|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2013 9:21:03 GMT
Hmmmmn. Perhaps if Mark and Simon would address the concerns of this particular group of their members, it might help quell the fears that some may have. To know we (jesus, forgot, it is now they!) have only 360 adult members is very sad - and how many of these are life members and have gone away or who are no longer with us, so something is happening which is not meeting favour with the wider fan base. I know in my time on the committee, this was still a problem and one which we never solved, but being frank it is easy to understand why many people get irate when people get the impression that oxvox set themselves up to be the voice of the fans. Maybe one instance is this RTB thing when the oxvox committee acted unilaterally - that was a shocking error in my book and one of the reasons I could not accept and resigned. So whose fault is it that oxvox membership only attract such low figures.......was it Trevor, me, Tim and the old guard when we were 'in charge'....or is it Mark and Simon now . Maybe all of us.......maybe oxvox should put Mark and Simon out to grass and give someone else a go......hey I have it upon the solution!? (don't worry Mark and Simon, I would assist with your remedial therapy by teaching you how to play bowls!) People on forums are but a minute percentage of our fan base.....maybe we consider ourselves (me included) to have more importance in the general sway of things than we actually have. We took over 30,000 fans to Wembley, most of them have probably never heard of you or me - or give a toss about what we may or may not think......think about it. So forums? well it keeps those who post amused I supposed and long may they continue..........but to perpetuate a feeling of animosity among fans is something we should all strive to avoid imho for it is childish and does none of us any favours. ......about time admin on all three forums put me out to grass too I think!
|
|
|
Post by SteMerritt on Aug 6, 2013 9:23:01 GMT
"Multi" accounts can be useful in getting a new forum off the ground, it can give an impression of a busier forum than is actually the case. I dare say. But if I was populating my new forum with multiple users, I'd try to give them different points of view, not just introduce a number of identical one-trick ponies. Strange thinking by Mr X. Yeah that is usually the point, and sometimes to have an extreme multi purely to provoke replies
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2013 9:26:01 GMT
Still not addressing the issue of multis on YV though Bob, just as you and Trevor failed to confront the issue on the OxVox forum when you were admin.
I can understand deliberately introducing false posters to kick-start YV, as Steve Merritt suggests, but when they all sing from the same anti-OxVox hymn sheet it's rather embarrassing.
|
|
|
Post by Long John Silver on Aug 6, 2013 9:44:23 GMT
As the users on YV have a different username to what might of been used on here, it's hard to identify them as the users in question. But we sent an email to 4 addresses, 3 of which bounced because the email account doesn't exist (ie a fake email account). At the top of this forum is a link to "contact us". But not one of the banned users has emailed us. They have just made it public. We identified 3 of the 4 were using identical IP addresses, therefore a multi. And one was using multiple proxy servers. He said his username on here was 'truefan'. Was he one of those four you mention?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2013 9:50:48 GMT
Well ip addresses are an indication but not the be all imo.
Just one instance.....what if there are several people in one office or in one household all with the same ip address? Are they multis and are you going to ban them all too?
It is a difficult subject and if you are a member on a forum then I think you have to leave it at the discretion of the administrator.....if a member who is banned feels he has a raw deal, then he will go elsewhere. Some people who are banned deserve it though and on this I would agree. Here again all forums are different and the judgement of the administrator will be the main arbiter....something we all have to accept I'm afraid.
Wish I could me more helpful.
Happy days.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2013 9:54:52 GMT
Well ip addresses are an indication but not the be all imo. Just one instance.....what if there are several people in one office or in one household all with the same ip address? Are they multis and are you going to ban them all too? It is a difficult subject and if you are a member on a forum then I think you have to leave it at the discretion of the administrator.....if a member who is banned feels he has a raw deal, then he will go elsewhere. Some people who are banned deserve it though and on this I would agree. Here again all forums are different and the judgement of the administrator will be the main arbiter....something we all have to accept I'm afraid. Wish I could me more helpful. Happy days. If there are several people legitimately at the same IP address then surely it is the responsibility of admin on a forum to challenge and make an assessment based on the response? How many times did you and Trevor challenge, Bob?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2013 9:59:06 GMT
As the users on YV have a different username to what might of been used on here, it's hard to identify them as the users in question. But we sent an email to 4 addresses, 3 of which bounced because the email account doesn't exist (ie a fake email account). At the top of this forum is a link to "contact us". But not one of the banned users has emailed us. They have just made it public. We identified 3 of the 4 were using identical IP addresses, therefore a multi. And one was using multiple proxy servers. He said his username on here was 'truefan'. Was he one of those four you mention? Hi LJS....long time no see.........are'nt you putting eaststandboy in a difficult position by asking him to reveal confidential information on a particular individual? Maybe I'm wrong, but it is worth asking the question......
