ST's Future Discussion

[Dan Robinson]

Most of the old chasers are gone, and we need to accept that and move forward. It's great when a Shane or someone pops back in, but that's the exception, not the norm.

Agreed - The future of ST is in new chasers and *at least* a small core of former members. For ST to be viable, the more experienced chasers simply need to be more tolerant of newbie annoyances and personal differences and not refuse to participate on that basis alone like most of us did at one time (me included). I see that as one of the biggest challenges of the effort: winning a couple dozen ST veterans back who are willing to put up with some pet peeves this time for the good of the community. I expect to fail to win back most of the longtime vets, to the point it's a conceded non-issue as you say.

 

[Rob Wadsworth]

I agree with rdale, Robinson, and others; in that social media has no reference material to draw upon as ST does provide. It would be a real loss to lose this site, and to stormchasing as a whole. Regardless of the fact that social media is popular now. That trend - too - can change.

The vBulletin upgrade, mobile bundle, and hosting fees will be necessary to bring it back to snuff. Dividing this cost among the membership is not asking too much to keep this site. $10 a year from each member; would that be enough from a starting core of 80 members? Making it compatible with mobile apps should draw more paying members in turn.

I think that getting past members back is possible, as they are probably wishing they could be at this point, since the 'other' forum up and died. Rule changes would be essential to that end. It might also be considered a responsibility for each member - in turn - were to handle some of the Admin responsibilities. Even long-term Admins have a life.

Anyway, that is what I see and agree with thus far . . .

 

[Adam Lucio]

Agreed - The future of ST is in new chasers and *at least* a small core of former members. For ST to be viable, the more experienced chasers simply need to be more tolerant of newbie annoyances and personal differences and not refuse to participate on that basis alone like most of us did at one time (me included). I see that as one of the biggest challenges of the effort: winning a couple dozen ST veterans back who are willing to put up with some pet peeves this time for the good of the community. I expect to fail to win back most of the longtime vets, to the point it's a conceded non-issue as you say.

I think if we are going to encourage many of the old timers to come back then the rules have to be relaxed a bit, especially on controversial topics. When I first started here on ST, many of the vets were pretty quick to lay the hand down if I posted something stupid, and I learned from that. I remember how much flack I got back in 2008 when I gave my I-57 tornado footage away. Noob mistake, and I was thankful that many of you took the time to explain to me why what I did was wrong and I certainly learned from that.

Sometimes those types of discussions get heated, especially when dealing with todays new breed who thinks they are superstars the moment they step out of their front door. Damned if you ever try to give them advice.

I guess where Im going with this is (and sort of related back to Lannys post) is that I would like to see members not get penalized for bringing the reality hammer down sometimes, even if it falls under the drama category. Slippery slope I know, but I think getting infractions due to comments in those types of threads are what ticked a lot of people off. We tried too hard to cradle new members and inadvertantly silenced the most knowledgable ones. Besides, history has shown those types of threads draw the most attention.

 

[Steve Miller]

I agree with Adam. The same thing happened to me back in the BB and WX-CHASE listserve days. I popped on the scene and tried to be smart. I wasn't and I was told I wasn't. I was then determined to learn and prove others wrong. It made me stronger and more respected.

The age of the forum brought with it more defined administration and a framework for going about things. Now the mods were in charge and the ability to argue or challenge to any extent within the threads went out the window. Mods were often the "bad guys" because the buck was forced to stop with them. This was not 100% fair for membership or mods.

I'm not in favor of self policing by membership but I am for loosening the reins a little bit and letting conversation happen the way it would in the real world. I'd rather see mods be able to focus on other things; bettering the forum structure, streamlining content, contributing personally, and helping to implement features.

 

[Jason Boggs]

I agree with what Lanny said. Like him, I used to log into ST many times during a typical day. The last couple of years or so, I haven't logged in that much, and that's due to the fake name changes, lack of management, etc. I think for ST to thrive again it's imperative that we turn it over to someone who has time to tend to the needs of the forum and it's members. I have nothing against Tim, but this is just too much for him to handle since he's so busy all the time. Let SMOK take the reins and see if he and the members can take ST back to it's glory days.

 

[Michael Towers]

I’m not convinced a change in ownership is necessary and my vote is for Tim to reconsider and maintain ownership. I think the value of ownership participation in the forum itself is minimal and has little if any correlation to the success or failure of the site. The lack of oversight which led to monetary issues causing the site to go offline is regrettable but the problem was temporary and resolved quickly. If the total annual cost to maintain the site is only in the hundreds of dollars it should be a non-issue and future obligations can be met by implementing any number of solutions. Changes that can enrich the site and safeguards that can be implemented to prevent or mitigate future problems don’t require new ownership, Tim certainly seems open to ideas and suggestions and it’s apparent he truly wants what is in the best interest of the site. Many causes for the decline in participation here have been expressed but very few if any can be legitimately attributed to the owner and I’m not convinced the implementation of any ideas put forward or any change in ownership would reverse that trend.

