UK 911 Forum - Editorial & moderation team

[TonyGosling]

For the last ten weeks or more this forum has been hanging on the edge of being non-functional. The administrators have allowed us to become victims of our own success by failing to act effectively on increasing demands on this site and ignoring the increase in error messages that have now reached an intolerable level - driving many key activists off the site. One disaster in amongst all this was a decision 3-4 weeks ago to block all guests and search engines from viewing the site which was entirely counter productive.

If there is another false flag attack or related fake terror incident before this situation is sorted please use my own forum to discuss it as this place may well be entirely inaccessible.

False flag and fake terror attacks - realtime discussions
http://www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/viewforum.php?f=18

After increasingly urgent complaints a consensus has been achieved to move this UK 911 forum out of the USA (at last, because over there the NSA can legally read all our Private Messages etc.) to Greennet. This was scheduled to happen over the weekend of 29th and 30th September 2007 but didn't. It is clear to me that users of the forum, and the UK 911 Truth Campaign as a whole deserve a better service from the management team and should have regular reports as to what is happening until this situation is sorted.

This thread is an attempt to bring together past threads on the issue and as a place to come, if you can get a page to work that is, to find out what the admins are doing to get our community back up and running.

As I write this I am having to refresh pages 50 times and more on occasions to even read this forum.

The following topics and threads contain most of the oft repeated complaints and discussions which have taken place since July 2007 about the non-functionality. That situation has still, as of Monday 1st October 2007, not been sorted out by this forum's managers.

ADJ Resigning from 911COUK
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=90257#90257

The slow strangulation of this forum
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=11417

Forum performance - like a slug
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=5240

Forum Error Messages
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=10394

[ Poll ] This Forum
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=10843

No log on-no see?
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=11133

Site and something I'm starting to do
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=10709

It is not broken........
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=11511

[TonyGosling]

Just spoke to Ian Neal on the phone.

Latest is that Greennet didn't get the passwords to Ian on time last Friday so this changeover is being rescheduled.

Watch this space - but you may well have to click refresh fifty or more times to watch it!!! ;-(

[Thermate911]

Is this greennet.com or greennet.org (the latter belonging to the 'allegedly' CIA-funded Korean Youth Movement)?!

If the former, merely moving from Arizona to Massachusetts doesn't seem sufficiently radical to me in the present climate of cyber-FUD...

Sure, it's gotta be Peoples Net greennet.co.uk ...

But which 'Sam Rosen' is this...?

"Oh, What a Tangled Web We Weave When First We Practice to Deceive"

----

Re: the shutting down of nineeleven.co.uk to identify who was 'logged in' the other week seems to me the only way bots could be identified, without having full server access - a pain maybe but necessary, IMO
.

[ian neal]

It is this greennet

http://www.gn.apc.org/

Unrelated to www.greennet.org

Transfer due to take place over the weekend. Forum probably down saturday and Sunday. Will keep you posted

[iro]

holy * - those prices and what you get for them is a total rip off

ok, american hosting has its cons, but if you have really moved for the sake of privacy and patriot act nonsense then its a waste of money. There is just as much chance of being snooped on in the uk isps and hosts as in the states - where you could host this forum at rock solid speed for less than a ton a year.

[Thermate911]

Iro, the fact that there is just as much chance of snooping is moot, as APC is hosted in California, home to a strangely influential (well, strange if you don't accept the Idaho Observer's findings on Scherf(f) nazi offspring but equally home to some of the most progressive and determined people in the west.

I had hoped this BBS might have found its way to Sealand or Sweden but cost is certainly a factor in a tight-knit organisation. Perhaps a more general whip-round would have produced a different result.

Thanks for the notice, Ian. I hope this doesn't end up being a cyclical pattern as the 'Association for Progressive Communications' has a very similar ring to it as 'National Endowment for Democracy' & 'American Free Press'.

Perhaps I'm just biased against Anglo-Saxons and their ongoing propensity for distorting the aims of anyone who stands in their way... {;-/
.

[TonyGosling]

We had a meeting yesterday all about this issue attended by Annie, Belinda, Ian Neal and Noel.

Ian has decided, with Noel, Annie and Belinda's support that John and I should be able to actively promote threads into a new 'headline' section. I have reluctanly accepted this without agreeing to it.

I explained to Ian that it will not work and will kill the topicality of the site but haven't had any reply to that.

I have been asked if I want to be campaign press officer but without a user led forum to point journalists to I won't and indeed can't do that.

Ian announced that the site is not going to greennet but another host.

And I still haven't seen Justin's post about another false flag attack that mey be coming up in the near future PLEASE Justin repost it

In the meantime I will try to do so.

nb. John White couldn't afford the train fare to London to get to the meeting so I couldn't represent him in any meaningful way, Mick wasn't represented either.

