RST's new Treasurer

[Guest Pokeherface]

It shouldn't give them any sort of excuse. Any professional organisation knows that there will be some stuff in the public domain that they don't give credence to by acknowledging it. Its just nonsense, it won't harm them as such and they rise above it. Instead, they devote their time to maintaining dialogue and communication with their membership and interested parties in a professional manner.

 

Meanwhile, we have lots of new posters cropping up here, posting information, rumours, gossip, the "truth", asking for advice on how the RST should go forward, but in many cases we've no idea who these people are and if they're connected to the trust or not. Sorry, I know its a point I keep going on about, but it appears no-one at the trust has learned anything in the last couple of weeks and is just taking counsel from like-minded individuals on FF.

 

Say what you will about the tone or content of some of the posts on this thread, but surely you can see the very valid question at the heart of it?

 

Your point about MD not wanting to step down in case his detractors see it as a victory is again, a moot one. If he resigns, what do these people behind the various "smear campaigns" actually get? Some time to gloat on the internet? Meanwhile, the trust can honestly claim to have made a fresh start and move forward.

 

We keep saying that no man is bigger than the club in the football world and this is true in the business world as well.

 

There's been a lot of sense spoken on this forum and others, often from new posters who may or may not be officially linked to the trust over the course of this week. I've seen more than one acknowledging mistakes were made and the fall-out wasn't handled properly. But every time I checked out the reaction back on FF from people who also appear to be linked to the trust, its as if they're still living in their world where nothing's happened and its business as usual.

 

Its just been a very confusing week and like I've also said before, I feel like all this has done is given me confirmation that i've pissed my lifetime membership up against the wall.

 

 

I think you have entirely missed the thrust of my points.

[Guest Pokeherface]

I'm not sure which comment you're talking about, but I do broadly agree with you that hyperbolic criticism gives them an avenue to cast doubts on the motives of any questions - and in questioning the motives of the questioner you don't need to answer anyone's questions as they all begin tainted. However, the answer can't be to mirror the Trust's approach - you can't delete threads and stiffle subjects of debate because they're unhelpful in the opposite sense and for the opposite reasons. There's no sensible alternative to letting people say what they want and trusting in the good judgement of people to decide for themselves. If the Trust adopted this approach themselves I think they'd be suprised to find how capable people are of discerning dodgy motives for themselves. If you honestly want to silence criticism that's too harsh because it can be misused you have to trust in the people doing the silencing to know better than everyone else, and in general terms, they don't.

 

I wasnt suggesting the thread should be closed or deleted. If you want free reign to debate any point you want, you have to accept that sometimes people will point out the obvious flaws in your arguement. Which is what I have done.

 

The bottom line with this is that on one hand people want the Trust to debate with them and complain when they do not, then on the other hand argue points like the OP's. If you think the trust wont debate, you should be removing every obstacle and every excuse. If you do that, you can legitimatley cite them for bad practice. While you want to debate every small point in a haphasard manner, they can and will act as you accuse them. You may prove your point, but the point you prove is a side-show rather than the issues that need to be debated.

[ascender 352]

I think you have entirely missed the thrust of my points.

 

OK..........

[bmck 117]

I wasnt suggesting the thread should be closed or deleted. If you want free reign to debate any point you want, you have to accept that sometimes people will point out the obvious flaws in your arguement. Which is what I have done.

 

I don't think you have. I think you think you're the only one here aware that the response to this has helped the Trust out of any accountability, but you're not. There's no flaw in any argument, it's just the discrepancy between moral and effectual (as yer man Machiavelli would have it) truth. The trust, as a flawless and certain moral truth, should engage their members irrespective of background noise, and even when it's not comfortable, is 100% certain. There's no flaws in that. That the background noise can be used, effectually, to insidiously maneuver out of any criticism doesn't make it right.

 

But the underlying point remains the same - the Trust's history of not engaging their members predates the hatred that abounds, and perhaps even caused it. The flaw in your argument is the thought that removing it will make any difference, and the costs of removing it is to stifle free and open debate - the very thing that the Trust needs if it's ever going to achieve its aims. You're entirely flawed in thinking that removing excessive criticism would move anyone any further forward because both the cost of doing it would be too high, and because it's the will to avoid debate that makes the background noise an excuse, and this will wouldn't change, only find some new way of presenting itself.

 

I think you've stumbled onto the realisation that it's the nature of the criticism that's got the Trust out of accountability in this, which is correct, but have erronously followed this premise to the conclusion that the solution is to get rid of that sort of criticism. That's entirely flawed.

 

The bottom line with this is that on one hand people want the Trust to debate with them and complain when they do not, then on the other hand argue points like the OP's. If you think the trust wont debate, you should be removing every obstacle and every excuse. If you do that, you can legitimatley cite them for bad practice.

 

This is absolute nonsense, I'm afraid. Practicing badly is what allows you to cite people for bad practice. That these 'obstacles' are used in this manner is a consequence of the will not to engage, not to a cause. Removing them changes nothing, but surrenders the high ground of openess, which is the only possible way this Trust or any future incarnation can go forward.

Edited October 1, 2010 by bmck

[Guest Pokeherface]

I don't think you have. I think you think you're the only one here aware that the response to this has helped the Trust out of any accountability, but you're not. There's no flaw in any argument, it's just the discrepancy between moral and effectual (as yer man Machiavelli would have it) truth. The trust, as a flawless and certain moral truth, should engage their members irrespective of background noise, and even when it's not comfortable, is 100% certain. There's no flaws in that. That the background noise can be used, effectually, to insidiously maneuver out of any criticism doesn't make it right.

