Where is ST really headed and what does it need?

[Lanny Dean]

Today is the first time I have posted in a little while as I decided that all the bull**** drama and heat that I had taken from some of my last posts were just not worth it. Let me make it clear right now that I am in no way questioning the "mods" or their ability to do their job, it has been apparent that some of the "mods" certainly know how to kick and ban people as a requirement to hold that "type" of position in this forum.

After much thought, I decided that I would start this thread in response to all the bull**** that has been ongoing as of late. My questions, "Where is ST really headed and what does it need?" I believe are some questions that need to be answered.
As stated, I took much heat for my thought process in some of my post last week and that's okay...I am big boy and can certainly handle ignorance. What I will not tolerate however, is belonging to a forum that has the ability/right to ban and suspend, at will, certain members all the while letting others throw "flame". Not only is it degrading, it's also demoralizing to all members. Tim speaks of moderation and implies that it is an umbrella and covers all members of this forum. IMO this is couldn't be farther from the truth. Fact is, it does not cover all members equally...it is not some huge umbrella that we ALL fall under and the cold hard truth is...it never will be. Shane Adams eluded to the fact that we have already lost members (CFDG) included and likened the direction that this forum is headed to "a monster with no head" I could not agree with him more. SEE BELOW

What this place is heading towards is a monster with no head, because many of the members who hold experience and contribute quality to this forum are going to drift off elsewhere....leaving a forum full of "experts" with half a dozen chases under their belts. Look at the "CFDG" guys who everyone covets; they've gone long ago. Guess what? Whether you all like it or not, that makes people like Lanny Dean, Steve Miller, and myself THE guys. We're a different breed...less scientific, less PC, and a helluva lot more rough around the edges but damn good at sharing detailed info about what it's really like to CHASE STORMS. We are who we are, and that knowledge comes with everything else we're about (namely calling out BS when we see it). If that's not good enough, then **** it. Go figure it out for yourselves. We ain't getting paid to share gold.

So, the real question, at least for me, is what does it need?
IMO, the best and ONLY answer is a change in the current management.
Of course I will no doubt take heat from this comment (feel free Jason)
but as most of you know, I call things how I see them. Through my eyes.
I refuse to sugar coat something so that it may be more tasteful to others.
It has nothing to do with not "playing nice", it has everything to do with what I feel is right and honest. This forum is no longer honest IMO.

Lets call a spade a spade...."we" ban/suspend the likes of Shane Adams, Chad Berryhill, Dick McGowen, James K (the list goes on and on) all the while, others are able to say **** and the only response from a "mod" is "I was afraid everyone would complain"
Is that the moderation unbrella that we all fall under? If it is, I don't want it.
My comment about it not being a privilage to be a member of ST still holds true for me. IMO, it is a privilage for ST to have me as a member. I truly believe that. What I have learned in my 19 years in this crazy "hobby" I could no doubt help teach/show some of the newbies and I certainly like to share my experiences to those that will listen. There are many others who also have just as much experience and knowledge as I such as Steve Miller, David Drummond, Steve Miller TX, Shane Adams, Joey Ketcham, Dick McGowen and many many others. Half of those names I just listed rarely get on here anymore....I wonder why? Is there a common thread? A common reason? Does it really matter?
This no doubt USED TO BE the forum to share those experiences and knowledge but IMO, it no longer is that kind of forum. IMO, the reason for many people leaving is directly realted to how this forum is run and to see what it has become.
I would love to see this forum return to what it once was but, I do not see that happening under current management.
Just my thoughts on the matter.

 

[Jeff Snyder]

Every year or two, we get threads about how Stormtrack is going down the drain, and how there's a "brain drain" going on as experienced chasers leave the forum. I disagree with this notion, since I think a lot of experienced chasers just "grow out of" the forum and have a diminished desire to post frequently. Life gets in the way, and the "infatuation" stage, in which members post frequently, check the message board several times a day, etc., if you will, gives way. This is not to diminish your post, since, just because it's been argued in the past doesn't mean that it can't be argued now.

IMO, it is a privilage for ST to have me as a member. I truly believe that.

IMO, humility goes a long way. Though you may have a lot of experience and knowledge, people, in my experience, seem to be less willing to seek your "wisdom" if you present yourself as haughty and/or slightly conceited. You may have a lot to offer the members of this forum, and you may want to share what you've learned, but I just can't see how the attitude expressed in the quote above really makes people WANT to learn from you.