|
|
|
Post by Long John Silver on Aug 6, 2013 10:01:15 GMT
He said his username on here was 'truefan'. Was he one of those four you mention? Hi LJS....long time no see.........are'nt you putting eaststandboy in a difficult position by asking him to reveal confidential information on a particular individual? Maybe I'm wrong, but it is worth asking the question...... Hi bob. No, not at all. Why do you think so? I'm asking if truefan was one of the four he mentions that were baned for being a multi. What personal or confidential information does that reveal on anyone???
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2013 10:07:39 GMT
YH....you cunning old sod.....you know full well that Trevor and I would make no further comment about our administartion on the old ov forum!
LJS.....I did say it was only a question.....bah!
Now listen you two, leave this poor OAP alone.........I have to play a Bowls match today and I don't want my rhythm to be out......
Good to have a chat with you all though.
Keep smiling......
Bob.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2013 10:12:55 GMT
YH....you cunning old sod.....you know full well that Trevor and I would make no further comment about our administartion on the old ov forum! LJS.....I did say it was only a question.....bah! Now listen you two, leave this poor OAP alone.........I have to play a Bowls match today and I don't want my rhythm to be out...... Good to have a chat with you all though. Keep smiling...... Bob. Bob. You are a cunning old fox! Less of the poor old bowls-playing geriatric please. I'm afraid you and Trev failed to take the multis who were killing the forum seriously, then conveniently resigned and developed simultaneous amnesia. Still, water under the bridge as far as the OxVox forum is concerned, but this new animal is simply bizarre ....
|
|
|
Post by Eaststandboy on Aug 6, 2013 10:21:10 GMT
Hi LJS....long time no see.........are'nt you putting eaststandboy in a difficult position by asking him to reveal confidential information on a particular individual? Maybe I'm wrong, but it is worth asking the question...... Hi bob. No, not at all. Why do you think so? I'm asking if truefan was one of the four he mentions that were baned for being a multi. What personal or confidential information does that reveal on anyone??? Long John Silver - Id rather not name names at the moment, hope you can understand that. But the users in question should contact US because the email addresses they provided are not live.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2013 10:28:56 GMT
YH....you cunning old sod.....you know full well that Trevor and I would make no further comment about our administartion on the old ov forum! LJS.....I did say it was only a question.....bah! Now listen you two, leave this poor OAP alone.........I have to play a Bowls match today and I don't want my rhythm to be out...... Good to have a chat with you all though. Keep smiling...... Bob. Bob. You are a cunning old fox! Less of the poor old bowls-playing geriatric please. I'm afraid you and Trev failed to take the multis who were killing the forum seriously, then conveniently resigned and developed simultaneous amnesia. Still, water under the bridge as far as the OxVox forum is concerned, but this new animal is simply bizarre .... Here's something to express what I think of most of us.....go on listen to it all through! www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6eTGAvTqTsNow going out of the door to be with my fellow wrinklies...
