Wow I do not know what to think!

[Rapid_Roy]

Thanks, Steve.

I think the basic point I'm trying to make is that this is a motorcycle club. There are better places to talk politics on the internet, but none better to discuss BMW motorcycles, BMW people and BMW rallies and events.

I agree. That really doesn't explain campfire or the Photography section, but the forum would be less without those things.

While it might be enticing to run a political forum, the inherent divisiveness, particularly in today's highly charged climate, that comes from such discussions is at odds with what we're trying to achieve as a club. Remember that I was an advocate of DGT until it was taken over by a vocal few and started consuming more and more of the moderators' time and resources.

I don't think it's realistic to expect this forum to be all things to all people, particularly with regard to politics.

I agree, not only the vocal few in DGT, but the silent many that complained, prove that. People will not change, the HD bashing threads here prove that also.
Taken over, implies they somehow kept out others who may have disagreed.
I didn't see that to be the case. I'll bring up the point again, that at the National, some guy went out of his way to report us for making noise 15 minutes after the band stopped, when all he had to do was ask us to be quiet, we really had no idea we were being loud. His manner of dealing with the situation was crap, IMO.
Should I have went over to security and reported him when he started his bike at 5 am for breakfast, or just dealt with it in a mature fashion. There are many people in this Club that expect their every whim to be catered to, and I find that ridiculous. The fee we pay gets us some nice perks and keeps the club going. People need to keep a sense of perspective, and realize their importance in the club is no more than anybody else's, IMO. In a group this large, there will always be conflict, even though we all love our Beemers.

More importantly, though, I'm concerned that the attitudes and behaviors shown on this forum have had an effect on this club's ability to attract leadership. At least four people declined nomination after viewing the forum over the last couple of months. The question we need to ask is at what point does behavior on the forum by a small and vocal few affect the larger membership's ability to have an effectively lead organization?

This situation troubles me deeply. If we have leadership that feel that their considerable volunteer commitments seem to include being publicly drawn and quartered at every opportunity, how successful will we be in bringing in visionaries and their ideas?

I see what you are saying, and like it or not, these people paid for memberships.
I was taken aback at the amount of complaining about National sites, and many other things I thought were even less important. This forum exposes many aspects of our members we do not see at a rally. I have looked past that at the things that do unite us, there will always be a vocal few, that is the nature of people. Trying to please all the people all the time is an impossible goal. I really have no easy idea for addressing your concerns, as it relates to human nature.

Yes, I realize that ideas come from the membership. I was a part of getting this forum going and have been one of its strongest, long time proponents. But when ideas come in through the front window tied to a brick, I think we can all agree that rational discussion doesn't usually follow such a proposal.

We're trying to get to less brick throwing without squashing the ability for ideas to shine through. And getting there requires limits that are set and enforced by the mod team. I think they're doing a great job.

I think that some folks, unsure that they're going to be heard, just reach in the toolbox for the biggest hammer they've got as their first resource. I don't know why that is. Maybe they want to make a big splash. Maybe they want to start something. Maybe they just simply lack the written skills to write something more coherent and reasoned.

If you've got ideas, I'm not hard to find. Send me a note. Send one of the committee chairs a note. Send someone on the board a note. Call them. All the contact information that any member needs to reach out to just about anyone involved in the operation and governance of the club is listed in the front of ON or on this site.

I agree. We can't change the basic nature of people however, and there will always be conflict here.

And lets face it. How many of us propose great ideas by tying them to a brick and chucking them through the bosses window and expect to be taken seriously?

That is true. The problem here is that we pay money to belong here, we are not paid to be here. Technically, nobody is our "Boss", rather, we are the BMWMOA customers, and should be considered equals.
Is there some reason others higher up in the ranks are our betters? Let us say we are not customers, but members of a Club. Is there any fair reason some members should have more influence than others? I have to say if that were the case, I could see not renewing my membership, as I thought I had an equal voice.

 

[kbasa]

That is true. The problem here is that we pay money to belong here, we are not paid to be here. Technically, nobody is our "Boss", rather, we are the BMWMOA customers, and should be considered equals.
Is there some reason others higher up in the ranks are our betters? Let us say we are not customers, but members of a Club. Is there any fair reason some members should have more influence than others? I have to say if that were the case, I could see not renewing my membership, as I thought I had an equal voice.