It takes quite a bit of work to keep the forum operating smoothly, and the mods tend to take a lot of flak when these types of things come up. Perhaps it's because I spent several years behind the scenes as a moderator here, and therefore am very familiar with the effort involved, but I'm much more willing, it seems, to cut some slack. Sure, mistakes are made, but it seems better to address those to the moderators and to Tim V..

I'm still sensing a lot of distrust here, and your suggestion to have a complete change of administration indicates such. Why not just communicate your concerns directly to the moderators? Sure, making this public is well within your right, but do we need another thread? Perhaps it's like some people's dislike of gov't officials -- officials are dishonest and ineffective solely because of their position as a gov't official and hold some enforcement power over a larger populace.

As noted elsewhere, if you are really this uncomfortable w/ the administrative staff, why not either start your own forum or become more active in another? If you really are such a priviledge to have to a forum, I'm sure users will flock to seek your experience.

 

[Robert Dewey]

IMO, it is a privilage for ST to have me as a member. I truly believe that.

I somewhat agree. However, if it weren't for ST, I would have never known about you, Shane, Mike H, or any of the other people I now respect. Sure, I might have seen your copyright tag on a photo embedded somewhere within CNN... or a 20 second video clip on Discovery... but otherwise, I would have missed out on "knowing" you guys.

 

[Shane Adams]

Accomplishments don't matter anymore. People on ST are more concerned with who cussed or who called someone out than they are who's been chasing how long and has seen what. There is no difference between a 10-year veteran and a newbie on here anymore. For chasers who have been there, done that, been here (actually charter members who helped build the online ST into what it is, or was), and contributed numerous accounts, experience, etc etc, it becomes quite disheartening.

The veterans aren't looking to be martyred or given a parade, but if they're no longer considering interesting or valuable, what's the point in keeping them around? I'm getting PMs from people accusing me of throwing around my supposed worth on this forum but in actuality, all I am is a disrespecting potty-mouth. What I'd like to know is, how does the majority feel? Does a person's actions on a forum trump their contribution to the overall mission statement? They certainly don't in the case of Chuck Doswell. If what I have to offer this place isn't good enough to turn a blind eye to my personality, I can certainly move on. I'm sure others feel the same way.

This place used to be awesome, and it's gone downhill (whether the detractors want to acknowledge it or not). You cannot tell me this place in 2009 is as good as it was in 2004. I choose to speak out about my dis-satisfaction with where ST has gone, not to cause trouble, but in an attempt to save what was once (IMO) THE forum. Has ST evolved and I have just fallen by the wayside, while staying the same? Or has ST strayed too far off the path it once followed to perfection? Judging by the reactions this week, I'd say the former.

Whatever course is taken, I strongly recommend that ST brass start deleting accounts permanently. Perm bans don;t work, that much is obvious. ST is a private forum, and it needs to start acting like one by hand-picking its membership, and casting the rest aside.

 

[Tim Vasquez]

Lanny, if you have problems with moderators, your first stop is to attempt to resolve it with me as the site administrator. The last PM or e-mail I received from you was July 16 for site help, and that was it. It appears you're either trying to shore up your position on how the board is being run or expecting a public tribunal for how we responded to your complaints. This is absolutely the wrong way to resolve your problem.

You may declare that you won't tolerate a forum that has the right to ban and suspend at will, but this essentially tells us that you no longer agree to the TOS. This is grounds for losing your account.

If you have specific, constructive changes in mind that would improve the forum, post them. However this is not the appropriate place to dictate policy for operating the forum.

If you don't like Stormtrack, as others have said, leave or start your own forum. We'll even post the links to your site. Posting long diatribes about how Stormtrack is no longer one's favorite site does not give us specific ideas for improving it, and when these long posts are filled with emotional rhetoric, this is not just uncovering problems but getting into the territory of axe-grinding and stirring dissent. This is not a soapbox for your personal grievances.

Tim

 

[Randall Cooper]

You may declare that you won't tolerate a forum that has the right to ban and suspend at will, but this essentially tells us that you no longer agree to the TOS. This is grounds for losing your account.

