Website

[Dave Davies]

I see that this site is now described as the unofficial members website, and also that Kim is the sole moderator again of the forum.

Contact email addresses for Committee members have reverted to the old c-a-p-s.co.uk suffix.

What's it all about?

[webmaster]

Some people in positions of authority in the Society deemed that they did not like some of the content posted on this forum and subsequently wished to take control of this website. I registered the old domain http://www.c-a-p-s.co.uk for the society, but this domain http://www.caps.org.uk is owned and and maintain by me for the benefit of the Society and the members. To avoid any confrontation I made the gesture (verbaly and formally in writing) of giving power of censorship on many parts of the forum by allowing a committee member to be a moderator, I offered to supply a list of the membership numbers of all resistered users to ensure that only active members can view the content on the forum (usernames would not be given to protect anonimity) and I also offered to put anything on the website that they requested.
Although I have not had a formal reply I have been told that a formal CAPS owned website will be created and I have updated all the registration details etc for the old domain and given them to the committee.
Therefore to avoid any form of confusion of people using this site I have taken back full control of moderation and updated the headers on this website to show that this site is not officially sanctioned by the Society. However this site will continue to be used as a facility to independantly promote the Society and to give the members a chance to have their say and enjoy other facilities of the website. Although this will now be a unofficial website I would like to maintain close links with the Society and will willingly update and promote any information requested by the committee.
Any ideas on improving or expanding the facilities of this website will be given consideration.

[dexon]

I think what the people in authority didn't like was dirty being aired in public. I agree that a forum is a good place to have your say, but i feel it shouldn't be a place to publicise their grievances with the committee. The fuel for this is really the publication of the bills league incident on the forum, where a written complaint to the committee would have been more appropriate. The forum should be a place for us to share knowledge and to discuss improvements. We as members may not agree with some of the decisions that the committee make, but there are better ways of resolving it than publicising it on a forum.

[webmaster]

I do have sympathy for the committee doing an unpaid thankless task, however when the is made dirty by some people on the committee then this should be made aware to the members, simply complaining to the other members of the committee can be construed as a cover up, especially as I am an ex-committee member. The league matter is now history, they got away with it and I dont want to climb on that soap box again.
I dont have grievances with the committee but I strongly believe in keeping the members informed and involved otherwise it ends up in a them and us syndrome.

[dexon]

I think the point i was trying to make is, that we should all be careful in airing our grievances on a forum. We may think that the ways that exist to resolve issues may seem inadequate but maybe we should be talking about how to improve them. I would like to see more openness in the committee, that is not a criticism of any one serving but a dislike in the way the committee mechanism currently works. I am sure that there is much that can be done improve the way the committee is perceived and acts