I thought for quite a while before I included the "boss" metaphor, but included it for lack of a better example. Indeed, we are all equivalently members, but some of us have some level of leadership in the organization. It doesn't necessarily mean me, but anybody that volunteers to run some aspect of our club. It could be the guy that's checking wristbands at the rally, the forum liaison or a director.

Having worked with the board of directors for a couple years, it's evident that these people that volunteer their time, money and expertise view themselves as members first and officers/directors or employees second. When something is proposed, the first question, foremost in everyone's mind is "how will this affect the membership?"

But regardless of the organization, it can't be anarchy. Someone has to be "in charge" and keep the train moving down the tracks. Those people are naturally going to have some level of power and control that other members don't. Even at the wristband checking level, that member has the ability to deny or allow admission to a club member.

I think that can be logically extended to the whole DGT situation. Right now, we've got, I don't know, a dozen or so members trying to impose their will on the forum. Well, that's fine, but given that we're talking about a very small number of members, does it make sense for the organization to bend to their will? If we had a hundred, or even 50 members working to get something going, I'd think that DGT might actually represent the interests of a large group.

The photography forum comes up frequently in combination with the DGT discussion. I just took a look at the Free Association thread over there and they've had 52 members post in that single thread. I think there's a demonstrated desire on the part of members to have that around. For years, the MOA used to run a photo column almost every month in ON. So, I think there's a history there and a bonafide desire for a photography forum.

I don't get that sense for DGT. It felt to me like a small playground, used by a dozen or so members, but requiring extensive moderation time to keep on the tracks. Now, if the DGT folks can come up with a reasonable set of rules and a proposal that makes some sense (i.e. addresses moderation, methods to keep topics on course, eliminate trolling, etc.), I'd be happy to be part of that discussion.

I hope this makes some sense.

And I still think that if you want to discuss politics, CSM does it better than anybody on the 'net. But come back here to talk about BMWs and BMW people, k?

 

[rocketman]

To add to KbasaÔÇÖs statements I have to say that I have heard many times in these discussions people claiming that the leadership, in what ever role, are not listening to the members, etc. Yet if that were indeed the case, how is it that DGT ever came to be? Was that not a direct response to the desires expressed by members, regardless of the numbers? The fact that it didnÔÇÖt work for any number of reasons does not negate that fact, lets not forget that as we go down this road. And again it was clearly stated that is was an experiment with no guarantee it would stay around, and that was made quite clear from the start yet that very freedom desired was, quite frankly, abused. Posters still had an obligation to follow certain rules which unfortunately were pushed beyond the limits on too many occasions.

Again I think it would be best to put this topic to bed, at least until some time down the road when we all have had time to reflect.

RM

 

[Rapid_Roy]

...
I hope this makes some sense.

And I still think that if you want to discuss politics, CSM does it better than anybody on the 'net. But come back here to talk about BMWs and BMW people, k?

Yes, it does. To be fair, the guys at C,S, and M are much more rude then anything I encountered here, but it is against this forum's policy.
Fair enough.

 

[From MARS]

To add to KbasaÔÇÖs statements I have to say that I have heard many times in these discussions people claiming that the leadership, in what ever role, are not listening to the members, etc. Yet if that were indeed the case, how is it that DGT ever came to be? Was that not a direct response to the desires expressed by members, regardless of the numbers? The fact that it didnÔÇÖt work for any number of reasons does not negate that fact, lets not forget that as we go down this road. And again it was clearly stated that is was an experiment with no guarantee it would stay around, and that was made quite clear from the start yet that very freedom desired was, quite frankly, abused. Posters still had an obligation to follow certain rules which unfortunately were pushed beyond the limits on too many occasions.

Again I think it would be best to put this topic to bed, at least until some time down the road when we all have had time to reflect.

RM

Having taken the time to reflect on what went wrong in DGT, I have come to this conclusion: DGT was doomed from the start!