If there is a change in ownership I don’t have a preferred candidate, I don’t personally know any of the people proposed or know enough about them to formulate a preference. If however Tim has any interest at all in maintaining ownership and is willing and able to commit to doing what is necessary to run it properly then that would be my personal preference. If his inclination is otherwise or he doesn’t feel up to the task then I hope the person we do get is committed to maintaining the site for what it is, a resource and venue dedicated principally for storm chasers and the meteorological community.

 

[Sean Ramsey]

I echo others with the concern that if people aren't posting and there is very little content then it doesn't matter who runs it. Marcus was spot on in his assessment, we just had a nice surprise chase day with two (albeit) small tornadoes in OK and a really nice one in Harper County, KS. Not one peep from anyone (including me). What is stopping everyone who is returning to make a post and vote on who the owner should be, who have been gone for years, from posting a forecast, thoughts, or chase report? How will that change with new leadership? Why will it take new leadership to create a conversation? I'm not saying there shouldn't be a change, but just wondering what will be different other than who owns it?

 

[Dan Robinson]

The reason the surprise chase day didn't get posted is due to the current lack of an active membership. There are only a few active users right now, and that's precisely what we're trying to address. If we succeed in increasing membership and participation something on the order of tenfold over the next year, then small events won't go uncovered like that. As for me, I was installing a CCTV system at a relative's house all day when that tornado happened, I was completely out of the loop on WX happenings that day otherwise I'd have started a thread. Not to mention the fact that it's December and very few of even active chasers are in "watch the models and SPC outlooks" mode. I wouldn't worry to much about it is what I'm trying to say.

We're not just talking about doing the bare minimum of keeping ST's hosting bill paid for only a forum. We've been doing that for years, and continuing to do the same will bring us right back here at this time next year. We're envisioning a coordinated, multi-faceted, community effort to bring the site up to par. Steve I'm sure has a lot of ideas and connections to advertise and get the word out, for example - that's just one aspect of the approach to growth.

I can understand the skepticism of any of this ultimately working, but one thing is for certain is that if the voice of pessimism prevails, we'll never find out.

 

[Doug Crisp]

I would like to see this forum continue many great sources of information come from here.

 

[Warren Faidley]

I might suggest, if possible, that Tim gives the new management a probation period of six months to one year and see how things work out. At least through the tornado season. I'm sure any of the named individuals are well qualified to run ST, but you never know. It might be too much work, or the ST community might revolt.

Just a suggestion.

Warren

 

[Skip Talbot]

One thing that needs to be addressed immediately, rather than after an ownership changeover, is that the forum's email system is broken. New members are unable to complete their registration as a result. I suspect many signed up, found out they couldn't post because their registrations are stuck in limbo, and then forgot about the forum and moved on to other things. A few persistent signups have emailed me or made it into the chat, but there are dozens sitting in the queue that I've manually run through the approval process that never wound up posting anything here.

 

[Wesley Luginbyhl]

I actually started a FCST thread on the "surprise" day. A few chimed, but more than I expected honestly. It used to be a habit for many to check ST forecast threads on pontential chase days, but just like many others it is not a habit for many anymore. I am trying to to change that myself, but I can only control 1 person. It was also only a "marginal" day in mid December, so there wouldnt be much attention no matter the numbers that are active here.

 

[Jason Boggs]

I was asked by Lanny Dean to post this for him since he's not able to. I'd be glad to...

"I personally believe SMOK is correct in saying that the reins will need to be loosened a bit. And Adam hit the nail on the head and was able to read between the lines so to speak. Is it a slippery slope? Yeah, it might be, but it can be handled. It beats the hell out of handing out "infractions" left and right and ultimately banning people. Especially when it comes down to a personality conflict like Tim and I have. That said, I think there is a fine line that would need to be walked. But IMO, I think if "some" of the rules were relaxed a bit as Adam and SMOK mentioned, I believe you would see many established and veteran folks return. I would certainly asked to return and I know others that would as well. As far as what Dan R. said, he is correct, the new breed is upon us - but I "think" that with a more relaxed feel, not only would some of the veterans return, they would also be more inclined to assist others. I think Jason Boggs hinted at this. Look, we all know and recognize that ST is failing. It has been for some time. And if it continues as is with no change, it WILL FAIL. Doesn't matter why, and there is no need in laying blame. It's just a simple fact. IMO, if you want the forum to live on, changes need to be made period. I don't agree with Warren about any sort of probation period...IMO, this would solve nothing and perhaps cause issue if Tim simply didn't like the direction of the new admin/owner. Doesn't make sense to me. To me, the changes needed are pretty simple: 1)Change management as a whole. 2)Relax the forum a bit. 3)Update, integrate, market and promote. Of course these are just a few of the changes that I think would be required, but its a start. SMOK has the ability, knowledge, and respect of many, and ultimately a sense of pride in everything he does. Anyone who might feel differently or indecisive need only look at all he has accomplished. If I were an "active" member, SMOK would have my vote!"

 

[Rob H]

Lanny should write an essay on why he was banned and what he's learned from the experience before he starts bothering multiple people to post on his behalf. He should also hold a penny to the wall with his nose for 5 minutes in the corner of the classroom because I think it would look funny.

 

[Danny Neal]

Lanny can bother me anytime with something to write on here. His passion and knowledge of our hobby is what we want to keep around here, not necessarily rid of just because he came off as brash or rude to others.