[Mick Meaney]

[TonyGosling]

No Mick,

There was no mention of them in our three hours or so of discussions.

Ian Neal was duty bound to share your suggestions and I can't imagine why he didn't. You were mentioned by Ian but only in the context of it would have been nice if you could have made it. I wonder if your suggestions arrived too late for Ian to see them??

I, for one, would have been interested to hear anything you suggested.

[ian neal]

We held a meeting on Saturday with Annie, Belinda, Fran, Noel and Tony present. The purpose of the meeting is explained below.

Here is my reply to your text Tony that you sent a mere 2 hours after I thought we had reached an agreement. I sent it by email on Saturday.

We could also revisit all the discussions on the technical side to explain why it has taken so long to find a solution but suffice to say that by going down the route of your suggested solution (using greenet) resulted in a 2 weeks delay and me losing some of the money paid.

As I explain below and in my future for the forum posts, I believe that many of our problems have arisen from a lack of clear responsibility and accountability and the solution is that responsibility for different functions should rest with one person and that that person should in turn be accountable to the most representative group we have: the national committee.

If I were not involved I would read your posts and think I am imposing my solutions without any consultation or opportunity for you to shape things. You know that's not true. I consulted widely before putting forward my proposal including discussing these issues with you, John and Mick. You have had plenty of opportunity to present alternative proposals. One thing that is unacceptible is editting the posts of others without their consent or confusing 'editting' with moderating.

As for the press role, what I have said is just like this proposed 'editorial role', the campaign is looking for someone to take on responsibility and accountability for co-ordinating a team to take on the press function and what I invited you to do is to think about whether this press office co-ordinator role interests you and if so to set out how you saw it working. This proposal would then go to the co-chairs and then committee for consideration. I'm tired to repeatedly explain how decisions are made and for you then to present things as if decisions are made unilaterally by me, which is not the case.

Oh and by the way if the people you have had 'initial chats' with want to post here or phone me to let me know their ideas they can of course do so.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------

Hi Tony

received this text earlier this evening after this pm.

"Initial chats suggest no one wants fudged ed. role Users won't be able
to post news to front page any more. Worse than present and will kill
site topicality you see"

To which my reply is

Please read my email below of 3 days ago setting out what I saw as the
purpose of today's meeting

In particular see

"........So when we last discussed this on the phone I suggested that in
the same way peace keeping/moderation on the forum needs to be
accountable through one person to the committee so this 'editorship' of
the front page should be accountable through one person to the committee
and I suggested this person could and probably should be you. That's not
to say that you would do this role alone, but you would be accepting
responsibility for its co-ordination.

This way you would work with whoever you wish including John. However
whilst we are both agreed that the front page can better communicate
what 9/11 truth and the bigger picture is all about, the only way this
will work is if this function and the person responsible for it
implementation is accountable to the committee and key
activists.........

I see the purpose of saturday is to discuss what your vision is for the
front page and how you (and others, as long as everyone knows one person
is accepting overall responsibility) would implement it and how this
function / responsibility works with and is accountable to the
committee?"

My suggested solution is set out in my posts on the thread future of the
forum. Namely a headlines section on the forum which feeds into the
front page under headlines and you as editor can authorise anyone you
want to post threads and content into the headlines section.

So when you say users can't post news to the front page this is false.
As 'editor' you can determine who posts in the section including all
users. What you can't do is remove content from the section. If you find
a thread in the headlines section that you didn't want to see then it
means you have authorised the 'wrong' people to post there. You need to
find a system based on selecting the 'best' content and not removing the
'worst'.

You need to think of this as your opportunity to propose what the front
page looks like and how the content gets there. You need to use your
imagination. For example it is possible that the headlines section is
like say the moderators group in the private forum. Only authorised
people are allowed to post there or alternatively only authorised people
can start threads there but then all users can post in these threads.
Honestly the possibilities are endless. As editor, you would control who
posts content in this area so don't complain if you don't like what
appears in this area because you would be the one controlling who can
post there.

So I can only assume that these 'initial chats' suggesting 'no-one'
wants what is being proposed is based on your misunderstanding or
miscommunicating what is being offered. What my proposals suggests is an
editorial role accountable to the committee responsible for proposing
the look of the front page including as a first step the ability to
control who posts into a section on the forum called headlines which you
as editor would control. If you can't see that this is basically 99% of
what you have been asking for then I despair.

The other thing that needs restating is that this 'editor' role only
works if there is the clear and absolute split between the editor's
right to control who posts content in the headlines section and the rest
of the forum.

