Cycling UK Forum

I've unlocked the original "Are we looking forward to being a membership charity?" post, for those that wish to keep it going.

I'd just mention that the number of people who will be likely to read all 240-odd posts in the thread is probably quite small. The first and latest posts may well get read, but the ones in the middle may not see much light of day. I'm worried that important points may well be lost because of this, but I suppose that's the nature of an open Forum!

.

admin wrote:I've unlocked the original "Are we looking forward to being a membership charity?" post, for those that wish to keep it going. ...

IMO an excellent move and even if there is not a single further character posted on there, it will still be an excellent move. IMO. Something like that is symbolic. Apart from administrative notices, I think it's fair to say that previous threads have only been locked when unpleasantness / acrimony / etc., have left the moderators feeling they had no choice. I'm open to correction but I don't think a previous thread has been locked just because it was getting a bit long to read.

Anyway, well done. I admire anybody who listens and is prepared to reverse a decision, rather than dig in.

thirdcrank wrote:I'm open to correction but I don't think a previous thread has been locked just because it was getting a bit long to read.
Anyway, well done. I admire anybody who listens and is prepared to reverse a decision, rather than dig in.

It was an attempt to break this BIG subject into more manageable chunks, thereby making it more accessible to a wider audience.
That original topic was a right-rivettin' read to-be-sure, but at 24(?) pages, it was getting a bit difficult for newcomers to absorb.

The decision to lock OR not-to-lock was pretty arbitrary ( not any sort of tactical or strategic decision ).

It has been reversed upon user-comment and moderator review.

Yup, I think that I might have originally suggested that the big thread was locked with a post that pointed people at the new threads and invited them to copy their arguments to those new threads where they could be dealt with in a more easy to follow way.

The only reason for this was that the big thread was so difficult to follow if you'd not been with it from near the start - I pointed some people at it and they took one look at the length and cross-topic nature of it and ran away screaming.

However I have to agree that I was probably wrong to suggest locking it as it was never going to reach a reasonable cut-off point where everyone could consider their points answered - thus apologies if the locking of it caused annoyance. However, I will under line the fact that the locking of it had nothing whatsoever to do with trying to influence the Charity argument one way of another, or with stifling debate.

I do think that splitting the issues down into a number of smaller, more topic specific, threads makes it easier for everyone (not just those that have been with the debate from the start) to follow. Although I must admit that the forum is not what i had hoped for, but then I agreed with neither Kevin's or Simon's views on how it should be handled on the forum - so that could just be me being contrary.

Possibly an approach of "Unless the existing contributors strongly object we propose to lock this thread because (insert reasons here) discussion of the topic can continue in a more structured way (insert links to new board here)" might be more appropriate when locking threads for reasons of complexity and length. An approach taken on/from another forum where I am an occasional mod.

It's almost never a conspiracy, it's almost always a cock-up.

Purely a personal view, but as a non (Club) politician I find this structure easier to follow. Fathoming the intricacies of this subject was never going to be easy and splitting it up into bite sized portions helps.
I'd like to add that I also appreciate the clear and sensible level of debate so far. If this degenerates into a slanging match then we could all lose by it.

.

It didn't.

The CTC AGM will be on 15 May 2010 (It would have been my dear old Dad's 95th birthday FWIW) Sometime around then, possibly May 6th, there will have to be a general election in an unpredictable political climate. After years of increasing voter antipathy to politicians (who like to comfort their huge egoes by calling it "voter apathy") this has turned to voter contempt. Politicians of just about every stripe have been exposed for what they are.

This has occurred at a time of the worst financial slump / depression most people can remember. The expression "downturn," coined to make it sound as though this as all some unpredictable natural phenomenon, like a tsunami or hurricane, should fool nobody. This mess was man-made. We are now in a war which we cannot win in the way we would define a victory, because the enemy is using a different rule book. No matter how optimistic anybody may try to be, there isn't time for much improvement between now and the election but there is always the risk that something else will go pear-shaped.

Political extremists stand ready to fill the void.

Against that background, it's hard to imagine who'll be interested in what's been said on here, once the vote has taken place. I hope there will be no gloating from either side and I can't imagine anybody would take much pleasure in being able to point to these threads to say "I told you so."

I hope there will be no gloating from either side and I can't imagine anybody would take much pleasure in being able to point to these threads to say "I told you so."

+1

And with a new CTC website on the way there might not even be a 'here' any more! Or rather there might be a 'here' but not as we know it Jim.