|
|
|
Post by Si Bradbury on Aug 6, 2013 10:29:21 GMT
Hmmmmn. Perhaps if Mark and Simon would address the concerns of this particular group of their members, it might help quell the fears that some may have. To know we (jesus, forgot, it is now they!) have only 360 adult members is very sad - and how many of these are life members and have gone away or who are no longer with us, so something is happening which is not meeting favour with the wider fan base. I know in my time on the committee, this was still a problem and one which we never solved, but being frank it is easy to understand why many people get irate when people get the impression that oxvox set themselves up to be the voice of the fans. Maybe one instance is this RTB thing when the oxvox committee acted unilaterally - that was a shocking error in my book and one of the reasons I could not accept and resigned. So whose fault is it that oxvox membership only attract such low figures.......was it Trevor, me, Tim and the old guard when we were 'in charge'....or is it Mark and Simon now . Maybe all of us.......maybe oxvox should put Mark and Simon out to grass and give someone else a go......hey I have it upon the solution!? (don't worry Mark and Simon, I would assist with your remedial therapy by teaching you how to play bowls!) People on forums are but a minute percentage of our fan base.....maybe we consider ourselves (me included) to have more importance in the general sway of things than we actually have. We took over 30,000 fans to Wembley, most of them have probably never heard of you or me - or give a toss about what we may or may not think......think about it. So forums? well it keeps those who post amused I supposed and long may they continue..........but to perpetuate a feeling of animosity among fans is something we should all strive to avoid imho for it is childish and does none of us any favours. ......about time admin on all three forums put me out to grass too I think! Do you remember 2007/08 Bob? OxVox had 224 members, 224 total members. We have 360 voting members now, not 360 in total. But you knew that. In fact the Trust has made great strides in the last 6 years and this is reflected with people signing up. The criticism remains though and it's valid, the numbers need to be better than the current total. I have addressed the concern/comments/inaccurate statements and answered them below. Do you have some more you would like to ask? Q: Is the meeting hastily called? A: Supporters Direct wanted us to do this at the AGM with about a month's notice, which we felt at that point was too little time. Members will have had about seven weeks to look at this. I don't think that is hasty and I think was the correct decision to enable members time to question the new rules. Q: Why is such an important meeting been arrange prior to a league game which means that the time allocated for the meeting will be limited. There are a number of serious issues that need to be discussed and explained and therefore the time allowed should not be limited to a maximum of 90 mins. A: We have always held Member meetings ahead of games to try and maximise the number of members able to attend. When meetings have been held away from games, turnout has been much lower. It's therefore a balancing act between making the meeting as accessible as possible, while accepting this does limit the time available. If a significant number of members want to propose we do this differently, then we'll have to look at this again. Currently this is the only comment we've received about this. Q: It appears that there is a need to change the rules of the Trust to prevent or lessen the possibility of legal action. Is this due to the Community Asset application? And if so who would any action be taken against? A: No. The rules would need to be passed by the Trust even if we didn't have the RTB. There are some legal issues Supporters Direct have flagged up for us (and all trusts with rules that have been in place for some time), but these do not relate to the RTB. An example would be changes in discrimination legislation since our original rules were drawn up in 2002. Supporters Direct have revised their model rules to take account of these kinds of things, are asking all trusts to implement these, and we have followed that model. Q: The Trust rules also need to be changed to allow the trust (Chairman?) to raise money from loans. Why would the Trust need to borrow money? And who would be held responsible for underwriting these loans on behalf of the trust, the membership? A: As explained above, the rules don't *need* to be changed to allow withdrawable shares. It is proposed that they should be. As was clearly explained in the paperwork, these aren't loans. To quote that paperwork (which is bascially the advice Supporters Direct give about this): 'At the moment OxVox offers ordinary shares to members. These shares are not withdrawable and do not carry any rights to interest or dividend. A growing trend for Community Benefit Societies looking to raise finance is to offer a different type of share alongside the ordinary share called a withdrawable share (often reported as a community share). The withdrawable share doesn’t infringe the one member one vote ethos that runs throughout OxVox, but can offer a solution to attract potential investors who want to support the aims of the organisation. The money is seen neither as a donation or a loan but can be requested back (usually after a defined period of time has elapsed) although only at the discretion of the OxVox Committee to ensure the Trust is not put at risk and its community objectives can be met. Whilst the option for Community Benefit Societies to offer different shares isn’t a new one it has become popular under the Community Shares banner and by having the facility ready to go in our rules it could be critical if there is a crisis or opportunity at the Club we support which requires finance to be raised: an issue which becomes more important with our Right to Bid on The Kassam Stadium.' Given we need to go through the process of consultation to consider introducing the revised rules, the Committee suggest we establish this option at the same time. Q: The proposals need a minimum of 30% of the members (who have voting rights) to cast their vote. Could you please tell us what that % represents as a number? A: It's acutally a third of the voting membership, not 30%. A third of the voting membership is 120.