If Lanny loses his account for this than you might as well do the same to me. I havent been here long, but I have a respect for Lanny and Shane, moreso than I have for any other chaser here, and if you kick Lanny or Shane(or anyone else I have just as much respect for) off of here, than I am gone too, and I know a few other people who will follow, so you will only be hurting yourself by doing this. Im just saying.

 

[Shane Adams]

I'm not trying to make this about me or anyone specific, but as an example of what I'm trying to say, I'll use this:

Since joining ST in December of 2003, I have remained the same person. I write the same way, I post on the same topics (I'm fairly predictable), and I contribute the same way. Up until about 2008, I was more or less relevant to the forum. However in the past few years, it seems I'm more or less intruding when I post on here. My opinions are seen as negative and reactionary, and my contributions are more or less overlooked (I assume anyway, when their existence is being questioned). Because I am the same person I was six years ago, I can only point at the growing membership (and morphing demographic) of ST as the cause for this. It is what it is.

Believe me, I'd much rather be involved in discussions about chase strategy, philosophy, and experiences than the constant bickering. But in the same breath, I'm not one to just sit idle while the forum I once loved (and once loved me I think) descends to a level that I (as a charter member of ST) feel is unsatisfactory. My issue lies not with the moderation, because the forum is Tim's and it's his show. My issue is the tolerance shown to the ever-growing influx of new members who have nothing to offer, including a mere post once a year.

Members who never participate, IMO, should be booted. If you joined in 2006 and have never posted or chased, you aren't going to. The age-old excuse of "I lurk to learn" isn't acceptable IMO if you aren't a chaser. If my smart-aleck replies and one-liners can invoke a parade of responses from otherwise inactive folks, why don't my chase-related offerings? If the body of ST chooses to focus on my negative contributions while ignoring my positive ones, then the problem is the audience, not me.

I think an overhaul of membership (not administration) is needed ASAP. Even if it doesn't include me.

 

[Brandon Goforth]

I think an overhaul of membership (not administration) is needed ASAP. Even if it doesn't include me.

Just given the ever increasing number of posts in forecast threads that are along the lines of "I like the new SPC outlook and wish I could chase" and "It looks like there is a chance of tornadoes today, where is the best place to go to see a tornado"....I strongly agree with Shane's comments above. A good chaser doesn't need ST to be successful, and only uses SPC outlooks to further validate what they're already thinking...all the people who are just lurking around and leaching targets aren't helping. In fact, at this point I wish everyone would stop posting their specific target in the forecast threads...and then we can watch chaser convergence become less of an issue, lol!!

 

[fplowman]

I'm coming late to the party. Is this whole **** storm about the overuse of the "report this post" button by a small handful of people? The drama is HUGE here man! lol

Why are all the old school people who I have been chasing with for almost a decade getting banned or suspended?

Hoping my post wont result in administrative action.

This whole world has become Bizzaro world man.

 

[Adam Lucio]

Mentioning the SPC outlooks in the forecast thread should be an infraction-able offense. Thats my thought. If ST wants to change policies with quality in mind - lets start with weather noise first and not senseless humor in the B&G. Our resources are focused in the wrong areas.

 

[Darren Addy]

Without getting political and just stating the obvious: One of the most ingenious things that the Founding Fathers of the U.S. did was allow Freedom of Speech. Why? Because a populace that can blow off steam with their mouth is less likely to get angry enough to start a revolution and overthrow the government.

There's also the old adage: Controversy sells papers. Like it or not, some people enjoy reading (and contributing to) trainwreck threads.

For the above reasons, I think it is in ST's interests to allow some blowing off of steam. However, I don't run the board and it seems to me that Tim Vasquez has the right to draw the line anywhere he wants, and the members have the right to leave if they don't like it. The result of this balance (or lack thereof) is what you see here today.

I think that "management" has to balance their desire to not lose the people that will leave because they are treated rudely or attacked with their desire to not lose the people who treat others rudely or like to attack - even if they are experienced chasers with a lot of knowledge to share.

I'm not sure if anyone actually THINKS this, but it SOUNDS like some are saying that their experience and wisdom should put them above the TOS. Frankly, I think that pointing to others and saying "but THEY get away with it" is a little childish. The only person whose behavior we can be responsible for is our own.