 

But the underlying point remains the same - the Trust's history of not engaging their members predates the hatred that abounds, and perhaps even caused it. The flaw in your argument is the thought that removing it will make any difference, and the costs of removing it is to stifle free and open debate - the very thing that the Trust needs if it's ever going to achieve its aims. You're entirely flawed in thinking that removing excessive criticism would move anyone any further forward because both the cost of doing it would be too high, and because it's the will to avoid debate that makes the background noise an excuse, and this will wouldn't change, only find some new way of presenting itself.

 

I think you've stumbled onto the realisation that it's the nature of the criticism that's got the Trust out of accountability in this, which is correct, but have erronously followed this premise to the conclusion that the solution is to get rid of that sort of criticism. That's entirely flawed.

 

It is not entirely flawed. It is not even slightly flawed.

 

If you surround a real issue (of which there are plenty) with rubbish like the OP you detract from the real issues and you provide those looking for a smokescreen with, well, a smokescreen. if you stick to valid arguement then there is nowhere to run and nothing to hide behind. As a point by the way. YOU said that yourself a few posts back but now it is flawed? I would suggest that is flawed

 

 

This is absolute nonsense, I'm afraid. Practicing badly is what allows you to cite people for bad practice. That these 'obstacles' are used in this manner is a consequence of the will not to engage, not to a cause. Removing them changes nothing, but surrenders the high ground of openess, which is the only possible way this Trust or any future incarnation can go forward.

 

It is far from absolute nonsense. It makes perfect sense and explains how, despite several trust own goals, little or no headway has been made. The trust use obstacles to avoid debate, I think we agree. What is the best way to force debate in that scenario? Keep throwing up obstacles that you know will be used? of course not. The absolute nonsense is NOT removing the obstacles.

 

 

In short...stop cluttering up the air with nonsense and stick to valid arguements and they will not be able to hide behind spurious and innefectial deflection.

[craig 5,199]

I thought it was the absence of blood .... which is why the breed is so prone to sucking it out of the living.

I've certainly got one on the hook at the moment who seems to be three parts leech.

 

If he is 3 parts leech dont let him go MF... but you know that already, right ?

[rbr 1,247]

Sorry to get in the way of a private barny , but why was my original point in your words " rubbish , . We have a guy accused of financial misconduct , getting a friend onto position as RST treasurer without any board member either getting to interview her or even meet her , but you seem to think that's perfectly normal practice and ok , well you carry on mate .

[Guest Pokeherface]

tell you what, while you are telling me I spout absolute nonsense, chew this over from Deedle....

 

If you take a look at RM or gersnetonline it is noticeable just how many threads are devoted to the RST. Of course, practically none of those involved ever turn up to AGMs to raise questions or propose motions. Far easier to sit behind keyboards and trash the Trust rather than offer anything positive. Dozens of pages of bile and lies posted about one RST Board member is risibly referred to as 'genuine debate' by admin.

 

Even the appointment of a new RST Treasurer is now cause for bizarre conspiracy theories.

 

My own view is that anyone with a modicum of intelligence will understand that they are witnessing a crude hatchet-job by a relatively small number of people who have an axe to grind. While this carry-on might result in mutual back-slapping from those involved it is completely counter-productive in terms of persuading neutrals that they would be fit to run the Trust.

 

But we are talking about people who have consistently shown themselves to be politically illiterate.

 

 

whether you like it or not, Deedle has just completely discredited a source of flak with one simple sentance. It doesnt matter in the slightest that YOU dont see it as discrediting you, the fact that the largest source of info (FF) has written this place off a source of stupidity means that people will simply view everything said here as dubious. You know it is wrong and that there is plenty good done here. I know it. But how on earth can a neutral observer split the fact from the fiction in your complaints when arguements such as this are made? The answer is they cant. But dont mind me, it is all nonsense

[Guest Pokeherface]

Sorry to get in the way of a private barny , but why was my original point in your words " rubbish , . We have a guy accused of financial misconduct , getting a friend onto position as RST treasurer without any board member either getting to interview her or even meet her , but you seem to think that's perfectly normal practice and ok , well you carry on mate .

 

A professional accountant, bound to law and codes of practice who has not been in the door two minutes is being questioned. Not only are you suggesting that this professional may be willing to breach their professional code of ethics, but that they also may be prepared to breach human moral codes. That, like it or not, is rubbish I'm afraid.

 

This is said as someone who knows you well and has no beef with you at all

[ascender 352]

Regarding that post from FF:

 

• Its kind of off-topic, but how can they be surprised that there are threads devoted to the RST when many of us here are current or former members?
   
  
• Its difficult to offer anything positive to the trust when the only way to do so appears to be by posting on FF. Even if we do that, there's no guarantee we'll get an answer or it won't just get lost in amongst the rest of the traffic.
   
  
• There have been lots of positive suggestions made regarding the trust on this forum over this last week and before that.
  

 

The attitude shown in that post and many others like it over the last week typifies many of the problems that the trust currently have. Yet they don't appear to want to do anything positive about it, just highlight what they see as a problem, have a laugh about it and indulge in some "mutual back-slapping". bizarre.