RST's new Treasurer

[Guest Pokeherface]

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.

 

I absolutely agree with no qualification. However, he has been handed a fairly convenient excuse to use that arguement, something that if it was removed (by people sticking to legitimate claims) would leave him with little to hide behind.

[ascender 352]

I absolutely agree with no qualification. However, he has been handed a fairly convenient excuse to use that arguement, something that if it was removed (by people sticking to legitimate claims) would leave him with little to hide behind.

 

Yes, but the difference is that these other forums who are apparently part of a concerted smear campaign are a collection of individuals with differing views and backgrounds. On the other side is the RST who are supposed to represent the view of their members.

[Guest Pokeherface]

Yes, but the difference is that these other forums who are apparently part of a concerted smear campaign are a collection of individuals with differing views and backgrounds. On the other side is the RST who are supposed to represent the view of their members.

 

The appearance is slightly different to that though. It looks very much like a collection of individuals trying to out-do one another in their distaste for one man and by doing so weakening their own and everyone else's arguements. Appears being the key word.

 

As much as the trust needs to look onwards and address the glaring problems it has, those criticising from the outside need to do the same.

[maineflyer 0]

The Trust has won some huge battles over the last 7 years.

 

 

 

Mark Dingwall needs to resign for the good of the organisation.

 

Two statements.

 

The first is a complete mystery. How could "huge battles" have gone unnoticed by so many people over such a long time? The answer of course is that there have been no huge battles (except those between members of its own board) and there have been no victories (except those contrived for effect).

 

The second is simply too obvious to need spelling out.

[maineflyer 0]

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

 

 

 

 

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.

The huge flaw in your argument is the assumption that playing the debating game by what you regard as appropriate rules and with appropriate style will somehow cause the RST to enter the debate and engage with all this appropriateness. In actual fact, they don't give a flyblown shit how the counter-arguments are presented, or even what those arguments are based upon. The RST serves only the RST and will only respond when and how it suits the RST to respond. The fundamental point desperately needing to be grasped here is that the RST will never be changed or brought to book by debate ... because there is no debate, only words. There are no rules to apply and no corners to box them into.

 

Your wordsmithery is for your benefit alone and, perhaps, some interested observers who like the sound of your pen. You might as well spit at the screen as type such well-crafted words, for all the impact they will have on the RST situation.

 

All I see is a growing mountain of words, with an endless queue of posters lining up for their brief shot at wisdom.

[maineflyer 0]

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

 

No worries there. The bastard has his teeth set too deeply to ever have to think about letting him go .... actually, it's a her.... rumour has it.

[bmck 117]

I'll just ignore the bits where we agree.

 

It makes perfect sense and explains how, despite several trust own goals, little or no headway has been made.

 

This is wrong, but only by degree. It only partially explains how no headway has been made. It's true that this is the way they've chosen to avoid their owngoals. It's also true that without this avenue being available, they couldn't have used it. So, it would seem to make perfect sense that headway would be made with the own goals and this way of getting out it not being available. But unfortunately stuff that seems to make perfect sense and look perfectly obvious does so because it's just far too simple.

 

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.

 

This is the key question. You think removing the obstacles will put you on a better footing to force debate. It won't.

 

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.

 

Sorry, but this is just naive. Their failure to answer valid arguments historically is what caused the disregard that, in places, has become slightly pathological. If you ignore the practical and ethical consequences of silencing nonsense, it just puts you back to the valid arguments that they ignored in other ways beforehand. Casting doubt on the aspersions and motives of those who question you is the most effective way not to be accountable; it's far from the only way.

 

Do you honestly think that if none of the claims you think have gone too far had happened the debate would have been forced? The changes that are required would have occurred? It's naive in the extreme.