|
|
|
Post by Si Bradbury on Aug 6, 2013 10:48:17 GMT
Hmmmmn. Perhaps if Mark and Simon would address the concerns of this particular group of their members, it might help quell the fears that some may have. Could you just clarify who are OxVox members on the new alternative forum? At the present time, I know of Mr5Co, your good self Bob, Mermaid, GY, Realfan as active members. Ken packed his membership in, as did one other who is masquerading under different usernames. I see even Trevor got an unfair hammering whilst he was working hard raising money with the other good folk of the 12th Man for David Langan. By the way my understanding is that £4500 of the £5000 was raised, just under half of which was raised by the 12th Man bucket collectors - thank you!!
|
|
|
Post by Gary Baldi on Aug 6, 2013 12:49:56 GMT
Not being a reader of the old OxVox forum, how much of it was non specific chatter and how much of it was OxVox related?
I doubt I'll register for YV. It just seems a play area for Ken and his conspiracies at the moment.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2013 16:02:20 GMT
Hmmmmn. Perhaps if Mark and Simon would address the concerns of this particular group of their members, it might help quell the fears that some may have. Could you just clarify who are OxVox members on the new alternative forum? At the present time, I know of Mr5Co, your good self Bob, Mermaid, GY, Realfan as active members. Ken packed his membership in, as did one other who is masquerading under different usernames. I see even Trevor got an unfair hammering whilst he was working hard raising money with the other good folk of the 12th Man for David Langan. By the way my understanding is that £4500 of the £5000 was raised, just under half of which was raised by the 12th Man bucket collectors - thank you!! I can only put faces to three of the Yellow Voice members....sorry, four now Trevor has registered. I can't tell you who are or who are not members I'm afraid as I am out of the loop so to speak on all things oxvox. You obviously know more than me Simon with regards to user names - where you get this info from is your business but quite frankly I am not interested in this side of things anymore. You obviously haven't taken my advice as to how to handle matters which are current.............so there is little more I can do to help. Why listen to me anyway - I am not an oxvox member any more as you know. I wish you well of course. Regards.....Bob.
|
|
|
Post by Yellow River on Aug 6, 2013 18:01:30 GMT
So a significant number of Yellow Voice posters share two attributes; banned from here and anti-OxVox. Should make for a happy, positive forum! I'm sure some of them feel they're banned from here BECAUSE they criticised Mark Sennett, who they believe has influence on this forum. To be fair, I can understand some are unhappy that OxVox members must also join Yellows in order to contribute to threads on the OxVox sub-section. For those banned from Yellows that is obviously impossible. If I was banned from this forum I'd go and post on rageonline instead........
|
|
|
Post by Si Bradbury on Aug 7, 2013 13:10:50 GMT
Could you just clarify who are OxVox members on the new alternative forum? At the present time, I know of Mr5Co, your good self Bob, Mermaid, GY, Realfan as active members. Ken packed his membership in, as did one other who is masquerading under different usernames. I see even Trevor got an unfair hammering whilst he was working hard raising money with the other good folk of the 12th Man for David Langan. By the way my understanding is that £4500 of the £5000 was raised, just under half of which was raised by the 12th Man bucket collectors - thank you!! I can only put faces to three of the Yellow Voice members....sorry, four now Trevor has registered. I can't tell you who are or who are not members I'm afraid as I am out of the loop so to speak on all things oxvox. You obviously know more than me Simon with regards to user names - where you get this info from is your business but quite frankly I am not interested in this side of things anymore. You obviously haven't taken my advice as to how to handle matters which are current.............so there is little more I can do to help. Why listen to me anyway - I am not an oxvox member any more as you know. I wish you well of course. Regards.....Bob. I only know these people because I have known most of them personally for a long time. Nothing sinister as you suggest but then that suggestion is only included to try and stoke up the silly IP address debate. I answered the questions above Bob.