We go round in circles. I loose count of the number of times I have
stated and we have agreed that content cannot be editted without the
users consent. Within the headlines section this would be a given since
only users that you had authorised would be allowed to post there so
there should be no need for any editting. Whilst outside the headlines
section if they agree to your 'editorial prompting' by way of PM, users
can edit their own posts.

So basically that is what is on offer. If you don't like it then the
ball is in your court to propose a better solution that we as committee
co-chairs can understand and consider. But make it a good one cause I'm
tired of having the same old discussions, thinking we are agreed and
then it seems we are not.

Ian

Wednesday's email

Hi Tony

I realise you are frustrated. Hopefully we will have the technical
problems sorted over the weekend.

I finally received the passwords by post from greennet today and passed
them to Jim. Jim hopes to be free on sunday to make the move. Assuming
Simon is available to make the dns(?) transfer we should hopefully have
a fully functioning site by Monday.

With regards Saturday this is what I think we should focus on.

Find common ground. Either agree to the suggestions I make here

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=11280

or you should make alternative proposals to be discussed. That said I
believe we are broadly agreed on much including:

1) I accept responsibility for 'peace keeping' the forum

2) The forum needs to be accountable to the 9/11 truth movement in this
country and the most representative group is the committee

3) The front page and specifically the way it highlights the most
newsworthy content and attracts in new readers can and should be
improved

Improving the front page. Highlighting content from the forum. This is
the area that most interests you, I believe.

So when we last discussed this on the phone I suggested that in the same
way peace keeping/moderation on the forum needs to be accountable
through one person to the committee so this 'editorship' of the front
page should be accountable through one person to the committee and I
suggested this person could and probably should be you. That's not to
say that you would do this role alone, but you would be accepting
responsibility for its co-ordination.

This way you would work with whoever you wish including John. However
whilst we are both agreed that the front page can better communicate
what 9/11 truth and the bigger picture is all about, the only way this
will work is if this function and the person responsible for it
implementation is accountable to the committee and key activists.

Originally it was suggested these ideas would be discussed at the
forthcoming national committee meeting on Nov 3, but recognising that if
possible this should be discussed and resolved before then and then a
clear proposal can be put to the meeting, it was suggested to meet on
saturday.

That's is not to say this can't be implemented asap. The best way the
committee / users can see what you have in mind is to see it in action
and so technical support willing I see no reason to delay this.

I see the purpose of saturday is to discuss what your vision is for the
front page and how you (and others, as long as everyone knows one person is accepting overall responsibility) would implement it and how this
function / responsibility works with and is accountable to the committee?

Hopefully this can be a model for other functions and projects. I'm
accutely aware that we have yet to make best use of other peoples'
skills such as Meg's.

We need to improve our internal communication. To allow the committee
and other invited parties to discuss and function properly. To keep
local groups informed and involved. We need a functioning community
platform / private forum such as meg has proposed and developed. we need a newsletter such as Noel and co is working on.

We need to improve external communications. Make connections and
alliances with other campaigns and key campaigners. Improve our press
work both working with sympathetic journalists and challenging the
gatekeepers. We need a press office.

We know we need these things. We know we need to work as teams. We know these functions need to be accountable to the wider campaign/movement.

The only way I can see we are going create this is if we define the
functions the campaign needs and then call for people to step forward
and accept responsibility for delivering on a particular function. How
they deliver and who they draw around them in order to deliver (the
team) is less important as long as the person responsible for a
particular function does deliver and provided we are clear what these
functions are, that one person is responsible for that function and all
major decisions are run by/agreed with the co-chairs/chair and that in
turn the committee/representataives of the local groups is both informed
of major decsions and feels able to challenge those decsions and if
necessary challenge the wisdom and authority of the co-chairs/chair.

If we get this decision making in place we would go along way towards
creating a functioning and accountable campaign. Once we are functioning
and everyone is clear who and how decsions are made, then we can be
serious about being professional. I'm frustrated by our sometimes slow
progress but I sincerely believe we are making progress. At the end of
the day we should all know that 'we will win'. Humanity, peace, love,
truth and freedom will triumph and that will happen regardless of
whether we as a campaign exist. We are part of a much bigger movement, a very important part but not an essential part.

On all of this, we should not feel heavy ownership or attachment to any
one function or even group/organisation. The person who is best suited
to lead on 'press and media' or events or to represent the campaign now
at this stage in our growth will not be the most appropriate person when
the truth movement reaches critical mass. If the campaign were to
collapse or fall into the hands of darkness, something just as powerful
would grow to fill the space

Anyway enough. The website will get sorted. You need to think what you
want to propose on Saturday and we will discuss it further then.
Assuming it is broadly in line with what we have previously discussed I
will support it, but recognise that under what I propose it is not just
my decision.

Best wishes

Ian

[ian neal]