Polls & Surveys
It's becoming clear, we want information, and the Media are interested too.
This group will run polls and surveys, but also discuss what types of information might be useful.
Privacy warning: Please be aware that when you "vote" on any poll, your user id and IP address is recorded with your vote.
The use of the word 'censorship' is a highly emotive one in any 'free' Society. We all value 'free speech' and will defend our right to exrcise it.
However I think 'censorship' is the wrong word to use to describe how a forum should be kept in good order.
Everything that has been written about internet forums all say the same thing, that a policy of unbridled 'free-for-all-and-anything-goes' sounds hugely attractive but is a recipe for disaster. Such liberty in any forum is open to abuse, & regrettably that has happened in this Forum.
This Forum badly needs its own 'highway code' that members accept and by which they agree to abide.
Members need to agree how breaches of the 'highway code' should be managed. The best means of doing this in this forum is for there to be a small group of moderators approved by the members to have oversight of this task.
Moderation would be governed by a protocol acceptable to the membership.
This Forum has aims, objectives and a Mission. Our 'highway code' starts with the statement: Members are expected to make contributions in conformity with the Forum's aims, objectives & Mission (ie: 'drive on the left side of the road' !)
I suggest that this Forum's ' 'Highway Code' should be as follows:
(1) Posts should be made in line with the Forum's aims, objectives & mission
(2) comments to a post should be in response to the Post by addressing the issues therein
(3) comments under a Post that are not about or related to the Post are not acceptable (it's so, so easy to get off track from the subject of the original Post!)
'(4) trolling' is not allowed (see definition below)
(5) 'flaming' is not allowed (see definition below)
(6) the use of vulgar/obscene/offensive/racist or insulting language is not allowed
(7) statements that are considered libelous are not allowed
Definitions of 'trolling' & 'flaming'
A 'troll' is invariably someone with 'a chip on their shoulder' or with 'an axe to grind' who uses a forum for their own agenda. 'Trolls' are a disruptive & divisive influence in any forum;
'trolls' seduce forum members into responding angrily to their contributions by using subtle, but controversial language;
'trolls' will often divert a discussion off track in order to impose their own separate agenda;
'trolls' are often 'outsiders' who enter a forum to disrupt its mission & cause chaos & division
To 'flame' another forum member is to attack them or their ideas in a hostile and rantish fashion. 'Trolls' use 'flaming' as their primary weapon
Role of moderators
Essentially moderators oversee a forum:
(1) to see that forum etiquette is observed
(2) to deal with incidents of 'trolling' & 'flaming'
(3) to take action on breaches of forum etiquette in accord with a protocol agreed by the members
(4) to receive & act on complaints made by one member in repect of another member's post/behaviour in accord with the protocol
If the vote on this Poll shows a majority in favour of a new 'highway code' for the better conduct of the business of the Forum, then I am sure ng will be pleased to accept nominations from members willing to be moderators.
This will relieve ng of the onerous task of being sole 'watchman'. He has enough on his plate being the Manager & Administrator of 2 - & shortly 3 - forums without having to 'moderate' as well.
After election I suggest that the moderators & ng then draft a protocol that members can vote on which will aim at balancing the importance of 'free speech' against the need to maintain forum etiquette where this is being seriously compromised.
Posted 14/07/2009 - 19:41 by peter and louise
We have been stripped of our life-savings, a terrible thing to happen to anyone in a civilised part of the world, or anywhere else for that matter.
The topic of "ease of use" of the forum site has come up various times. Depending on the results of this poll I may try to address the issue. Please understand that almost invariably increased functionality means there's more to learn (and more to go wrong!). Learning to fly and land a single engined Cessna takes 10 to 20 hours, To do the same for an F-15 or Tornado takes considerably longer I suspect. Is an F-15 "difficult to fly"?
We have a lot of functionality here, arguably unnecessarily - groups, subscriptions and notifications, polls, blogs, forums, news items, categories, glossary, multiple level of access, user roles, and more. It's all there for a reason, but in some cases perhaps there's just too much.
So this poll is not asking whether you consider the site easy or difficult to use, nor whether it's functionality is insufficient or excessive, but whether the balance is right. Maybe we don't need a Cessna nor an F-15 but something in between?
Is the balance right? Good? Adequate? Poor? ...
Long ago we ran this identical poll. How do opinions stand now?
Posted 20/06/2009 - 09:36 by peter and louise
It has been suggested before and I wish to suggest it again here, now: COULD WE AFFORD OUR OWN FULL-PAGE ARTICLE FOR PUBLICATION IN ALL THE NATIONAL NEWPAPERS?
Is this not the time to demonstrate, right in the face of IOM Government, right on its doorstep, that enough is enough! How much more are we supposed to endure.