I think that Shane may be making a valid point in saying that he hasn't changed in his style of posting over the years but it is now being viewed differently. However, this seems a bit like telling the State Patrol that has just pulled you over for speeding that you always drive that speed. Rules of civility do change. Just ask any southerner if the words they use (at least in public) have changed at all since 1964, for example. A person who simply takes the attitude that "I am what I am and I don't have to change for nobody" may be free to do so, but he is not free from the consequences (intended and unintended) of taking such a stand.

I also think that discussion like this are helpful, occasionally (say 'annually), if the "administration" wants to take the "temperature" of the constituents.

 

[Lanny Dean]

.You may declare that you won't tolerate a forum that has the right to ban and suspend at will, but this essentially tells us that you no longer agree to the TOS. This is grounds for losing your account.

Is this a threat? Tim, IMO you still do not understand. It has nothing to do with not agreeing to the TOS. It is the fact that the TOS rules and regs do not apply to everybody as a whole as they used to. That "umbrella" no longer exists and that has certainly been very clear as of late with all the "mods" banning this person or that one and totally disregarding others who have caused the same type noise.
If you so choose to ban/suspend me for voicing my opinion regarding a matter that is no doubt detramental to this forum/community then so be it. Hey, I like to post and share ideas/thoughts as much as the next guy but the threats are getting ridiculous. While I have no doubt added to the "noise" at times, I also feel that I have contributed quality to this forum. And just so we are both clear, this thread was not intended to be "noise"
nor should it be considered as such. More importantly, at least to me, is that my post was considered emotional rhetoric. Interesting choice of words no doubt, and I wonder how many other members whose posts/thoughts are considered emotional rhetoric?? At least any that have a real "resume"??

If you have specific, constructive changes in mind that would improve the forum, post them. However this is not the appropriate place to dictate policy for operating the forum.Tim

I thought I did post constructive, specific changes that I thought would help including changes to current management?

.
Posting long diatribes about how Stormtrack is no longer one's favorite site does not give us specific ideas for improving it, and when these long posts are filled with emotional rhetoric, this is not just uncovering problems but getting into the territory of axe-grinding and stirring dissent. This is not a soapbox for your personal grievances.
Tim

Again, I thought I gave a detailed idea as to how I believe ST could be improved. The problem IMO, is that you do not like it, don't want to hear it and consider posts such as this one emotional rhetoric.
Look Tim, I am not trying to start any ****...Im just trying to say that this forum is going downhill IMO and I am asking what can we do to help it.
I gave an idea, that idea was to change current management. You obviously do not like that idea and threw out the "if you do not like it leave" theory. Again, IMO, that theory is exactly why we have the problem the problem that we do.

And Robert, thank you for the kind words.

Lanny

 

[Chad Berryhill]

Lanny, if you have problems with moderators, your first stop is to attempt to resolve it with me as the site administrator. The last PM or e-mail I received from you was July 16 for site help, and that was it. It appears you're either trying to shore up your position on how the board is being run or expecting a public tribunal for how we responded to your complaints. This is absolutely the wrong way to resolve your problem.

You may declare that you won't tolerate a forum that has the right to ban and suspend at will, but this essentially tells us that you no longer agree to the TOS. This is grounds for losing your account.

If you have specific, constructive changes in mind that would improve the forum, post them. However this is not the appropriate place to dictate policy for operating the forum.

If you don't like Stormtrack, as others have said, leave or start your own forum. We'll even post the links to your site. Posting long diatribes about how Stormtrack is no longer one's favorite site does not give us specific ideas for improving it, and when these long posts are filled with emotional rhetoric, this is not just uncovering problems but getting into the territory of axe-grinding and stirring dissent. This is not a soapbox for your personal grievances.

Tim

Today is the first time I have posted in a little while as I decided that all the bull**** drama and heat that I had taken from some of my last posts were just not worth it. Let me make it clear right now that I am in no way questioning the "mods" or their ability to do their job, it has been apparent that some of the "mods" certainly know how to kick and ban people as a requirement to hold that "type" of position in this forum.

