IAA Discussion - ground rules. Feedback wanted.

It doesn't need any special rules, or additional governing. I have never liked the heavy-handed "No IAA discussion. Period" since this is a discussion forum, and the IAA are the national governing body. You should never have to worry about segueing into parallel discussions, as that stifles the board of any stimulating topics.

Realistically the only rules that should be are the ones that already are:
No defammatory posts
Debate the point, not the poster

Doesn't that already cover it all? I mean the elephant in the room is that where IAA discussion is concerned you have one side of the fence looking for answers to questions that make them look/feel good, and the other doing the exact same for their side - rather than outright ban that discussion, just nurture better more helpful discussion. No point in everyone looking to the past - it doesn't help any.

As I said elsewhere recently I do think that the Iaa should have some form of presence here on boards without the usual chaos that comes with it.

A Q&A section would be a good spot here on boards for the Iaa since all registration on the iaa site has been discontinued.

Anyway my 2cents for the moment.

Yes while i agree they have a news thread its exactly that for news not discussion like this thread for setting down the guidelines for open discussion around the iaa.

Also in regard to allowing discussion new players that dont know what the iaa actually is may see the thread and ask about the iaa and may even become member's.

As people keep saying maybe if there was new blood on the committee there maybe more people that are return to the iaa in a new hope of it actually rebuilding it's trust.

If you check the the IAA FB page you'll see the explanation as to why they have been quiet of late, moving house, funeral, work, etc, etc. Judge them at the end of their tenure, not after a few months. Juggling work, family, IAA ain't an easy feat by any means.

andy_g wrote: »

As people keep saying maybe if there was new blood on the committee there maybe more people that are return to the iaa in a new hope of it actually rebuilding it's trust.

What? The current committee are entirely 'new blood'. What are you talking about?

jayod30 wrote: »

If you check the the IAA FB page you'll see the explanation as to why they have been quiet of late, moving house, funeral, work, etc, etc. Judge them at the end of their tenure, not after a few months.

That sentence underscores why moving IAA interactions to social media is a bad idea, the operative words being "if you check the IAA FB page". Before I go any further I shall preface what I say by saying that I am no longer a member of the IAA (instead the UKAPU) for various reasons, the most obvious being that I no longer reside in the country.

Why the IAA move to FB/social media is a bad idea:

• Not everyone has facebook accounts, or even wants them (I can include IT workers in that statement since I know several personally). If you simply want to read what the IAA has been saying, you can't without signing up to a third party's terms & conditions of which the IAA has no control over.
• It is not a good medium for communicating anything other than short sound-bites.
• It is not a stable medium; facebook have changed their layouts, site behaviour, and their T&C several times over in the last couple of years.
• It is not an appropriate medium for official communication with members & public alike.

By all means take advantage of social media like facebook, twitter, etc. but to enhance communications, not substitute. Reliance on social media places a poor light on the association when stood next to other official or representative organisations.

War Machine 539 wrote: »

Again I must stress this, I have worded this as delicately as I can, I am not trying to upset anyone, but this subject given past history is like walking on eggshells, and I am not out to upset or annoy anyone, I am just looking for unbiased information!

Not at all, no offense taken. Find out information as you like, but validate it and take anything you hear with a grain of salt (including of course what I say).

For the record, I haven't had anything to do with the IAA since 2009, and haven't even attended a meeting in over a year :-)

Democracy is founded on free speech and the right to discuss and debate the actions and activities of government and those that govern, while I see the points that IAA threads on here normally get derailed by the tin-foil hats, I think discussion should be open.

This is not the place to post a question to the IAA, doing this is not the way to get a response, and some times is simply people soap boxing / trolling.

I agree with Lemming, the Facebook route is amateur, this is not a team kids there running, its a recognized national governing body. Social media is a resource that should be used, but as a secondary information tool, not as the only single avenue you use.

