- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Just to play devils advocate for a moment (sorry Spear), Craig was the one who announced he was interested in forming this new organization. He made the posts inviting people to join, he set up the forum and a lot of the early buzz was there because he is well respected in our community.
For those reasons alone I expected he WOULD take a leadership role in at least getting the thing off the ground and fully running. We have not elected an Executive committee, so until that happens we do need an “Organizer” to keep things moving along in an orderly fashion.
Since he never formally declined that role, and since he started the new group I think most of us ASSUMED he was going to be at the helm until the ship was afloat and running under its own steam.
Craig did not announce he was interested in doing anything himself. In fact, he just thought it was time to pursue a new organization seeing as that many people did not want to sign the confidential agreements that the GPWA imposed on members.
He set up the forum just out of convenience to others.
Now, any further assumption is quite unfair, because someone actually lends a hand to assist, does not mean that he has any designs on becoming the leader.
If I were to announce something and set up a forum, would that mean you automatically assume that I want to be the leader?
If I participate in the discussion, does that automatically mean I want to be a member?
It is not logical nor reasonable to make Craig responsible for anything up to this point. Had he not offered the help, I might well have.
If you guys (or us guys and gals, or whatever is PC) – cannot get together and have a discussion without someone being forced to serve as the leader, there simply is no point. We would not be able to decide what to talk about. We would not be able to decide where to go to dinner. We would not know how to get where we’re going.
Or am I incorrect?
If I were to announce something and set up a forum, would that mean you automatically assume that I want to be the leader?
Yes, I would assume this. As the person who authored the idea and announced it I would think it was your project and I would consider it presumptuous to come in and “take over” your plan.
Are you telling me when Craig posted the initial call to form a new group you thought he was NOT going to have a key role in it’s formation?
I did not think he was merely throwing an idea out on the table, I thought he was Organizing a new group.
Maybe its my mistake, but I bet others probably made the same assumptions.
OBTW, I am not trying to pick on Craig, I am just observing a possible reason things have stalled and trying to gauge wether the new group is going to move forward or not. I
can certainly understand if Craig does not have the time or desire to start a new group (or serve as its initial organizer). And I am not codemning him if that is the case. I just want to know if that is in fact what’s going on.
Organize is the operative word here.
I, too, was under the impression that Craig would be organizing this. I thought he would be there to run admin, make comments and spend a little time on finding some answers.
Even, to take Spear’s example, going out to dinner in a group takes an organizer. Someone needs to call the restaurant to see if there is room for all and make a resevation. Possibly transport needs to be organized. Possibly the cost needs to be covered. Possibly we need to make sure we don’t take someone who is allergic to shellfish to a lobster-only place. Someone needs to organize even that, and depending on the circumstances it can be a simple phone call or a daunting endeavor.
What is happening now is that we have a “board room” with a “board of directors” who have no resources and no intelligence. Nobody is doing shit to figure out what it will talke to incorporate in Britain, no one is putting up the polls someone asked for, nobody is letting new people in on a continuing basis. Nobody feels responsible and no one is doing anything. Everyone has spoken their peace and is waiting for …….???????
My husband just stopped by and asked what I was writing about.
He had a name to suggest: The Dolittle organization.Everyone spoke up, and now expects Santa to implement it all.
Quote:Even, to take Spear’s example, going out to dinner in a group takes an organizer. Someone needs to call the restaurant to see if there is room for all and make a resevation. Possibly transport needs to be organized. Possibly the cost needs to be covered. Possibly we need to make sure we don’t take someone who is allergic to shellfish to a lobster-only place. Someone needs to organize even that, and depending on the circumstances it can be a simple phone call or a daunting endeavor.This is perhaps going a bit overboard. A little bit too “formal” – what I had in mind was more like “Let’s go eat Chinese, or Mexican” or whatever.
If you want an organization with all the trappings, rules, regulations, policies, do’s and don’ts… one already exists. No sense in trying to reinvent the wheel.
What I’m looking for is much more similar to an informal gathering of minds and people. More like a clubhouse instead of a boardroom.
We are not a group of professionals who deal with each other at arm’s length. A good number of us know each other and can call each other friends as well as colleagues.
Quote:Yes, I would assume this. As the person who authored the idea and announced it I would think it was your project and I would consider it presumptuous to come in and “take over” your plan.Craig didn’t author an idea – he proposed that perhaps it was time for another organization. He didn’t say “I’m going to form a new webmaster’s group” – unlike J Todd, who did. I haven’t dug up the posts Craig made yet but I am quite certain he did not intend or imply that he would be leading a new organization.