Dgt was created out of the need and desire to clear the rest of the forum of undesirable topics. As such, it became a dumping ground for any thread that had any hint of controversy. It was not a place where the participants chose the topics. Case in point; the animal cruelty thread. None of the DGT regulars started that thread. It was sent to DGT by the mods. Now, if I were browsing through the threads in DGT and came across that one, I would be taken aback as well.

What is needed is a conversation area where those that wish may come in and take a seat at the table and join, or start, a conversation. Maybe it gets called "Tavern on the Screen", and people treat it more like a pub than a dump. Like all pubs, we have a door that one must walk thru in order to see what is happening inside. Patrons can be "carded" in pubs and rules of behavior can be established by the management and the patrons. This would be the case in TOTS. Access would be limited to card carrying members who have signed off on the rules of conduct. And, if a fight does break out, as has been known to happen from time to time in pubs, the combatants get dealt with in a fair and impartial manner based on the stated rules. We don't close the pub.

That's what my reflection on this situation has revealed and inspired.

Does anyone have any more ideas?

Tom

 

[belquar]

Having taken the time to reflect on what went wrong in DGT, I have come to this conclusion: DGT was doomed from the start!

Dgt was created out of the need and desire to clear the rest of the forum of undesirable topics. As such, it became a dumping ground for any thread that had any hint of controversy. It was not a place where the participants chose the topics. Case in point; the animal cruelty thread. None of the DGT regulars started that thread. It was sent to DGT by the mods. Now, if I were browsing through the threads in DGT and came across that one, I would be taken aback as well.

What is needed is a conversation area where those that wish may come in and take a seat at the table and join, or start, a conversation. Maybe it gets called "Tavern on the Screen", and people treat it more like a pub than a dump. Like all pubs, we have a door that one must walk thru in order to see what is happening inside. Patrons can be "carded" in pubs and rules of behavior can be established by the management and the patrons. This would be the case in TOTS. Access would be limited to card carrying members who have signed off on the rules of conduct. And, if a fight does break out, as has been known to happen from time to time in pubs, the combatants get dealt with in a fair and impartial manner based on the stated rules. We don't close the pub.

That's what my reflection on this situation has revealed and inspired.

Does anyone have any more ideas?

Tom

For the record...I don't really care one way or another if DGT comes back. I didn't go there much cause politics are boring.

But...in reflecting on the situation...There are only two threads in the DH from DGT. The one where Randy called out Josh and the Hitler/democrat thread. Right below that though are three threads that originated before DGT was created that one member started and was banned for. Understand that it has been said that DGT was a drain on the mods but not much got moderated when you look at the doghouse. So how bad was it? If it didn't violate forum policy to merit the doghouse then how bad was it really?

Just something I noticed. I am not in one camp or the other but do think that the whole situation just got personal between a few and has escalated into what it is today.

Just sayin.

 

[Rapid_Roy]

To me, the reason, it was removed, and many people have made veiled references, was because it was mostly one members posts, which especially espoused a conservative viewpoint. Many other reasons were given, but they ring false in my ears. People were even pissed at the titles, what other main reason could there be?

I resent the fact that, by association, I

1.)created a hostile environment for women (please tell me whom and where, I would like to know when I was not being a gentlemen)
2.) I was combatative (I don't recall ever being so)
3.)was trolling. (the only way the comments there would have gotten somebody going was if the considered themselves a liberal or a Democrat.) Then I can see exactly why they would have been offended, and which comments. Yet nobody stated that as a reason.
I feel I am none of things, but it was implied that posters there created such an environment. Let us just call a spade a spade.

The moderators were overwhelmed with these complaints, but I still feel people were mostly pissed off at the comments made by conservative members, as it went against their political opinion. This is the BMWMOA's forum, not mine, and I understand completely. I can see at least 49% of the people here happy that DGT is gone, and that is enough for me.

It is a dead horse.

 

[rocketman]

To me, the reason, it was removed, and many people have made veiled references, was because it was mostly one members posts, which especially espoused a conservative viewpoint. Many other reasons were given, but they ring false in my ears. People were even pissed at the titles, what other main reason could there be?

I resent the fact that, by association, I

1.)created a hostile environment for women (please tell me whom and where, I would like to know when I was not being a gentlemen)
2.) I was combatative (I don't recall ever being so)
3.)was trolling. (the only way the comments there would have gotten somebody going was if the considered themselves a liberal or a Democrat.) Then I can see exactly why they would have been offended, and which comments. Yet nobody stated that as a reason.
I feel I am none of things, but it was implied that posters there created such an environment. Let us just call a spade a spade.