In a court of law the appearance of bias is bias enough. I think boards and the mods should look long and hard at themselves in this respect. No offense to anyone, but when mods are regulars / friends of / marshals on the site of an outspoken detractor of the association and several of its past committees, it makes it hard for any activities related to these individuals or threads to be considered impartial, even when they might well be impartial and fair.

Its possible that political threads (and we are talking about politics here) will require simply more man power than the mods can provide to insure that logic and sanity prevail.

In general we should be allowed to debate the actions of those that represent us, but this arena carries the large shadow of bias in my opinion.

Steve

If it can be discussed without descending into a farcical airing of dirty laundry than it would be nice to see the community has matured enough to allow it.

I've been out away from airsoft for a long time so for all I know it's completely different now - but back in times passed it took so much effort to moderate (from removing libelous posts, to blatant personal insults, floods of PMs to trawl through - even some death threats) that we just had to put a stop to it. It was far too time consuming - not to mention just plain stressful for everyone involved.

It does seem a bit more sedate in here now though. So it's probably time to give it another go.

TheDoc wrote: »

<snip>

There are a number of reason why the talk will be fine and and should be encouraged

1) The modded threads back then was when IASRA was in its inception. That horse of ****e is long gone and there won't be two sides fueding like that for some time. Moderators did a decent job in removing the bollox, yet allowing the conversation and debates to flow and continue. Significantly more workload, yet now we have double the mods, there is no excuse.

2) Its the national organisation, how on gods earth you can expect to have a community forum, where you cant talk about decisions and things about the national governing body, is ludacrous. Its like the Soccer forum banning talk about the FAI. What? Because the IAA post and read here we have to be all tight arsed about it?

3) There is more slander and libel that goes on elsewhere on the site by the second then what gets posted here. So it needs to be stopped being used as an excuse to avoid having actually interesting threads and debates, either site wide things get tougher and more strict, or you can let it slide like most other forums do, its used way to much here as an excuse for harsh moderation.

Fair enough you need to cover your arses, but it will only ever be the same old same old who ever threaten legal action, and has been pointed out more then enough, its always empty threats with no followup, mostly because their is the realisation it is not slanderous or libellous considering there is documented proof. Thats not relating to any specific incidents or individuals, but the clever people don't make claims without having their arses covered.

I've got atleast 4-5 legal threats from previous or current posters here and it got to the point where it was embarrassing, having to e-mail and ring asking did they maybe spell the address wrong or something. For obvious outragous things like name calling and the likes, thats fair enough. But if its a valid comment or statement, that has an benefit to the discussion as a counter arguement or whatever, it should be allowed to stand once it is not absolutely disgusting or obviously requires moving.

4) The forum is dead. There is **** all traffic that comes through anymore, and even less actual interesting threads or discussions. This can probably be drawn back to link with about the time that the IAA discussion was first put aside. Everyone loves a bit of drama, but the IAA threads also revealed the most thrilling and stimulating discussions, debates and arguements this forum ever had.

From it, people got involved, and eventually ended up helping working with the IAA. People got educated and got their views across. Alot of people earned the communities respect by putting forward calculated and proper arguements and counter arguements.

The loss of the IAA discussions ment a loss in interest in the forum, a loss of thrill and getting a bit of grit between your teeth getting in for a row. As such most influential people in the community lost interest and have gone elsewhere.

Whilst there is other and probably more potent reasons for the exodus of alot of former regulars, it cannot be ignored the fact that the loss of these core individuals will most likely result in the IAA discussions that take place henceworth, to be extremely easily moderated, maintaned and run.

In fairness just look at the quality and content of threads in the last few weeks/months against the ones from the absolute pinnacle of IAA threads. Its easy moderation.

And at the end of the day, we have had 150 million conversations about moderation , and I'm not getting into it again, since it just falls on deaf ears all the time, but you cannot just outlaw conversation and discussions to make your moderation life easier.

As Oisin said, back when he was modding the IAA threads, and just general population of the forum was as high as it ever was, and in fairness it was daunting to mod.