As most people here know, the DAG is in the process of forming as a legal entity. Thereafter, the IT function could logically be part of that. Whilst I stress that I have every confidence in the members of the DAG Strategy Team, I can nonetheless envisage some reasons why the IT/web function should perhaps be kept separate.
Some important functions of the IT/web role are:
- Take decisions affecting the web-sites, content and functionality, try to plan for future needs.
- Control access to privileged information such as email addresses and data from registration forms, etc.
- Decide (very occasionally) whether content should be "censored", a member "blocked", etc.
Currently these things are done by me on a best effort basis, in communication with DAG Strategy Team members, and where relevant getting input from all site members via a poll etc. I also try to respond appropriately to input made directly to me via email from members, etc.
So, what are the options?
For simplicity, I am referring to the new formal entity below as simply DAG Ltd. The two fundamental options are:
DAG Ltd is in charge of IT/web. Funding comes from the DAG Ltd "pot" which in turn is funded by members and goes towards legal and other costs. The IT function reports to the DAG Ltd "management" and that team therefore ultimately controls the web sites and related data.
IT/web is independent - funding is provided directly by members, probably via a monthly or quarterly subscription. Ultimate control of the web-sites remains (as currently) with me or perhaps some other provider who might take over.
So really the choice is one of (a) control of web-sites and corresponding data and (b) funding process and simplicity or lack thereof. And can see positive and negatives to both approaches both from the DAG perspective and my personal perspective. There is potentially a third option which would be some combination of the two routes.
Who should take the decisions?
Another question might be who in the DAG as a whole would be the best person to take strategic decisions for the group's IT needs. For those who have never looked, you can find information about me here http://www.netgenius.co.uk/about and here http://www.linkedin.com/in/ainman Unfortunately I am not in a position to be involved here on a purely voluntary basis, and that factor alone might be considered positive or negative (I would personally not like to be operated on by a volunteer heart surgeon.)
A real-life and recent example is that there is a sub group on the site (non-divisive) who wanted to have a private area here to continue their discussions. If the DAG Ltd were in charge of the site, then presumably they would be allowed to access that private area or indeed decide that such a private area should not be allowed. Whilst I (if still involved) would make input, it would not be my decision.
The DAG as a whole (or at least those members who are likely to contribute to IT/web funding) need to decide which approach is best. I don't feel that this decision should be taken without consulting the DAG membership as a whole, hence I'm posting this poll.
Related: web-sites and IT funding - survey
House of COMMONS
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE
BANKING CRISIS - ISLE OF MAN AND GUERNSEY Tuesday 3 February 2009
Sometimes it seems like it's a huge uphill struggle. Well, all of the time actually. The header says "A small group of determined people can change the course of history" - are we doing it?
This Consultation Paper follows the report of the London Team
I write this on my own initiative & without the prompting from anyone in the DAG. I wish to make it clear that I have neither been canvassed as a successor to Diver nor am I offering myself as candidate as leader of the DAG. I write purely in the role of facilitator. I do so as someone with a Masters Degree in Management & as a former manager of my own highly successful business.
My Story states I just escaped from being caught by the debacle of 8th.October 2008. That is why I am Lucky Jim! I have been advised that as the Forum Profile format did not make provision for other financial interests in KSFIOM I could tick I am a depositor because through a legal instrument I have made an interest free loan to a depositor who was made penniless by the collapse of KSFIOM. In effect I will be the beneficiary of compensation when it is paid. Thus I have a de facto interest in KSFIOM. However, I have chosen NOT to say that I was a depositor because that would not have been a true statement.
From the outset I joined the DAG to offer my substantial managerial expertise, together with my considerable experience as a senior moderator in another forum. I was invited to join the now defunct Core Group, and was Editor/Moderator until the Forum was split into two & these roles were dropped.
The London Team Report
What I now have to say is not a criticism of the members of the London Team members. I have the greatest respect & admiration for each of them; they are all truly great people & have done an amazing job.
Whilst I welcome its report, I am somewhat concerned that it remains anonymous, it having been written both in the third person and the first, but unsigned.
My other concern is that I believe Most members of the DAG do not know the people who are in the Team. Also the DAG does not know to whom Diver has handed his mantle.
I believe that the DAG would like to have a say as to who is leading it, just as it did when Diver was selected as its first leader (however imperfect that was in democratic terms, it worked!)
Right now I:
1. support the Team in this transisitional period in which Diver hands over the reins
2. accept the need to raise money to meet necessary legal costs
That said, there are a number of issues that are of concern to some - if not all - of the membership of the DAG which need to be addressed.
Diver originally headed The London Team working in tandem with another Team in the Isle of Man ably led by expat.. Subsequently Diver broke away from the DAG to form what was known as Diver’s informal Team .
Essentially Diver’s informal team was free from external control and constraint whilst still reporting to the Forum & seeking its support in its pursuit of the objectives that it considered desirable to achieve the DAG’s Mission. Central to this was a conviction that legal advice & representation was essential to the task. Not all members shared that view. However, Diver enjoyed the support of the majority of members, a support that has been continuous to this day.