The moderators were overwhelmed with these complaints, but I still feel people were mostly pissed off at the comments made by conservative members, as it went against their political opinion. This is the BMWMOA's forum, not mine, and I understand completely. I can see at least 49% of the people here happy that DGT is gone, and that is enough for me.

It is a dead horse.

Speaking for myself it was not so much the topics or view it was the manor in which those views were expressed, and I think the "brick throwing" analogy is valid and what upset a number of others. I remember listening to the debate class in high school a number of times as an audience participant ( we were tasked with determining how valid we found each debaters arguments, regardless of our personal views on the subject at hand ) and whenever someone started throwing insulting remarks or other such tactics they were immediately corrected or removed from the stage. Bottom line, thru my participation in that I gained a certain ability to view things within in their own context and learned that there's clearly a right way and a wrong way to express your views esp., if you want people to take them seriously. Based on that experience I have to say again its really pretty simple. And yes, its sad that a few posters who could not resist the urge to use such tactics ruined its chances for any success and in so doing for everyone else. It set a bad president. (I hope that's the word I want )

RM

 

[rocketman]

It is a dead horse.

Oh and speaking of dead horses, we ate quite a bit of it in Europe, and I can say emphatically, I like mine cooked not beaten!

RM

 

[tessler]

To me, the reason, it was removed, and many people have made veiled references, was because it was mostly one members posts, which especially espoused a conservative viewpoint. Many other reasons were given, but they ring false in my ears. People were even pissed at the titles, what other main reason could there be?

I resent the fact that, by association, I

1.)created a hostile environment for women (please tell me whom and where, I would like to know when I was not being a gentlemen)
2.) I was combatative (I don't recall ever being so)
3.)was trolling. (the only way the comments there would have gotten somebody going was if the considered themselves a liberal or a Democrat.) Then I can see exactly why they would have been offended, and which comments. Yet nobody stated that as a reason.
I feel I am none of things, but it was implied that posters there created such an environment. Let us just call a spade a spade.

The moderators were overwhelmed with these complaints, but I still feel people were mostly pissed off at the comments made by conservative members, as it went against their political opinion. This is the BMWMOA's forum, not mine, and I understand completely. I can see at least 49% of the people here happy that DGT is gone, and that is enough for me.

It is a dead horse.

I agree with you but if we really want to call a spade a spade, we needn't be euphemistic about it being simply one member posts espousing a conservative viewpoint. The so-called conservative viewpoint was dominated by a sole sanctimonious voice that spoke in real, unflinching tones of intolerance and loathing that polarized a good deal of the membership.

How many women or minorities within our membership do you recall using DGT?

 

[Rapid_Roy]

......
How many women or minorities within our membership do you recall using DGT?

None. It was apparently hostile to women, although I still have no idea why. I agree though, this group should definitely not talk about politics.
It was a major failed attempt.

What is interesting, I had Free Tibet in my sig line all day yesterday, and not a complaint. There was a picture posted in the Nothing thread of the White House captioned "Nothing going on here." I don't recall a big ruckus about it being asked to be removed. I can only assume that nobody felt outraged felt outraged enough to report the post or poster.(BTW, I thought it was hilarious)

Now I have a mod calling me irrational because I liked to talk with other BMW riders in DGT, as Doug eloquently stated. I have no malice towards anybody here, and people's personal politics are way down on my list of how I perceive them, so.....it's done and I am willing to move on.

I want to ride, I am sick of Winter.

 

[tessler]

None. It was apparently hostile to women, although I still have no idea why.

Dude, it was HOSTILE period.

To everyone.

Come on, get with it. Over on the Yahoo DGT thread there is a melodramatic revenge plot afoot (cue silent-movie organ tremolos here ).

I suggest we all jump ship and go over there to where the real action is

 

[Rapid_Roy]

Yes, and we are being mocked for doing what we were told to do.
There is just no pleasing some people.
FWIW, I didn't agree with everything that was said there, just like on the rest of the forum. Whatya gonna do?