But there was himself, TheMaster, KDouglas and lemming and possibly one more or something. And they got by fine, and were for the most part amicible in how they dealt with stuff. For alongtime there was only like 1-2 active mods

We now have Andy,Thermo,Steve,Deburca and Dogwatch, for possibly the quietest period of the forum. There should be absolutely ZERO workload on you for moderation, and re-opening the IAA discussions won't bring anymore.

WARNING ISSUED FOR BACK SEAT MODERATION AND OFF TOPIC

Dogwatch wrote: »

WARNING ISSUED FOR BACK SEAT MODERATION AND OFF TOPIC

This is a joke right? It just seems to be missing this

So ideally we need a mod who has no connection to sites, or grievances with posters here.

Just a suggestion but maybe we could get Sparks or another Cmod (if their workload isn't to big) to cover the thread in its beginning on a trail basis?

Steve wrote: »

Just FYI, we don't have consensus on this so it's not a runner.

That in itself is interesting, mod's that are perceived as not being impartial unwilling to voluntarily recuse them selves from actioning such topics. Why would anyone want to be moderating such topics knowing their involvement would be controversial when other impartial people are available to take moderation actions with clean hands, leaving boards for discussion of the topic and not the actions of moderators.

The amount of time and effort being spent talking about the moderation of the Airsoft forum is itself becoming a clear statement on the issue.

Steve wrote: »

Not unwilling at all, read my post again.

Maybe a bad choice of words, but the thesis remains the same that the controversial Mods still want to be able to mod the topics that they appear to be biased towards.

fayer wrote: »

That in itself is interesting, mod's that are perceived as not being impartial unwilling to voluntarily recuse them selves from actioning such topics. Why would anyone want to be moderating such topics knowing their involvement would be controversial when other impartial people are available to take moderation actions with clean hands, leaving boards for discussion of the topic and not the actions of moderators.

The amount of time and effort being spent talking about the moderation of the Airsoft forum is itself becoming a clear statement on the issue.

This is part of the problem, the perception of some posters about the impartiality/partiality of the Mod team without any foundation. It is assumed that association with a particular site is evidence of bias. This is nonsense, much the same as being a member of a team is evidence of bias also.

If you are truly interested in the future of the IAA, then having a thread here should not be a problem. However,if past battles, prejudices and point scoring are all that you wish to discuss then maybe another site would be better suited.

The rules for discussion of topics on this site apply to all users equally and will applied without bias.

fayer wrote: »

To to be clear, I am for discussion of the IAA on here.

Good, we can make progress.

The perception is not without base, this cannot be denied.

So you and your fellow team mates are biased against the Moderators because some of them played at a particular site....... Perhaps you would like to tell us the reasoning behind this .

Dogwatch wrote: »

Good, we can make progress.

So you and your fellow team mates are biased against the Moderators because some of them played at a particular site....... Perhaps you would like to tell us the reasoning behind this .

Fay can speak for himself but to mildly elaborate something that bugs me.

Fayer, like myself, started our gaming off in HRTA. And I know I personally look back on it fondly. I met alot of guys there I now socialise with and call friends. Its where I first learned about the game and how the game was played, the rules, the honour in the sport and then how to get better at the game.

I met alot of nice people, and on the days I would be done I was playing alot with Fayer and at times with "The Ghosts" (RIP) and "The Hawks" (RIP). At one point we were asked to come on board for a trial. The Hawks were very much based in HRTA, and afaik all the original members were all HRTA homebirds.

HRTA was very accommodating to the team allowing training sessions and private invitational matches and the likes. And as we became more attuned to milsim style of play, HRTA was also accommodating in allowing people to be innovative and creative to run their style of games and play milsim.

Now I don't remember exactly when it happened or how it happened, but there came a point where HRTA and a few lads on the team had a bit of a falling out, and it wasn't a light one. There was some serious threats levelled and some serious allegations. I'll let them go into it if they want. But it was serious enough to draw a meeting of the group, where a decision was to be made. And as a group we decided in support of the lads, that we would not attend the site as regularly as before. In saying that we still went and we still played the odd time, but our interested drifted away. And to be frank the team in general then hit the decline.

