04-08-2015, 02:21 PM
Hi Ian
I promised on a related thread to come back with some ideas as to how the Forum might operate.
Following is simply a sketch to help others to focus on ideas/pointers:
First, the Forum should serve both CS Members and non-members (i.e. members of the public).
Second, the Forum, I think, should fulfil three broad functions:
(a) Publicity;
(b) Information (not necessarily the same as Publicity); and
© Debate/discussion
Publicity would encompass data that would be of interest to all: for example, Live Games (how to gain access) Tournaments (details, including venue, dates, progress etc., as well as pointers to availability of further information etc.), Availability of Coaching, Training, Results, Performance, etc. [Some of this would be available on, for example, the Home or other Pages. Much appears already!]
Information would be focused more narrowly towards CS Members, but - depending on the particular activity - could also provide for members of the public.
Debate/Discussion is perhaps the more “meaty” part, facilitating the exchange of views. This part would require to be Monitored in order to maintain order. The functions to be embraced could (would?) be quite wide-ranging in order to gauge the desirability or otherwise of a particular or proposed project or reform. Constitutional change is one recent example. Another would be to gauge support for, or ideas about how to improve the Forum. These are instances, but there could be innumerable others. A touchstone would be to decide to what extent - if at all - non-CS Members would be allowed to access, or contribute to this “Debate/Discussion” section of the Forum. This could be very sensitive. Are non-CS Members really entitled to “eavesdrop” on all CS business? Is there not scope to restrict access? But, how? Quite recently, one poster suggested that a means be devised to distinguish a non-CS Member from a CS Member in order to avoid confusion or potential embarrassment on the Forum: who would want to wear heart on sleeve in such an uncertain scenario? So, this might point to a halfway house arrangement, or if that were judged impracticable or too risky (i.e. undue risk of embarrassment to individual or CS itself), then separate Forums according to purpose or objective. We don’t want to exclude potential members, but nor do we want to wash our laundry in public? Finally, do non-CS Members have any right to discuss or contribute to the formulation of CS business?
To sum up, these are ideas to kick start a discussion:
(a) Is the Forum OK as is?; or
(b) Do we need to restrict access by non-CS Members to (i) the Forum or (ii) to parts of the Forum?
Much of the foregoing applies already to the existing Forum, so we should regard this new look - if adopted - as a refinement rather than an innovation.
George
I promised on a related thread to come back with some ideas as to how the Forum might operate.
Following is simply a sketch to help others to focus on ideas/pointers:
First, the Forum should serve both CS Members and non-members (i.e. members of the public).
Second, the Forum, I think, should fulfil three broad functions:
(a) Publicity;
(b) Information (not necessarily the same as Publicity); and
© Debate/discussion
Publicity would encompass data that would be of interest to all: for example, Live Games (how to gain access) Tournaments (details, including venue, dates, progress etc., as well as pointers to availability of further information etc.), Availability of Coaching, Training, Results, Performance, etc. [Some of this would be available on, for example, the Home or other Pages. Much appears already!]
Information would be focused more narrowly towards CS Members, but - depending on the particular activity - could also provide for members of the public.
Debate/Discussion is perhaps the more “meaty” part, facilitating the exchange of views. This part would require to be Monitored in order to maintain order. The functions to be embraced could (would?) be quite wide-ranging in order to gauge the desirability or otherwise of a particular or proposed project or reform. Constitutional change is one recent example. Another would be to gauge support for, or ideas about how to improve the Forum. These are instances, but there could be innumerable others. A touchstone would be to decide to what extent - if at all - non-CS Members would be allowed to access, or contribute to this “Debate/Discussion” section of the Forum. This could be very sensitive. Are non-CS Members really entitled to “eavesdrop” on all CS business? Is there not scope to restrict access? But, how? Quite recently, one poster suggested that a means be devised to distinguish a non-CS Member from a CS Member in order to avoid confusion or potential embarrassment on the Forum: who would want to wear heart on sleeve in such an uncertain scenario? So, this might point to a halfway house arrangement, or if that were judged impracticable or too risky (i.e. undue risk of embarrassment to individual or CS itself), then separate Forums according to purpose or objective. We don’t want to exclude potential members, but nor do we want to wash our laundry in public? Finally, do non-CS Members have any right to discuss or contribute to the formulation of CS business?
To sum up, these are ideas to kick start a discussion:
(a) Is the Forum OK as is?; or
(b) Do we need to restrict access by non-CS Members to (i) the Forum or (ii) to parts of the Forum?
Much of the foregoing applies already to the existing Forum, so we should regard this new look - if adopted - as a refinement rather than an innovation.
George