Like I said, I am over it.

 

[redclfco]

Over on the Yahoo DGT thread there is a melodramatic revenge plot afoot (cue silent-movie organ tremolos here ).

Revenge of the binary bits...I see a movie title coming here....


DGT
vast armys of zeros fighting with floatillas of ones

Moderators running in panic screaming "don't go there, ieeeee!"

this has appeal, sort of a movie about nothing.....

starring Larry David in full ATGATT

 

[Rapid_Roy]

Revenge of the binary bits...I see a movie title coming here....


DGT
vast armys of zeros fighting with floatillas of ones

Moderators running in panic screaming "don't go there, ieeeee!"

this has appeal, sort of a movie about nothing.....

starring Larry David in full ATGATT

Ok mister, no more drinking with the painkillers.

 

[JCABRANES]

How many women or minorities within our membership do you recall using DGT?

At least one. Me.

 

[franze]

Having taken the time to reflect on what went wrong in DGT, I have come to this conclusion: DGT was doomed from the start!

Dgt was created out of the need and desire to clear the rest of the forum of undesirable topics. As such, it became a dumping ground for any thread that had any hint of controversy. It was not a place where the participants chose the topics. Case in point; the animal cruelty thread. None of the DGT regulars started that thread. It was sent to DGT by the mods. Now, if I were browsing through the threads in DGT and came across that one, I would be taken aback as well.

What is needed is a conversation area where those that wish may come in and take a seat at the table and join, or start, a conversation. Maybe it gets called "Tavern on the Screen", and people treat it more like a pub than a dump. Like all pubs, we have a door that one must walk thru in order to see what is happening inside. Patrons can be "carded" in pubs and rules of behavior can be established by the management and the patrons. This would be the case in TOTS. Access would be limited to card carrying members who have signed off on the rules of conduct. And, if a fight does break out, as has been known to happen from time to time in pubs, the combatants get dealt with in a fair and impartial manner based on the stated rules. We don't close the pub.

That's what my reflection on this situation has revealed and inspired.

Does anyone have any more ideas?

Tom

I like the ideal of a virtual pub. I can see it now........... virtual pub, and then ride???...NEVER. I will throw out my two centimes.

1. We should not be publicly critical of the mods who volunteer, this includes name calling. They are humans, have feelings, and make mistakes just like everyone else. A few times when I had questions regarding content; I PM"d the mod and received a prompt answer.

2. Obviously there was a certain number of people that read the DGT threads and I believe if you check out the hits, it was more popular than at least half of the BMW only threads, so, is this a club JUST for BMW's or for the various interests of BMW riders? If your intention is to grow the club, it makes sense to grow the appeal which, in turn, would be supported by new forums, such a photography. Two areas that I think would really help, especially with younger riders would be an "off road" forum and a " road race" forum. BMW is modifying their product line to entice younger riders ( enduro race bikes ) and I think it would be prudent for the forum to have a "home" for them.

3. The virtual Saloon is a great idea. Call it Tom's Pub. Make it a link to a site that has nothing to do with the BMW MOA site, and my advice to the mods is "Don't go There" Just like when you go in a pub, if it's not your scene, you leave and don't go back. If you like it, you return. I suppose it would take some supervision and what better job for Randy. I know there are other places on the web, but, if for example, I want to know what RocketMan thinks about "hookah's" I can PM him and say..... "yo, meet me at the pub......." Same as you do at work. You go out for a beer with your colleague and what you talk about there is greatly expanded AND TOLERATED than what you talk about in your work environment. You see, I would respect a BMW rider's point of view of a Glock verse a Sig but I don't think a thread about that would last for long under current forum guidelines. Even though I do know, from reading this forum, that one of the founding fathers likes handguns and that fact, would be something I'd like to discuss with him someday. Granted friendships may start on the forum, but they may grow if the topic range and guidelines are expanded.

4. I enjoy reading anyone's position on any topic, if it is well written.

I'll sign off with a twist to Bradford Ben's sig line:

"It's not what you think, it's if you think"

 

[rocketman]

I like the ideal of a virtual pub. I can see it now........... virtual pub, and then ride???...NEVER. I will throw out my two centimes.

