Should we ban non official members from Agreeable Forum?

[Andrew G]

Ban? No.

I think as long as those who post do so in the spirit of the club and the forum then there isn't a problem, if someone doesn't behave then the account is deleted.

[Rob Q]

I like the fact it’s an open forum, but with regard to names and nicknames it’s one of those areas where everyone has their reasons for wanting to either be anonymous or not. Although its branded as the ACC forum there is a fine line between comments that are posted and the clubs official stance or association with the more controversial topics. Perhaps some sort of disclaimer should be there?

[Dombo]

No, don't ban them.

As for using real names, the point was made a few years ago that in an open forum it gave out too much information. Trawling back through posts you could for example discover that Aloysius Rarename has a stable of expensive road and mountainbikes.

A quick search on 192.com and Google Earth and you've got his address plus layout of his house and surrounding area. Dead useful for a burglar or other miscreant.

[Grahame]

Which is why I only give my (real) first name.

[Keith]

[quote="marco"]
Something for debate soon I gather.

[Jon H]

[quote="Sean Hogan"]This would mean a open less formal forum, but within there would be a members only area where active membership of the club would enable access. This members only area would have access policed, so if someone left as a member from the club then their account would be adjusted accordingly.

[Andrew G]

It's easy enough to find any of that if so inclined Dombo. I think a few simple measure - don't put your phone number, email, address - on the forum and you avoid the casual/opportunist "git".

Some forums have "post your bike" sections which are best avoided if you want to keep your kit, we have member only areas which provide security from prying eyes against the "sweepers" which I think is fine. This gives the privacy for trips details etc.

No photo avatar and pseudonyms don't really do a lot. Anyone who's ever looked at the forum knows where to find most people most weekends.

How would you qualify "a member"? Paid up subs? That would mean liaising with Phil and at what point do they get cut off, 1 week late, 1 month?

[Mike I]

How many current members started posting here and then joined up?

The spammers (such as they are) get blocked pretty sharpish.

Non-members have as much to contribute here as members do. In some cases much more.

Does it cost us more to run a forum with a load of non-members than it would if everyone were a member?

Is there a problem here? Has Jeremy Clarkson registered or something?

[Snoop Doug]

great debate - it so happens that someone has suggested reviewing this recently. Useful feedback and info here - you won't be surprised to hear I think open is far better. Bearing in mind the considerable number of "members" (ahem) that don't pay their subs - if you closed the group off and then took away the people who for whatever valid reason choose not to come here - well it would be the death of what I feel is one of the key drivers of this very interesting and useful club of ours. I don't think that suits cycling, ACC, or any of us well

Cheers - Snoop

[Snoop Doug]

I just spotted that ten of the top twenty contributors (by number of posts) are on the ACC committee. I have a concern that although many members of the committee are highly visible as individuals for doing great service for the club, the body as a whole is too "behind closed doors" for my liking. We are working on that I know but to me - putting up barriers on here is about creating mroe division. Where's the inclusivity, or indeed the agreeableness in that? Surely this club should be about trying to draw together the very best of what we do - not push it apart?

I'm probably missing something simple as usual but this feels divisive to me

Tin hat on

[Toks]

Er... clearly not even if they're being a tad bit disagreeable. On the other hand as Keith said anyone member or not should be banned if they're being 'offensive' and that clearly is always open to interpretation.

[Amy]

I have wondered about having a tidy up of the user/member list and removing any that haven't been used in the last couple of years?

[Snoop Doug]

[quote="Mike I"]How many current members started posting here and then joined up?

The spammers (such as they are) get blocked pretty sharpish.

Non-members have as much to contribute here as members do. In some cases much more.

Does it cost us more to run a forum with a load of non-members than it would if everyone were a member?

Is there a problem here? Has Jeremy Clarkson registered or something?

[Mike I]

I think it's worth mentioning that this is one of the most friendly, inclusive, non-judgmental, helpful and constructive forums (or "fora" for pedants) I have come across*. Have you seen the fights and abuse that go on elsewhere ? There are even threads in another part of the web which question my own professional abilities .

*Apart from the Training section of course, where nobody seems to agree on anything .

[Rob Q]