- This topic has 104 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 7 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
For 5 years I moderated a weekly medical tweetchat on twitter, #IrishMed. It started out as a hobby, but grew into an international forum, with experts of all types giving generously and freely of their time and expertise. I really needed a proper quantitative analyis of the chats, beyond the easily accessible stats for participant numbers etc, but to do so would have required a significant financial outlay. I approached various funding bodies with no success, but did have many offers from pharmaceutical companies, which would have been very lucrative.
I’m no Mother Teresa, but I drew the line at having vested interests involved in what I wanted to be an objective discussion.
I’m also a drug addict (clean by 14 yrs now, but still/always an addict), and as part of my recovery I attend not only Narcotics Anonymous, but also Gamblers Anonymous; some of the stories I heard there were truly heartbreaking, the damage done to themselves and their families incalculable.
This is the only racing form I take part in, and I appreciate the need for some recompense for all the hard work involved in moderation, but I’d urge Cormack to think again about this particular form of sponsorship.Also; please don’t go Bachelor’s!!!
Like others I don’t visit the homepage I just come straight to the forum, but just checked those articles and they were worse than I was expecting.
Given the website is free, runs well, and IMO is fairly moderated, with the lightest of touches, except when another approach is manifestly required, I have never thought it unreasonable for TRF to either cover operating costs via advertising revenue nor for the owner to indulge himself by penning a few articles holding forth about racing.
After all, that’s exactly what I do here on the forums, morning, noon and night!
I will be honest and say there’s literally nothing on the home page I ever want to read, but bookmarking the forum itself means you never have to go there.
I get that some of the material doesn’t cast TRF in the best light, but it’s a forum I’m a member of, not a stakeholder in, so I’m not inclined to be precious about it.
Chuck in the fact I once behaved deplorably here and TRF’s owner has graciously set that aside and allowed to me to rejoin these past few years and it all adds up to me being inclined to cut him considerable slack on this issue.
I will be devastated if BH leaves, I respect his work enormously and I like him a lot on a personal level – very genuine and disarmingly open about himself.
But I don’t like ultimatums generally and what would be the ideal outcome for me in an utopian world would be if the ultimatum could be withdrawn and TRF’s owner could be given the wiggle room to choose to do the right thing under zero duress.
I am "The Horse Racing Punter" on Facebook
https://mobile.twitter.com/Ian_Davies_
https://www.facebook.com/ThePointtoPointNHandFlatracingpunter/
It's the "Millwall FC" of Point broadcasts: "No One Likes Us - We Don't Care"Very well put Ian. I agree with BH’s concerns, and am sure admin will get to looking at them. However, as I’ve said before, moderating a forum is a thankless, unpaid task.
If I’m being honest, I’d resent being given an ultimatum in those circumstances, and am not convinced it is more likely to achieve a good outcome for all concerned.
I think some clarity would have been helpful by now.
BH was talking from the heart knowing of the ravages that addiction rages on it’s victims.
I also think of the aims of the forums founders and it’s early pioneers notably Craig Daylight and Jim JTS and I do not believe they would have had any truck with this utter garbage 🗑️.
It is not a great look for the forum when newcomers to the sport visit the home page, that is surely the aim of these predatory firms to hook people, who have to assume that TRF are endorsing these articles.
The Racing Forum is endorsing these firms and whilst I have jested about it on this thread, I cannot go along with it.I think pretty much everybody is agreed the articles are wholly inappropriate Sporting Sam. But I’m not personally convinced ultimatums are the best route to solving the issue.
Well we can only surmise what Craig would have made of it. He considered the sale of the site after receiving a threat but was clear that he wouldn’t pass it on to anyone who entertained pop ups. After Craig passed away in 2006 There were discussions about the sale of the site and its value which became very heated.
I found that thread of historical significance and when Cormack was clearing some of the site ( I presume this was necessary then but possibly not so now with cloud storage but I’m not a techie) he asked anyone to select any threads they wanted saving and I plumped for that one. I feed on intrigue and love a good thrash of tongues and high emotive content and the thread had a good ending with King Cormack being crowned. The thread has been kindly preserved in the archives – but I have not checked through – I expect it has been conveniently vanished the same as my minor coronation in 2013 which was hidden at first and then trimmed away. I greatly support Cormack as an excellent writer, and have respect for the work he does behind the scenes in consort with Matron – but yes I have always spoken my mind about his admin function – which on balance has been fair as Davies states – but has had hiccups.