1. We should not be publicly critical of the mods who volunteer, this includes name calling. They are humans, have feelings, and make mistakes just like everyone else. A few times when I had questions regarding content; I PM"d the mod and received a prompt answer.

2. Obviously there was a certain number of people that read the DGT threads and I believe if you check out the hits, it was more popular than at least half of the BMW only threads, so, is this a club JUST for BMW's or for the various interests of BMW riders? If your intention is to grow the club, it makes sense to grow the appeal which, in turn, would be supported by new forums, such a photography. Two areas that I think would really help, especially with younger riders would be an "off road" forum and a " road race" forum. BMW is modifying their product line to entice younger riders ( enduro race bikes ) and I think it would be prudent for the forum to have a "home" for them.

3. The virtual Saloon is a great idea. Call it Tom's Pub. Make it a link to a site that has nothing to do with the BMW MOA site, and my advice to the mods is "Don't go There" Just like when you go in a pub, if it's not your scene, you leave and don't go back. If you like it, you return. I suppose it would take some supervision and what better job for Randy. I know there are other places on the web, but, if for example, I want to know what RocketMan thinks about "hookah's" I can PM him and say..... "yo, meet me at the pub......." Same as you do at work. You go out for a beer with your colleague and what you talk about there is greatly expanded AND TOLERATED than what you talk about in your work environment. You see, I would respect a BMW rider's point of view of a Glock verse a Sig but I don't think a thread about that would last for long under current forum guidelines. Even though I do know, from reading this forum, that one of the founding fathers likes handguns and that fact, would be something I'd like to discuss with him someday. Granted friendships may start on the forum, but they may grow if the topic range and guidelines are expanded.

4. I enjoy reading anyone's position on any topic, if it is well written.

I'll sign off with a twist to Bradford Ben's sig line:

"It's not what you think, it's if you think"

Some interesting thoughts. Here is my response(s) to some of those, speaking strictly as a member.

As to an area setup outside the MOA for a Tom's Pub, I'd have to say that if it had nothing to do with MOA, then why would we set it up to begin with? There are already places up and running for such and when it was suggested a number of times that people who wanted to discuss those topics not supported here go to such places their response was that they felt they were being ask to leave, which in fact was not the case. It was simply a suggestion that for those topic there were more appropriate places and that they should avail themselves of that and when they wanted content as pertains to this forum they come back here. So that approach didn't seem to be taken too well. If MOA set it up then by that very act they WOULD be connected to it, nor do I feel that it should be the responsibility of MOA to provide or fund areas for "outside" interests, the MOA's manifesto, if you will, is clearly stated and I for one feel it should remain the main focus. This doesn't mean being inflexible, again the fact that we did try something new shows that it is NOT, but again that forum simply did not meld well within this organization. I still fail to see why this is such an issue when there are so many options already available "out there".

As for sponsoring a "road race" area, that is just a plain bad idea. the last thing I would want to see, and I imagine many others feel this way given the way in which JK's posts along those lines were received, is this organization encouraging behavior that is, quite frankly, rather childish or that by its very nature, would endanger those participants and add validity to some aspect of riding that is blatantly illegal. Simply because the machines are being made available by BMW does not, in and of itself, mean we as a BMW centered organization, should support the riding style of the "rat race" crowd, if anything we, as an large and visible organization should endeavor to caution those new to motorcycling of the dangers of being caught up in the thrill of speed on the open highways! Just the other day in MD 8 people were killed by a driver who ran into them because they were standing around in the road watching an illegal “rat race”. I feel pretty certain we would lose far more members than we would gain by such support and I for one would not want to connected to any organization that encouraged such behavior. Add to that a possible loss of advertising revenue when it became known that MOA supported such and you have a lose-lose scenario.


Now an “off-road” area might indeed be something worth considering as the GS line is becoming ever more popular. There has also been some discussion about a call for a “Meet and Greet” type of forum area that has been suggested by the membership for folks to use to try and hook up for rides or just a regional get together. I mention that only to show that MOA does look to aspects to further enhance the experience here, but the main goals of the club are still “to foster a sense of camaraderie among the BMW community” I think that is what most members still come here for. so there are two new areas to consider that could be a positive force. If you are interesting in working the GS issue, I would encourage you to pursue this thru the organization just as I did with the photo phorum.


