NEW SERVER FOR PFRA, JULY 7, 2015

[Mark L. Ford]

Following up on a post on another thread, we have had a transfer from one server to another. This has been in the process since the beginning of May, in preparation for our goal of a long range improvement on the existing site.
PFRA now has complete control over the website, with Ken Crippen and Roy Sye being the webmasters, but postings from May 4 onward did not carry over when we made the switch.

In preparation for that possibility, pages of Forum posts from 2015 were downloaded, and we are working on seeing whether these can be uploaded back to this site. The PFRA Board of Directors, and the incoming President, have all been working together on making the changeover work. In the long run, we'll have a better site and a better forum, but some data has been lost.

The seven directors, as well as our incoming President, are now working on the next step, to see what's feasible and what isn't on additional services. There will be changes in the Forum itself; you can expect that, in the near future, discussions will be limited to football history, and that there will be a new code of conduct. Ken, Chris, and I have all discussed the problems with the way things are now, and one thing we agree upon is that the site needs to be better policed -- posts that have nothing to do with pro football topics will be removed if necessary, and suspensions or even bannings from the Forum will be the next step.

However, the change to a new server has been completed, and we will be moving forward from here.

[Ken Crippen]

Following up on a post on another thread, we have had a transfer from one server to another. This has been in the process since the beginning of May, in preparation for our goal of a long range improvement on the existing site.
PFRA now has complete control over the website, with Ken Crippen and Roy Sye being the webmasters, but postings from May 4 onward did not carry over when we made the switch.

In preparation for that possibility, pages of Forum posts from 2015 were downloaded, and we are working on seeing whether these can be uploaded back to this site. The PFRA Board of Directors, and the incoming President, have all been working together on making the changeover work. In the long run, we'll have a better site and a better forum, but some data has been lost.

The seven directors, as well as our incoming President, are now working on the next step, to see what's feasible and what isn't on additional services. There will be changes in the Forum itself; you can expect that, in the near future, discussions will be limited to football history, and that there will be a new code of conduct. Ken, Chris, and I have all discussed the problems with the way things are now, and one thing we agree upon is that the site needs to be better policed -- posts that have nothing to do with pro football topics will be removed if necessary, and suspensions or even bannings from the Forum will be the next step.

However, the change to a new server has been completed, and we will be moving forward from here.

I want to emphasize the bolded part. We will be adding a few moderators to help with this task.

As Mark said, let's stick to why we are all here, and that is to talk about football and football history.

If you want to talk/complain/criticize the move, you are welcome to PM or email me, Mark or Chris. It is going to stay off the board.

[Lee Elder]

That all makes sense to me. I've been in other forums where they simply start over every year or so and I like that idea. I also like the idea of sticking to football and the history of football. That's what attracted me here in the first place.

[Jeremy Crowhurst]

The seven directors, as well as our incoming President, are now working on the next step, to see what's feasible and what isn't on additional services. There will be changes in the Forum itself; you can expect that, in the near future, discussions will be limited to football history, and that there will be a new code of conduct. Ken, Chris, and I have all discussed the problems with the way things are now, and one thing we agree upon is that the site needs to be better policed -- posts that have nothing to do with pro football topics will be removed if necessary, and suspensions or even bannings from the Forum will be the next step.

With respect, I have to say that I think that you're making a big mistake. I'm assuming that a primary target of your soon-to-be-implemented policy is the criticism of the PFRA Board itself. I appreciate that not everybody wants to read those threads. I appreciate that you might well find some of the posts to be offensive, particularly given that this is an organization of volunteers. But the membership needs to have a place to publicly voice their concerns. To suggest that any problem can be handled by an email to the President or Executive Director simply misses the mark.

If it your intention to change the purpose of the Forum such that criticism of the Board is no longer a suitable discussion topic, isn't that something that should go to a vote of the membership?

[Rupert Patrick]

The seven directors, as well as our incoming President, are now working on the next step, to see what's feasible and what isn't on additional services. There will be changes in the Forum itself; you can expect that, in the near future, discussions will be limited to football history, and that there will be a new code of conduct. Ken, Chris, and I have all discussed the problems with the way things are now, and one thing we agree upon is that the site needs to be better policed -- posts that have nothing to do with pro football topics will be removed if necessary, and suspensions or even bannings from the Forum will be the next step.

