I owe some people a drink!

[Anthony Silver]

Thanks for the much needed changes...looks excellent 8) . I'm sure most of us will appreciate the hard work that went into the reconstruction. Two thumbs up!

 

[Robert Dewey]

Thanks for the comments (and that on behalf of the moderators and other folks who helped with this).

There are undoubtedly going to be some people that are not happy with the changes... certainly the people who ran up high ratios on "Everything Else" (EE). However an EE change was in the works pretty early on and we had received a lot of complaints about the situation.

Tim

I agree about the EE section. I was all for it, but I was against the religion/political debates (I remember suggesting that people use headers like "political" and "religion", much like the Target Area) - though I did post in some of the political threads, I won't miss them at all. Removing those types of posts will pretty much remove the tension and flame wars that were continuing to grow...

 

[Mike Hollingshead]

I'd only suggest allowing storm enthusiasts, spotters, etc to continue to be a part of this. I don't get what keeping them out solves and I'm sure there are many who share the same love for storms that would have worthwhile input. If it is still for met folks I cannot see how it is not for those who just simply do not go driving after storms. I'm sorry but I've always seen it for those that love storms. Sorry to not be waving the same flag everyone else is here. It is really cool it is not going to be segregated, but I'd suggest putting some thought into who is and who is not allowed access to STORMtrack. I can hear some minds now, "can you believe this guy". Well, I just remember when I was not a chaser. Pretty much the same as it is now. I enjoy talking to anyone who is interested in storms.

 

[Douglas Mitchell]

I'm going to agree with H here, I think that you can't discriminate because the title of "chaser" is speculative. Allow them back in, and then have the mods be a little less fearful of cleaning up the fluff. The new rules are a start, but I disagree with some sort of chasing background requirement.

 

[Bryce Stone]

I am very, very impressed by the striking new changes to the boards. I haven't a single complaint, and I can't wait to see how the new forums work out during the 2006 chase season.

I was bumping 60%, by the way, in EE. My post count was 59 point something. I was the last person before 60% . . . lol. I didn't realize I'd been posting there that much.

Anyway, I really like the new look. Great job!

 

[Rob_Davis]

I wasn't going to say anything since I've pretty well been pushing my luck for the last two days as it is. But I will go on record as saying that I have to agree with Mike H's suggestion. There are some good people here -- including myself -- who would have never been accepted under the new criteria. This board is the very best resource not only for chasers, but those who seriously want to be chasers. And while nobody wants to see an overwhelming influx of people into the hobby, I would hate to see those good people who are serious about joining the ranks get denied when they're trying to do the right thing.

/last comment on the subject

 

[Mikey Gribble]

I like the new setup. For Tim and all the mods, well done. I think you handled a tough situation as well as it could be handled. I would have to agree with Mike H on the membership issue though. Some people are just as passionate about weather as chasers, but for one reason or another don't chase. I think they have something to contribute and should be eligible for membership.

 

[Bob Schafer]

I somewhat agree with you on principle, H, but I don't think you're catching the flavor quite right.

I think the idea is to prevent this scenario:

Chaser makes a post about an upcoming chase a couple days out. Chaser welcomes informed and educated feedback from his/her peers about the setup/models, etc. Instead, 5 clueless people who've never chased more than twice attack chaser in an attempt to make themselves appear "important".

Then, the thread goes off on a tangent in some obscure direction.

I think that's what we're trying to eliminate with the new approach. If there's a better way, I'm 100% for it. We're all pretty much of the same mindset. The challenge is difficult, the solutions elusive, but I think we've taken a giant step in the right direction.

Bob

 

[Rob_Davis]

I wasn't going to say anything since I've pretty well been pushing my luck for the last two days as it is. Plus, I am so overwhelmed with delight over the board changes that I too don't want to get started with any negativity. But I will go on record as saying that I have to agree with Mike H's suggestion. There are some good people here -- including myself -- who would have never been accepted under the new criteria. This board is the very best resource not only for chasers, but those who seriously want to be chasers. I'm all for selectivity. Nobody wants to see an overwhelming influx of people either onto the board or into the hobby. But I would hate to see those good people who are serious about joining the ranks get denied when they're trying to do the right thing.

/last comment on the subject

 

[Mikey Gribble]

I like the new setup. For Tim and all the mods, well done. I think you handled a tough situation as well as it could be handled. I would have to agree with Mike H on the membership issue though. Some people are just as passionate about weather as chasers, but for one reason or another don't chase. I think they have something to contribute and should be eligible for membership. I know you have to draw the line somewhere though, so I am fine with it regardless of what happens on the membership issue.

 

[Douglas Mitchell]

I think the idea is to prevent this scenario:

Chaser makes a post about an upcoming chase a couple days out. Chaser welcomes informed and educated feedback from his/her peers about the setup/models, etc. Instead, 5 clueless people who've never chased more than twice attack chaser in an attempt to make themselves appear "important".

Then, the thread goes off on a tangent in some obscure direction

Bob

I think it should be the mod's discretion in that situation to delete those posts and possible suspension/ban. You can't discriminate against all enthustiasts because of a few bad apples. And there's no saying that all "chasers" are somehow above attacking others.

 

[Bob Schafer]

BTW, Tim asked that we just give this all a time out for awhile. I just violated that, and I feel bad about it. I'm not trying to suppress anyone from arguing with what I've just said, but I vow that you won't hear another peep from me on this subject for at least a week.

 

[Mike Hollingshead]

Chaser makes a post about an upcoming chase a couple days out. Chaser welcomes informed and educated feedback from his/her peers about the setup/models, etc. Instead, 5 clueless people who've never chased more than twice attack chaser in an attempt to make themselves appear "important".

Chaser should then get a backbone and/or contact a mod, because a PERSON did such a thing. Judging what is and what isn't a chaser will be a hard enough thing to do. Differing between an attack and a disagreement on here is obviously as hard or harder.

I have a newsflash, the majority of these arguements/"attacks" in TA were chasers or mets(myself probably included in a few). The non-chaser, weather person bothers to come in and post targetting thoughts?

What is honestly so threatening about people who do not drive after storms, but love them? What are you going to lose in your daily trips to the forum when "they" are here enjoying storm topics too?

It seems to me this need to fix issues of st is half being tossed on the backs of most who have caused zero distress.

 

[Bill Hark]

Thanks to Tim and all the mods who helped give Stormtrack the new look. I am sure it was a lot of work.
I am looking forward to participating in the new and improved Stormtrack, the main resource for chasers.

Bill Hark

 

[Mike Hollingshead]

BTW, Tim asked that we just give this all a time out for awhile. I just violated that, and I feel bad about it. I'm not trying to suppress anyone from arguing with what I've just said, but I vow that you won't hear another peep from me on this subject for at least a week.

Tim also wants what is best for this forum. Talk is good for things I think.