The first advert that was put up was for the Welsh waterboard. I found it intensely annoying at first because it kept popping up. There was a stretch of water pictured with a red buoy and in my mind I dealt with it by imagining this was the red bathing hat of a drowning man. I soon grew to find an affection for it and named it the drowning man. I put up with the advert because I felt Cormack was only trying to recoup his ‘purchase’ of the site and it’s ongoing maintenance.
Despite David’s reconfirmation two years ago, on a thread that has again been erased, that Debs gifted the site to him it still does not stand water with me.
LRM (Debs) must have been in reduced circumstances after Craig passed as he was the breadwinner. He might have had life insurance – hopefully so – and of course I don’t know this but Craig had trouble changing jobs and a time of unemployment. Daylight had considered a sale and valued the site quite highly @ 10k – seven times earnings. I was a detective back then and examined all the patchy evidence. Now on that thread LRM wrote a couple of times directly on it. Then we were eagerly awaiting her written response on Craig’s successor but this was curiously put up as a link. I copied down her words but have lost those now – but yes she said it was a gift. Now I kept an eye on the thread and the link was suddenly gone. Why was it removed ? Why was it important to me. Well if David paid good money for the site which is what I suspect – he has every right to treat the site commercially. This is why I put up with the pop up. If he had been gifted the site he would have been, in my opinion, much more constrained in following Daylight’s path.
Grasshopper left because he didn’t like the ‘ hub for everything ‘ direction of the site. Had he had the opinion that I held that the site had been purchased – he might have been more understanding.
I am grateful for the way the site has been managed over the years, but with a certain reservation. People that dare to challenge are in danger of being removed. Lake laughably threatened legal action – a near two decade member was despatched – Winkleman challenged the sites figures quoting the inaccurate Google. I was researching him as a potential clone – but after just a few postings of discontent he was gone.
The Pinza affair was a learning curve and not worth going into here. I must say – it is easy to criticize – if I was running the site I would probably also be making mistakes.
The adverts have been hidden from view which is a good thing Cormack has done.
I would like to state I have no chip on my shoulder I just like to say what I think. Jim JTS similarly called a hive a hive and a spade a spade. Generally the site has become friendlier which is another good thing.
As to the present issue I think it is admirable that BH gives his honest view. He can always change his mind if the offending advert is removed at a later date.
I was up until 3.30am so am quite tired so bear that in mind. I would like to thank Matron for his contribution. ( and for getting rid of my edited post which consisted of four dots)I wouldn’t put too much on my post – it is conjecture and nothing of huge significance. I do think it important to have a good cross section of voices on here and I include the discordant. Maybe Ricky Lake’s time had come but I have never been comfortable with lifetime bans – I think people should be given a second chance. The admin of a site may not like certain contributors and they may think they amount to negative forces and I have seen certain posters that go against the flow. In the end internal forces tend to sort that out.
I think the more inclusive friendly type of posting is the way to go. On careful reflection gamble is wrong on his separatist view and doesn’t always get it right.
As for the present issue there have been some excellent contributions here on both sides of the argument. People in the end must decide from themselves – but that stated, it has been a fascinating thread to read.Always endeavouring to take the positives, I’d say the advent of a review of a book by David Ashforth on the home page is infinitely more in keeping with what I think most of us feel TRF is essentially about.
I won’t actually buy a copy (“I read a book once, green it was”) but I applaud the light it casts upon these great halls of discussion.
I am "The Horse Racing Punter" on Facebook
https://mobile.twitter.com/Ian_Davies_
https://www.facebook.com/ThePointtoPointNHandFlatracingpunter/
It's the "Millwall FC" of Point broadcasts: "No One Likes Us - We Don't Care"My only comment on this. Do I like the articles? No. Am I going to let it detract from the interesting discussion that takes place here? Also no.
I don’t see it as my place to demand their removal. I would not be prepared or able to spend my time and/or money running the place, many thanks to those who do.
That’s my view, I respect the views of others who feel differently and wish them the best however they choose to approach the issue.