With respect, I have to say that I think that you're making a big mistake. I'm assuming that a primary target of your soon-to-be-implemented policy is the criticism of the PFRA Board itself. I appreciate that not everybody wants to read those threads. I appreciate that you might well find some of the posts to be offensive, particularly given that this is an organization of volunteers. But the membership needs to have a place to publicly voice their concerns. To suggest that any problem can be handled by an email to the President or Executive Director simply misses the mark.

If it your intention to change the purpose of the Forum such that criticism of the Board is no longer a suitable discussion topic, isn't that something that should go to a vote of the membership?

I have no issues whatsoever with the way PFRA is being run, it takes a lot of their personal time and they don't draw a salary to do so and the events and publications they put out have been outstanding. If the magazines are a little late in coming, no big deal, and it's too bad that some posts are lost when we switch servers but there's no crying over spilled milk. As for those who have been seemingly most vocal in criticizing the way the organization is being run, and without naming names, I don't remember seeing any of those people's names on the ballot to run for a PFRA office when the elections were being held. If you don't like the way things are being run, don't complain about it, run for office and see how hard the job really is and try to effect the changes yourself.

[Moran]

I think it's worth trying to narrow the focus to a discussion of football and football research on the public forums of the PFRA. A thread for discussion of the PFRA, policies, and other membership issues could be in the members only section.

[luckyshow]

I was trying to find out if I would always have been violating this new restrictive (and maybe capricious policy) but I was unsure if just asking this was a violation. But no one responded to my message on this. I tend to see things in a broad sense, as interconnected. So I do veer. Is asking about newspaper archive site problems illegal now.? Is mentioning Ty Cobb bad news? I am only confused. Am I welcome here, or do I always have to worry if I am violating some arbitrary standard that is not fully explained. AM I violaating it now?

[Ken Crippen]

I was trying to find out if I would always have been violating this new restrictive (and maybe capricious policy) but I was unsure if just asking this was a violation. But no one responded to my message on this. I tend to see things in a broad sense, as interconnected. So I do veer. Is asking about newspaper archive site problems illegal now.? Is mentioning Ty Cobb bad news? I am only confused. Am I welcome here, or do I always have to worry if I am violating some arbitrary standard that is not fully explained. AM I violaating it now?

Things are getting cleaned up now. I apologize for any lack of response. PM me or send me an email and I would be happy to discuss anything in further detail.

In an overall sense, we want to eliminate the problems that have dragged the board down in the past. Childish antics, attacks on posters, etc. Newspaper archive sites are part of research. You can absolutely discuss them. Longer discussions usually move in a different direction from the initial post. There is nothing wrong with that. Ty Cobb, general history, etc. That is fine. However, it would be a good idea to stay away from hot button topics like politics and religion. We want to focus to be on football and football history. However, that does not mean that no other topics will be tolerated.

Keep in mind that the moderators are using their best judgment. Things can be subjective. We are also human, meaning that we are not infallible. If you disagree with something, it can be discussed civilly via PM or email (not on the forum). As long as you don't act like a spoiled child, a civilized discussion can happen and the ruling might be overturned.

If you want to discuss this further, please PM or email me.

[Jeremy Crowhurst]

If you don't like the way things are being run, don't complain about it, run for office and see how hard the job really is and try to effect the changes yourself.

That's a nice sound bite, but it isn't the way things work in the real world. Members pay a membership fee. They are entitled to voice a concern without having to wait until the next election and putting themselves forward for office.

[Mark L. Ford]

You raise a good question. The idea is not to suppress all dissent. You stated your reservations, in a civil manner, about the potential for that to happen; and I will respond with the same courtesy. Expressing a concern is one thing. We care about the NFL, we care about the PFRA, we care about the game of pro football, and we want all of those to be better.

However, when specific individuals become the subject of public comments, that goes beyond expressing a concern. When the intent of a comment is to draw a reaction, we are not going to wait for it to escalate into a public argument. A membership fee of three dollars a month entitles a member to express concerns, but it also entitles a member to the intervention of the moderators.

True, you're a grown man and you can defend yourself against verbal abuse -- but why should you have to? If a person's intent is to start a fight, thirty-five dollars does not purchase that privilege. You've just implied that another member doesn't know "how things work in the real world". Perhaps you're waiting to see what he says in response. Perhaps you intended no offense -- your posts generally are about the sport, not about others. But if offense was taken, then it ramps up. As for the members of the Board, we pay our dues and we're members of the PFRA as well, and we'll get the same privilege that any other member is afforded from here on out.