 

If you take a step back - the own goal, the harsh response, the middle response, the Trust's response to the response, you see it's all panned out roughly as it had to. If people who truly hate the Trust hadn't went all lynch-mob it may not even have come to light, and certainly wouldn't have got as much circulation. It wouldn't have spawned debate, and wouldn't have forced the Trust, yet again, into playing the man instead of the ball. Nothing happens immediately, but in the longer term actually reasonable people - they people required to move the Trust forward - look at it all. They see dodgy motives, they see dishonourable retorts to valid questions, and they make their own conclusions. There's only so long it can be evil conspirators with bad motives, and the important people - the people in the middle who neither pathologically hate nor support the trust - assess things. One such person is ascender - the most reasonable and charitable person you can meet. He's sick of the back and forth, and doesn't care about he-said she-said but feels, rightly, that whatever the rights and wrongs his reasonable questions have been ignored. He's the type of person that the Trust needs - there's no other way forward. So while these 'obstacles' that the Trust use appear to let them 'win' in their self preservation in the short term, they do so at the expense of their long term credibility in the eyes of the people who, over time, and when they've gone off to do other things, and become a feint shadow, will matter.

 

You solution - effectively to censor to harsher elements of criticism - only serves to deny these people who matter what they are being denied at the moment by the Trust: the ability to look at all the facts, hear the range of the debate, and make up their own mind. Censoring the harsher elements only disenfranchises them - often extremely nice people who are just sick of not being addressed by thoes who are supposed to represent them, sometimes not - and treat everyone else like idiots, incapable of making decisions on their own.

 

I agree with you that this has been an effective way out for the Trust, but I disagree that it being removed would have us any further forward - most probably ten steps back.

[Guest Pokeherface]

The huge flaw in your argument is the assumption that playing the debating game by what you regard as appropriate rules and with appropriate style will somehow cause the RST to enter the debate and engage with all this appropriateness. In actual fact, they don't give a flyblown shit how the counter-arguments are presented, or even what those arguments are based upon. The RST serves only the RST and will only respond when and how it suits the RST to respond. The fundamental point desperately needing to be grasped here is that the RST will never be changed or brought to book by debate ... because there is no debate, only words. There are no rules to apply and no corners to box them into.

 

Your wordsmithery is for your benefit alone and, perhaps, some interested observers who like the sound of your pen. You might as well spit at the screen as type such well-crafted words, for all the impact they will have on the RST situation.

 

All I see is a growing mountain of words, with an endless queue of posters lining up for their brief shot at wisdom.

 

 

the huge flaw in your arguement is that you are ignoring the point in full and taking what you want to see

 

If you remove all obstacles and excuses then you can point at them (the trust) and say, fully secure in the knowledge you are right, that you have provided the platform and the atmosphere for the trust to debate the issues and they have refused. Right now, and this is what is happening (as evidenced by Deedle's post above), they can legitimately say 'how can we reasonably debate with people who make this sort of nonsense up?'. it doesnt make them right to do it, it doesnt make it good that they do it. But do it they do, and while people elsewhere give them excuses, they will take them.

 

Stop, just for a wee second, looking out and turn your thoughts inwards.

[maineflyer 0]

Fuck sake, where are all these new posters coming from. Has Frankie been on a well-concealed recruitment drive over on FF? Seems the FFRST A-team has been mobilised to stun dissent with an onslaught of exceedingly drab propaganda. I'd advise against wasting their time ... it's shite when posted on FF and it gains nothing on the short journey over to Gersnet.

 

Besides, where have these people been until now? Why have we been deprived of their wisdom until now? Has Frankie been deliberately keeping us in the dark? Has there been a break-in?

[Guest Pokeherface]

Sorry, but this is just naive. Their failure to answer valid arguments historically is what caused the disregard that, in places, has become slightly pathological.

 

because (and I am someone who has seen every single debate from every single side from day dot) every legitimate claim has been piggy backed upon by, frankly, rubbish. You can ignore it all you want but you are effectively saying you want free reign to say what you want while still expecting reasoned debate and full disclosure in return. I am not the one showing a degree of naivit�© here, you are. The trust is not all bad, the trusts detractors are not all good (and obviously vica versa) and the sooner people come to this realisation on all sides, the sooner we can start to untangle the web.