That's the short and sweet of it. There was always this impression that we like boycotted the site up in arms and did this and that. We simply had a chat, decided that we didn't agree with the stuff they were getting accused off and we would just play elsewhere. No mega fuss no big deal. It only became something when others started making a big deal out of it.

I think it was the lads having run ins whilst on the IAA commitee, which also why it tends to come up into conversation when HRTA is mentioned, as the site went from a very pro supporter into a disruptive anti supporter or something along those lines.

I just wanted to write the above, as there was always a horrible misconception of why certain members of our group stopped playing there. And in fairness, some of the guys disagreed, they said they wanted to stick playing there and it was fine, and really after that point is probably when we we started to slowly drift towards disbanding.

And when I mention HRTA above most people know I mean Paul, and the assistance he had throughout his time running the site with Mel and other volunteers and marshalls. And I have very fond memories of the site. And for as much as Paul has let himself down with some very inaccurate public remarks over the last few years, I'd be lying if I said that as a player I wasn't appreciative of the effort he put into site and trying to allow a milsim environment to grow, the support he'd provide as a site owner when there was issues with batteries or guns, for being a good host and providing me my entrance into the game and a place to play and meet the lads every weekend. And jokes aside, for being an advocate of welcoming younger players, who are the future, rather then scorn them for being too young to play, and also for being very accommodating when financialy gaming wasn't viable.

I never got involved deeply in the back and forth that caused this deep rooted un trust, and in a way seeing some of the public remarks from Paul did put me off playing there. But I have no problem in saying I am and will be fully appreciative of Pauls efforts whilst running HRTA for the years I played there and there is many a time where I wish I could go back to that time when the game was honourable, fun, and we hadn't gotten involved in the politics, and I'm sure maybe somewhere deep down the other lads feel the same too.





But in its simpliest form, for a game played across the country, its simply just wrong to have people getting nominated and picked from the same site, who are mates.

I've no problem where you play, or who you are mates with. But when the forum needs transparency, and re-installment of trust and integrity, we need fresh outlooks a new viewpoint, not another guy from the same group of people. Now I'm sorry that is tarring you with the one brush.

But the minute you posted about the IAA auditing of threads or something, it was very clear that at some point you had a chat with Andy G and probably Ozcam and some others be it through PM, email or whilst onsite together, and had a discussion about how Andy would open a thread, and you would ask that question.

Lads we are knocking about the internet a long time, you couldnt have made it more blatant what you were trying to do in that thread, so in from that point ( and I dont know if I've actually ever met you) straight away I determined

• Hes in with Andy and the lads
• Hes anti-IAA
• Hes going to be hassle

Week or two later your a mod...see what I'm getting at?

fayer wrote: »

This was my position since my first post here. I do not believe this is the medium for people to ask the IAA questions in lieu of direct contact, by all means directly flag issues once you are perpaired to engage directly with the association to also alert them and give them the time to respond.

Agreed but since the current committee have closed their site, what other avenue is open to airsofters.

I am not on a team. My former team and friends, and former IAA committee members have been repeatedly accused of outrageous illegal actions by members of the community that frequent a certain site. Aggregation's I have heard repeated by others that visited the site, so it is in no stretch of the imagination that the mods here, being players and regulars have heard / believe this BS.

(sorry for short reply, in a meeting)

You are taking quite a leap of imagination that people are not able to make their own minds up about situations. I hear a lot of things to do with airsoft and the players, but I try to find out what the truth is before I make my mind up. So please do not tar me with any brush as you know nothing about me except I played at HRTA when it was open.

I always keep an open mind when I hear rumours and innuendo until I can put more substance on it. Maybe it suits you and your friends to pidgeonhole the Mods as the big bad boys in the playground but you do us and yourselves a huge disservice.

http://irishairsoft.ie/

Alive and kicking, where did this rumour come from that the site was closed, your like the 5th person I've heard say it