|
|
|
Post by one trick Raponi on Aug 8, 2013 17:42:42 GMT
As Oxford Harrier I was probably drawn here by things LW, but having always lived in Oxford i have always taken a keen interest in OUFC and some of the chat on here is quite good. Back on topic, this is probably a better platform for all things OXVOX as on their own forum it was pretty much a free for all on all things OUFC, that is also catered for here within the other boards. I think all subjects here will get aproper airing in an OXVOX context rather than being lost and swamped with matters that are plain OUFC. Risking bringing this thread back on topic, I couldn't agree more with you Chappers. Being able to chat to various OxVox committee members in the supporters bar will also a good thing, if the committee members don't get fed up with being pestered that is. As will them being able to put a face to someone's internet moniker on ocassion.
|
|
|
Post by godalmingyellow on Aug 22, 2013 9:23:39 GMT
Hmmmmn. Perhaps if Mark and Simon would address the concerns of this particular group of their members, it might help quell the fears that some may have. To know we (jesus, forgot, it is now they!) have only 360 adult members is very sad - and how many of these are life members and have gone away or who are no longer with us, so something is happening which is not meeting favour with the wider fan base. I know in my time on the committee, this was still a problem and one which we never solved, but being frank it is easy to understand why many people get irate when people get the impression that oxvox set themselves up to be the voice of the fans. Maybe one instance is this RTB thing when the oxvox committee acted unilaterally - that was a shocking error in my book and one of the reasons I could not accept and resigned. So whose fault is it that oxvox membership only attract such low figures.......was it Trevor, me, Tim and the old guard when we were 'in charge'....or is it Mark and Simon now . Maybe all of us.......maybe oxvox should put Mark and Simon out to grass and give someone else a go......hey I have it upon the solution!? (don't worry Mark and Simon, I would assist with your remedial therapy by teaching you how to play bowls!) People on forums are but a minute percentage of our fan base.....maybe we consider ourselves (me included) to have more importance in the general sway of things than we actually have. We took over 30,000 fans to Wembley, most of them have probably never heard of you or me - or give a toss about what we may or may not think......think about it. So forums? well it keeps those who post amused I supposed and long may they continue..........but to perpetuate a feeling of animosity among fans is something we should all strive to avoid imho for it is childish and does none of us any favours. ......about time admin on all three forums put me out to grass too I think! Do you remember 2007/08 Bob? OxVox had 224 members, 224 total members. We have 360 voting members now, not 360 in total. But you knew that. In fact the Trust has made great strides in the last 6 years and this is reflected with people signing up. The criticism remains though and it's valid, the numbers need to be better than the current total. I have addressed the concern/comments/inaccurate statements and answered them below. Do you have some more you would like to ask? Q: Is the meeting hastily called? A: Supporters Direct wanted us to do this at the AGM with about a month's notice, which we felt at that point was too little time. Members will have had about seven weeks to look at this. I don't think that is hasty and I think was the correct decision to enable members time to question the new rules. Q: Why is such an important meeting been arrange prior to a league game which means that the time allocated for the meeting will be limited. There are a number of serious issues that need to be discussed and explained and therefore the time allowed should not be limited to a maximum of 90 mins. A: We have always held Member meetings ahead of games to try and maximise the number of members able to attend. When meetings have been held away from games, turnout has been much lower. It's therefore a balancing act between making the meeting as accessible as possible, while accepting this does limit the time available. If a significant number of members want to propose we do this differently, then we'll have to look at this again. Currently this is the only comment we've received about this. Q: It appears that there is a need to change the rules of the Trust to prevent or lessen the possibility of legal action. Is this due to the Community Asset application? And if so who would any action be taken against? A: No. The rules would need to be passed by the Trust even if we didn't have the RTB. There are some legal issues Supporters Direct have flagged up for us (and all trusts with rules that have been in place for some time), but these do not relate to the RTB. An example would be changes in discrimination legislation since our original rules were drawn up in 2002. Supporters Direct have revised their model rules to take account of these kinds of things, are asking all trusts to implement these, and we have followed that model. Q: The Trust rules also need to be changed to allow the trust (Chairman?) to raise money from loans. Why would the Trust need to borrow money? And who would be