Keep up the good work all.
I tediously and repetitively find myself agreeing with Richard so often I even bore myself doing it.
Both he and Marlingford express really good sentiments on this thread, I think.
I am "The Horse Racing Punter" on Facebook
https://mobile.twitter.com/Ian_Davies_
https://www.facebook.com/ThePointtoPointNHandFlatracingpunter/
It's the "Millwall FC" of Point broadcasts: "No One Likes Us - We Don't Care"Hi Matron
If there is something he wishes to discuss with me in private then I can do so in confidence and grant the courtesy of discretion. However, anything I have to say to Cormack, I have said already in this thread.
Hi befair
Thank you for your frank disclosure.
I am familiar with gambling addiction through both personal and professional experience. I have seen the damage it can do to people and families. If anybody has seen its destructive powers, they would not view those predatory sites as something with which to compromise.
Those sites are on the same moral level as pimps and smack dealers. I wonder if this site was being funded by a pusher-pimp whether the apologists would still be so vocal.
Hi Ian
Ultimatums are neither savoury nor otherwise by default, rather they are wholly neutral until the context has been established. In some circumstances, they can be used for nefarious means; such as blackmail or emotional abuse. In others, they are used to maintain comfort/order for the benefit of a majority; like a bouncer telling someone to calm down lest they be ejected from an establishment. In this instance, it is a legitimate tactic of protest; a boycott.
There is no duress here whatsoever. I am not threatening Cormack’s reputation with anything he has not personally endorsed, and if he has no reason to feel guilty then he has no reason to be affronted by this protest. If that article stays up then I am leaving whether or not I threaten to do so. Indeed, I am giving him the courtesy of fair warning rather than first asking politely, then going off if I don’t get the desired outcome. I do not see how this would be any more appropriate than my current stance.
As far as being a stakeholder is concerned. If there are no forum members, there is no forum. If there is no forum then there is no reason for those parasites to offer Cormack money. A forum is no more than the people who contribute. These posters are attractions; when they post, others will click and read. Like it or not, you are intrinsically linked to TRF for as long as you post here. As am I.
It is a delight to share this forum with literally everybody who has posted in this thread and many who have not. However, much as it would displease me to shed that association, it is increasingly looking like the only way I can distance myself from that vile article.
“Oh, bother,” said Pooh.
The beleaguered bear should have known better than to invite BH’s rigorous logic, with which it is exceedingly difficult to take issue.
I don’t really have an answer to any of that, because it is impeccably expressed.
Other than, that is, to reiterate I’ll be devastated if you go (there’s a 3yo Hurdle at Plumpton on Sunday!) and that ideally TRF’s proprietor would be in a position to make the unilateral decision to choose to remove the offending material without having to feel he had done so under any form of pressure.
But, as I’m sure we’ve all noticed, we don’t live in an ideal world.
Fingers crossed for a happy ending to all this.
I am "The Horse Racing Punter" on Facebook
https://mobile.twitter.com/Ian_Davies_
https://www.facebook.com/ThePointtoPointNHandFlatracingpunter/
It's the "Millwall FC" of Point broadcasts: "No One Likes Us - We Don't Care"A fairly interesting looking race at this stage.
Likewise, I will not derive any pleasure whatsoever from leaving.
I am a little surprised that there has been no dialogue on the matter, which leads me to suspect that the decision has already been made. I sincerely hope that this will not be one of my last posts on here, but if it is, I would be interested in an explanation for why this was allowed to happen for the sake of one grotesquely offensive and possibly illegal article. Particularly as I find it difficult to believe that TRF would not have survived but for the posting of same.
BH, just a thought, but is Cormack definitely aware of this thread? I would have thought so by now, but it might be worth dropping him a message if there’s any doubt at all.
One of my main reasons for saying this is personal experience. When I raised some concerns about another matter, he was not aware of them until I had done the above.
Obviously there are no guarantees this will either elicit a response or a desired outcome, but it might be worth considering (especially as I don’t want you to go!).
Worth a shot!
It would be quite amusing and perfectly acceptable if the response is something along the lines of “Oh dear, I hadn’t noticed. Yes that is rather bad. Thank you for bringing it to my attention, it has been removed.”
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.