After much thought, I decided that I would start this thread in response to all the bull**** that has been ongoing as of late. My questions, "Where is ST really headed and what does it need?" I believe are some questions that need to be answered.
As stated, I took much heat for my thought process in some of my post last week and that's okay...I am big boy and can certainly handle ignorance. What I will not tolerate however, is belonging to a forum that has the ability/right to ban and suspend, at will, certain members all the while letting others throw "flame". Not only is it degrading, it's also demoralizing to all members. Tim speaks of moderation and implies that it is an umbrella and covers all members of this forum. IMO this is couldn't be farther from the truth. Fact is, it does not cover all members equally...it is not some huge umbrella that we ALL fall under and the cold hard truth is...it never will be. Shane Adams eluded to the fact that we have already lost members (CFDG) included and likened the direction that this forum is headed to "a monster with no head" I could not agree with him more. SEE BELOW



So, the real question, at least for me, is what does it need?
IMO, the best and ONLY answer is a change in the current management.
Of course I will no doubt take heat from this comment (feel free Jason)
but as most of you know, I call things how I see them. Through my eyes.
I refuse to sugar coat something so that it may be more tasteful to others.
It has nothing to do with not "playing nice", it has everything to do with what I feel is right and honest. This forum is no longer honest IMO.

Lets call a spade a spade...."we" ban/suspend the likes of Shane Adams, Chad Berryhill, Dick McGowen, James K (the list goes on and on) all the while, others are able to say **** and the only response from a "mod" is "I was afraid everyone would complain"
Is that the moderation unbrella that we all fall under? If it is, I don't want it.
My comment about it not being a privilage to be a member of ST still holds true for me. IMO, it is a privilage for ST to have me as a member. I truly believe that. What I have learned in my 19 years in this crazy "hobby" I could no doubt help teach/show some of the newbies and I certainly like to share my experiences to those that will listen. There are many others who also have just as much experience and knowledge as I such as Steve Miller, David Drummond, Steve Miller TX, Shane Adams, Joey Ketcham, Dick McGowen and many many others. Half of those names I just listed rarely get on here anymore....I wonder why? Is there a common thread? A common reason? Does it really matter?
This no doubt USED TO BE the forum to share those experiences and knowledge but IMO, it no longer is that kind of forum. IMO, the reason for many people leaving is directly realted to how this forum is run and to see what it has become.
I would love to see this forum return to what it once was but, I do not see that happening under current management.
Just my thoughts on the matter.

What we’ve got here is "failure to communicate". Some men you just can't reach. So you get what we had here last week. Which is the way he wants it. Well, he gets it. And I don't like it any more than you men. Cool Hand Luke 1967Listen

Tim I don't think that's what Lanny's message was trying to say

It seems like you run this forum partially to the general concenus and most of the veteran chasers are not liking this. Now some are trying to voice there opinions.

I'm going to throw and idea out there, and it could backfire on me, but that's a chance I take. Idea: Why don't you have some type of meeting involving some of the veteran chasers/meteorologist/on-lookers, discuss the TOS/Management, and maybe come to some agreement ? Select two or three representatives from each group via a lottery ? Then have an online discussion. Get some things hashed out that would make everyone happy. Then again you might have some screaming that it's a flawed system, so you might want to poll this idea, if you so decide to use it. You want constructive ideas, that's one of mine.

 

[Tim Vasquez]

Members who never participate, IMO, should be booted. If you joined in 2006 and have never posted or chased, you aren't going to.

To a certain extent I do agree with that. Member quality is where the focus of the board actually begins. Cutting out people with zero non-B&G posts returns us to the roots of talking about weather. You may remember a couple of years ago we pruned out everyone with zero posts. That was pretty controversial and we drew a lot of fire, albeit mostly from the people who liked to lurk. Our rationale was that we were pruning out several hundred spam accounts, tightening up the requirement to participate in weather discussion, and that we were not here to serve lurkers who didn't give anything back. I'm not sure we'll do anything that again anytime soon but it does underscore the idea to serve only serious weather users.

The $5 open membership is a double-edged sword, as it has cut down on the torrent of new signups, curbing access to only those serious enough to spend $5 to participate on a forum. We're only seeing 1 or 2 signups a day instead of 3 to 5 a day. On the other hand it does let pretty much anyone in without application. The plan is to run this for another month or two and compare what kind of members got in during the "application period" and the "$5 membership period" and see which method worked better for bringing in quality members.

Tim

 

[Jason Foster]

Whatever course is taken, I strongly recommend that ST brass start deleting accounts permanently. Perm bans don;t work, that much is obvious. ST is a private forum, and it needs to start acting like one by hand-picking its membership, and casting the rest aside.

I second that motion right there!