on the web site.

By definition then, the ‘Forum’ it is simply a feature of the web site and holds exactly the same status as the 'Cars' or even the 'Home' page. To take it further, the 'Forum' front page itself has no mention of member’s entitlement either. So use of all these pages is a benevolent right bestowed, by the club webmaster, upon, any visitor, to any page of the web site.
We have no specific documented right of access to any of these pages and they can theoretically be edited or deleted without members prior knowledge or acceptance.

It is logical then to conclude that both members and non members have equal rights to read any page on the web site and to make use of the facilities on the ‘forum’ page, or any other, without hindrance, excepting the specific conditions outlined at the top and bottom of each ‘forum’ page.

So where does that leave us.

The MOC constitution pre-dates the forum by many years and it no longer reflects the true nature of the MOC where the ‘Forum’ now has such a central function beyond Pitstop, perhaps even beyond the regular meets and Stoneleigh AGM.

When the forum was first implemented in 2006 it was open access to all users provided basic info was entered. There was no automatic check against a membership database.
Some time around mid 2008 this was altered to include static membership status, but there was still no automatic check against a membership database.

In the absence of defined rights in the Constitution, status quo ante "the state of affairs that existed previously" must apply, with the accepted rights of both members and non-members preserved.

Therefore, without a formal ballot, access rights to the forum cannot be varied, as historical rights apply to both members and non-members alike. Any proposed changes will create a new ‘Right of Membership’ that must be given to members and be documented within the Constitution in order to exclude non members from such rights.

According to the Constitution a ballot must take place at an AGM or EGM in accordance with Paragraph 7.

I rest my case. Without a ballot and an amendment to the Constitution both members and non-members have the same rights on the MOC forum.

[cdow]

Re: Members or not members

Blinding. If this was FB I'd click 'like' :-)

[donsayers]

Re: Members or not members

Yawn

[donsayers]

Re: Members or not members

Perhaps it would be polite of me to expand my previous comment.

I am interested in cars. Full stop. I have no interest in politics or in having online arguments. There are other forums for that sort of thing. When people start quoting the constitution and lecturing in quasi legal style, I turn off.

Perhaps that is the danger with having a website, it attracts web trolls and brings out the argumentative side in people.

Perhaps this explains what I mean: http://xkcd.com/386/

Be nice please.

[b_caswell]

Re: Members or not members

Best half hour ive wasted in a long time.

[David]

Re: Members or not members

As a non member, but a builder of a Roadster in the 80\'s, I\'m looking to get back into Marlin ownership and the club. I\'d like to say that being able to participate in the forums as a non member has helped and significantly encouraged me to \'get back in the saddle.

This is in contrast to the Rochdale owners club who won\'t let anyone access their forums unless they have a car and are a member! This effectively blocks any potential new member from getting the engagement they need get started with a Rochdale. So I\'d guess that as the old skool dies off and the number of cars dwindles the club will falter as well.

We live in the internet age where people are encouraged to share and participate, keeping the MOC online presence free and open will do this.

Sure it\'s good to have benefits for paid up members and the club needs funds to survive, but \'hiding\' certain parts of any new website behind a \'pay wall\' will not help build the membership numbers, it may well do the opposite.

[b_caswell]

Re: Members or not members

Your welcome David, I for one have always supported a free and open aproach not just on the forum but at our gatherings and shows. Hopefully that will encourage an enthusiast to join the club. We may have to put up with the odd p**S taker who abuses the system but would like to think the Marlin Owners Club still comes over as the friendly club. Ben Caswell MOC committee member.