RM

 

[Visian]

As for sponsoring a "road race" area, that is just a plain bad idea. the last thing I would want to see....

rocketman - i think you are confusing stunt porn with road racing.

ian

 

[oldhway]

Some interesting thoughts. Here is my response(s) to some of those, speaking strictly as a member.

As to an area setup outside the MOA for a Tom's Pub, I'd have to say that if it had nothing to do with MOA, then why would we set it up to begin with? There are already places up and running for such and when it was suggested a number of times that people who wanted to discuss those topics not supported here go to such places their response was that they felt they were being ask to leave, which in fact was not the case. It was simply a suggestion that for those topic there were more appropriate places and that they should avail themselves of that and when they wanted content as pertains to this forum they come back here. So that approach didn't seem to be taken too well. If MOA set it up then by that very act they WOULD be connected to it, nor do I feel that it should be the responsibility of MOA to provide or fund areas for "outside" interests, the MOA's manifesto, if you will, is clearly stated and I for one feel it should remain the main focus. This doesn't mean being inflexible, again the fact that we did try something new shows that it is NOT, but again that forum simply did not meld well within this organization. I still fail to see why this is such an issue when there are so many options already available "out there".

Rocketman, I believe it is still an issue because there are enough members who would like a chat area pf this type that they share with other members of the MOA specifically. It can certainly be set up by anyone, with an open invitation for MOA memebers either exclusively or primarily. Technically it could be done with no MOA involvement, endorsement, or even permission required as long as name and logo guidelines (Trademarks, you know real legal stuff) were not violated. As to the how many are enough members, apparently sufficiant numbers to keep the issue alive despite the fact that you seem to think it is dead.

As for sponsoring a "road race" area, that is just a plain bad idea. the last thing I would want to see, and I imagine many others feel this way given the way in which JK's posts along those lines were received, is this organization encouraging behavior that is, quite frankly, rather childish or that by its very nature, would endanger those participants and add validity to some aspect of riding that is blatantly illegal. Simply because the machines are being made available by BMW does not, in and of itself, mean we as a BMW centered organization, should support the riding style of the "rat race" crowd, if anything we, as an large and visible organization should endeavor to caution those new to motorcycling of the dangers of being caught up in the thrill of speed on the open highways! Just the other day in MD 8 people were killed by a driver who ran into them because they were standing around in the road watching an illegal “rat race”. I feel pretty certain we would lose far more members than we would gain by such support and I for one would not want to connected to any organization that encouraged such behavior. Add to that a possible loss of advertising revenue when it became known that MOA supported such and you have a lose-lose scenario.

Rat race and Road race are 2 different things. I believe the considerable interest in Nate Kern and a BMW team at Le Mans shown on this site does demonstrate an interest in road Racing. You can support organized professional racing without supporting illegal stunt riding. The number of BMW's at the average track day seems to indicate that BMW riders want to understand and be able to access the performance cababilities of their machines. Makes 'em safer, better riders.

Now an “off-road” area might indeed be something worth considering as the GS line is becoming ever more popular. There has also been some discussion about a call for a “Meet and Greet” type of forum area that has been suggested by the membership for folks to use to try and hook up for rides or just a regional get together. I mention that only to show that MOA does look to aspects to further enhance the experience here, but the main goals of the club are still “to foster a sense of camaraderie among the BMW community” I think that is what most members still come here for. so there are two new areas to consider that could be a positive force. If you are interesting in working the GS issue, I would encourage you to pursue this thru the organization just as I did with the photo phorum.


RM

Ah, you approve of off road riding. There are a number of people here who feel riding motor vehicles off road is harmful to the enviroment. What will you say to them? And a "Meet and Greet" area. As you put it "so there are two new areas to consider that coukd be a positive force". Wow, that is very definitive. Sounds like with your endorsement we have the green light I'm glad those two are Ok and we'll be sure to get working on it.

You have complained repeatedly that you feel the issue is moot and yet the discussion continues. Now there is a group ready to set it up off site to make it possible and show that it can work. And you object to that? Man, what is about this that has got you so wound tight?

My thought, speaking strictly as an equal member of course.