held responsible for underwriting these loans on behalf of the trust, the membership? A: As explained above, the rules don't *need* to be changed to allow withdrawable shares. It is proposed that they should be. As was clearly explained in the paperwork, these aren't loans. To quote that paperwork (which is bascially the advice Supporters Direct give about this): 'At the moment OxVox offers ordinary shares to members. These shares are not withdrawable and do not carry any rights to interest or dividend. A growing trend for Community Benefit Societies looking to raise finance is to offer a different type of share alongside the ordinary share called a withdrawable share (often reported as a community share). The withdrawable share doesn’t infringe the one member one vote ethos that runs throughout OxVox, but can offer a solution to attract potential investors who want to support the aims of the organisation. The money is seen neither as a donation or a loan but can be requested back (usually after a defined period of time has elapsed) although only at the discretion of the OxVox Committee to ensure the Trust is not put at risk and its community objectives can be met. Whilst the option for Community Benefit Societies to offer different shares isn’t a new one it has become popular under the Community Shares banner and by having the facility ready to go in our rules it could be critical if there is a crisis or opportunity at the Club we support which requires finance to be raised: an issue which becomes more important with our Right to Bid on The Kassam Stadium.' Given we need to go through the process of consultation to consider introducing the revised rules, the Committee suggest we establish this option at the same time. Q: The proposals need a minimum of 30% of the members (who have voting rights) to cast their vote. Could you please tell us what that % represents as a number? A: It's acutally a third of the voting membership, not 30%. A third of the voting membership is 120. Not sure I particularly like the implied criticism of the first OV committees, which you have raised a few times BB. What you are really saying is that the early committees raised a net 224 members, of which many were life members, at the highest membership prices, from a standing start and with just about no serious issues to deal with, and the subsequent ones a net 136 new members, despite the shambolic arrival of Nick Merry, and years in the conference doldrums, among other things, and heavily discounted membership fees to below cost value and heavy spending on marketing. I doubt those 136 new members have actually contributed to the net cash of the trust. A bit of balance please. Anyone who volunteers for the OV committee for free to do their best to help the club we all love should be applauded for their efforts, albeit not immune from fair criticism.
|
|
|
Post by Matt D on Aug 22, 2013 15:23:48 GMT
don't think any criticism is intended GY (although obviously only BB can tell you...). after over five (!) years on the committee now, BB and i both have more than a healthy respect for those like you who've given up their time and efforts for the trust as we know the work that goes in.
bob suggested that membership has fallen as a result of the RTB or other decisions by the committee, so i think BB just wanted to point out that wasn't entirely the case (although it's true for some this has been a contentious issue, and we had a resignation over this). we've had a steady trickle of new members coming in of late - although of course we're also approaching renewal time.
oxvox membership has bobbled around for the last few years, and the make-up of those members has fluctuated (we had a lot of juniors join as a result of one open day), but the general pattern of has been one of increase to around the 500 (total membership) mark. we hope we can grow further, but it's not easy and takes a lot of work.
|
|
|
Post by Si Bradbury on Aug 23, 2013 9:23:47 GMT
Sorry GY, no snide criticism intended to the current or previous committees. The point being that the voting number being quoted by Bobby was a criticial stick to currently beat the Trust with. I wanted to illustrate that the numbers had increased and that our membership stands at 500+ (with 360 adult members) from 2006. I fully appreciate the issues about membership.
I would like us to have more and certainly 'heavy spending' on marketing is something we have done in recent years and it hasn't done as well as I 'personally' would have liked. However, as we're doing balance we do have other income streams now to offset these drives and costs.
|
|
|
Post by godalmingyellow on Aug 23, 2013 21:26:25 GMT
Sorry GY, no snide criticism intended to the current or previous committees. The point being that the voting number being quoted by Bobby was a criticial stick to currently beat the Trust with. I wanted to illustrate that the numbers had increased and that our membership stands at 500+ (with 360 adult members) from 2006. I fully appreciate the issues about membership. I would like us to have more and certainly 'heavy spending' on marketing is something we have done in recent years and it hasn't done as well as I 'personally' would have liked. However, as we're doing balance we do have other income streams now to offset these drives and costs. No worries BB & Matt, just wanted to clarify for others.
|
|