IAA Discussion - ground rules. Feedback wanted.

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

http://www.irishairsoft.ie/forum/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=926

fayer wrote: »

Did you try email? its been long policy here that boards is not the place to ask questions to the IAA, it was when I was on the committee.

E mailed a few week ago ..... Nothing

Where did you come up with the question re audited accounts??? What happened that made you wonder about audited accounts?

I was making enquiries about another sports national body and was sent their last years report which included accounts approved by a recognised firm of auditors.......... when I looked for the same for the IAA, I got nothing. Hence the enquiry here. Extremely surprised at the response and how it became so personal........

My question still stands if anyone reading this has the information..

The site is closed to new people registering.

Pity.......I wonder what they are doing? For a National Governing Body the are being very secretive!!

Dogwatch wrote: »

E mailed a few week ago ..... Nothing





I was making enquiries about another sports national body and was sent their last years report which included accounts approved by a recognised firm of auditors.......... when I looked for the same for the IAA, I got nothing. Hence the enquiry here. Extremely surprised at the response and how it became so personal........

My question still stands if anyone reading this has the information..






Pity.......I wonder what they are doing? For a National Governing Body the are being very secretive!!

Suspicions arise as it was the same incorrect mantra being touted by another of the HRTA regulars and a loud critic of the association committees. Tommyboy can speak with more weight on the reasons why, but the formation of the IAA dose not require such auditing.

The timing of your post, its off topic nature, its subject, and its exact match to a line being put forward by someone from "the site" make me think twice about its origon. This is reinforced by the fact discussion around the audit requirements was had in the AGM in AOB, a discussion topic that is not recorded in the minutes and a meeting you were not at.

Coincidence you come up with a subject like this, in a thread opened by another HRTA player / marshal, that was only touted by a 3rd member of this site.

It all stinks in my eyes, I say it yet again for the 3rd or 4th time, the fact this suspicion even arrises says enough.

I'l draw a line under this now, cannot see anything changing as usual, I've said my 2c. There is another forum now available for mature discussion of Irish Airsoft, shame this place get the majority of new players when the experience is walking away.

TheDoc wrote: »

...at some point you had a chat with Andy G and probably Ozcam...

Nothing to do with me, pal. Don't know, don't care.