Quote:Are you telling me when Craig posted the initial call to form a new group you thought he was NOT going to have a key role in it’s formation?Let me put it this way. I knew a year ago when he left the GPWA that he would not be particularly interested in forming another organization where he was expected to play a key role. I knew he hadn’t changed his mind either – because the first thing I told him is that he would have my help but that I would not take up any role, and his response was along the lines of “I thought you were going to run this organization” LOL.
Basically, it was a joke – an inside joke if you like – because we both knew neither of us would volunteer to take a leadership role.
So in short, yes, I knew.
What I’m looking for is much more similar to an informal gathering of minds and people. More like a clubhouse instead of a boardroom.
Me too, this is why I like CAP.
Personally this is what I’d like to see happen.
I hearby nominate “nobody” for president of our group.“nobody” will charge us monthly fees
“nobody” will do all the work
“nobody” will take all the blame
“nobody” will take all the creditthen when we approach casino groups…
“there’s a lot of us who think….”
“there’s a lot of us who might….”
“the whole damn group is mad as hell and we’re gonna sink you this month”no-name needed.
:dontget: Ok, I guess. :dontget:
I will watch and see what happens and if some day a new group is formed by parties known or unknown I will consider joining it, I guess.
I am leaning towards Bernies idea at this point, if we just want an informal gathering place then CAP was started three years ago for just that purpose.
I dont charge webmasters, Im not too bossy and everyone who contributes and is house broken is generally welcome.
:whatsthat Carry on :satisfied
Ok, ok, I understated it a little bit.
I like CAP – it also serves a useful purpose for us, thanks Prof.
What we are talking about over there, though, is probably a bit more formal than this – enough to have some potential influence as a group with specific goals.
Here at CAP, we’re free to talk about almost anything… LOL… and we basically chat and exchange ideas here but do not perform as a group with regards to a specific goal, ie. lobbying against prohibition in the US.
I suppose we could do that as CAP – but it almost seems more plausible as a group formed for the specific purpose of protecting the right of US residents to choose their own form of entertainment.
That’s just an example – and the 4oak forum is basically a place for tossing some of these ideas around. There has been no defined list of goals that the members want to achieve yet – so right now it is no different than CAP (which is why we are all here and not there).
If anyone has any proposals for what we as a group should be doing, by all means come forward – otherwise we will just stick to what we are doing here – not bad at all in any case.
Now there you go, Spear. You are making more sense.
I think that particular group of people over there has a place in the industry.
It is kind of like the connection between a lot of different elements. It is an important group because of exactly who all showed up.
Cap is a great place for casino affiliates – I have always been an active part of CAP since I entered the industry. I would not do that if I didn’t think Cap was useful and interesting and supportive and a whole slew of other good things.
As far as the casino affiliate business – CAP is and will remain the place to be.
The goup over there transcends this and is something much broader. It is an entirely different thing alltogether, just as jtodd’s place is something entirely different and they do not infringe on each other at all.
Jtodd provides an analytical service for affiliates – that is totally different from Cap which is an interactive place.
The Oak group does not fit in any real mold – it is a group of people who are active in the business, know each other and between them have a lot of pull. Just how to use that pull is the issue.
I would think that this group could be highly effective in supporting various efforts or resolving issues. I don’t want to see it go to waste.
Maybe it should think of itself as more of an informal and exclusive group – a think tank. Not a place that likes to expand and grow into something but a dynamic problem solving place.
Lol, I think I should be posting all that over there.
Well, I am going offline now, but the oak forum is a 404 error at this time.
EGADS – Yes its a 404 for me too. hmmmmm
I do recall something Craig posted prior to starting the new forum…
I’d just like to point out one thing. It appears that some people have got the idea that I’m starting a new association, this is not the case. I am trying to gather a group of people to start one up, this does not mean that I will or want to lead this new group – so if you’ve got a personal grudge against me don’t worry,
http://mb.winneronline.com/showthread.html?t=14300&page=2&pp=10
I was under the impression for ideas to be thrown out and discussion and Craig was just hosting it.
The 404 seems to be a temporary server problem.
Anyway, let’s throw ideas in/out and see what we can do about it. No one wants to be a leader (politicians could take a lesson from us) and IMO we don’t need one either.
It is nice to see unhindered discussion still viable in a volatile industry.
I will be posting the polls after xmas, please read the thread and post your input. http://www.4oak.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=187#187
Thanks
emg35Polls are up, so come put in your 2 cents.
Thanks
emg35Done.