Notwithstanding the generality of the great support that Diver enjoyed, inevitably there were issues which were of concern to members. One was the infrequency of communication between Diver & the DAG through the Forum, and the other was the representation of views that were specifically those of Diver & his Team (including legal advisers) which claimed to represent the majority view of the DAG when the DAG never had opportunity to consider whether it did in fact concur. (eg: John Wright’s Affidavit to the Court 29/1.)
A well moderated forum such as the CHAT Forum can be a good vehicle:
-- for gathering & sharing ideas & discussing issues;
-- for offering support & encouragement to members;
-- for expressing feelings of anger, anxiety, furstration & despair.
However, a forum per se would not be any organisation’s chosen means by which to manage a campaign to achieve a mission such as that of the DAG
4. I feel the time is right to have a review of the way in which the DAG manages the task of fulfilling its Mission
The DAG needs to have a management, administrative & logisitcs structure that is appropriate for what it seeks to do
I suggest what is now required is a SIMPLE management structure to undertake the following key tasks:
1. Operational Management
a. Strategy & Tactics and liaison with the IOM Team
b. Public Relations,/Press Releases
c. legal consultation & representation
d. fund raising for financing the websites & legal fees
2. Administrative Management
a. senior Forum administrator/co-ordinator role
b. IT personnel in charge of the 2 Forum websites
c. Editors/moderators for the CHAT website
5. I firmly believe that the time has now come for the London Team to come back into the heart of the DAG as its Operational Management Team In effect it already carries out the operational management task as I have outlined above, but it would do so in a more transparent and integrated way as part of the Forum and not as an appendage to it.
The time is right for the DAG to overhaul its Manageral & Administrative structure in order for it to be better able to serve its members interests in working more effectively in achieving the DAG’s Mission. . The means of accomplishing the Mission would be better served if the informal London Team were brought back into the DAG as its Operational Management Team
If there is a consensus for what I have outlined supported by a Poll, I would be happy if there were a member willing to undertake the work to bring this about. Failing this I would be willing to undertake the task.
Posted 04/02/2009 - 01:44 by Lucky Jim
It is evident from Tony Brown's mealy mouthed statement to the Treasury Select Committee Meeting on 3 February that the IOM Government is kowtowing to HMGovernment. His emphasis was on the Compensation Scheme being what depositors could expect.
However, it is also evident that the TSC has sussed the parties to the KSFIOM affair and it is not difficult to get the feeling that its sympathies are with the depositors.
There are now 3 issues for the DAG to consider.
the TSC will not have completed its inquiry to be able to report its recommendations before the IOM Court Hearing on 19 February,
the IOM Government is not going to change its stated position ie: it is going to pursue its own strategy which is to try for a SoA, and failing this it will accept liquidation & the triggering of the Depositors' Compensation Scheme.
whilst DAG has the power to bring the IOM financial services industry crashing down on the heads of the IM Government, in doing so it would cause thousands of other depositors to suffer precisely the same as it has suffered.
In doing so DAG will have shot itself in both feet because it will not only hurt others but it will hurt itself because there will be huge complications in implementing a DCS.; indeed if banks go to the wall so will the £200Million that they are required to pay into the compensation pot!
Where does this leave us ?
First, even if the IOM Government can persuade the Court that its SoA is viable, DAG already knows that it will fall well short of assuring a100% return of members' money, so members are not going to vote in favour of a SoA. That being the case the IOM Government might drop the idea of pursuing a SoA.
Second, in this event the Court will decide on liquidation, which will trigger the implementation of the Compensation Scheme. This will take 2 years to pay out up to a maximum of £50,000.
So what might follow ?
the banking crisis plus a run on the banks could change the whole scenario. The IOM is a Crown Dependency & if its financial industry goes to the wall it is almost certain to involve the UK having to step in to stop the Island sinking into the Irish Sea.
the political outcome of the TSC's findings & recommendations to Parliament might bring about a situation where HMG accepts that a gross injustice has been the outcome of events which HMG may want to be seen to rectify by lending assistance to the IOM Government in order to ameliorate it
a speedier progress of the receivership of KaupthingUK could lead to an early release of the KSFIOM assets presently frozen, so reducing the level of assistance given by HMG under 2 above
So what should be DAG's Strategy & Tactics from this point in time?
Presently 96% of members have voted in favour of the motion calling on the IOM Government to seek a loan from HMG in order that depositors receive back 100% of their money. So DAG's Notary (John Wright) will be expected to say now that the DAG does not support a SoA that does not quarantee 100% return of depositors' money
Members will then be obliged to accept implementation of the DCS;, BUT members will retain the right to pursue their just demands through the courts.
DAG will need legal advice as to whether there is a substantive case against a party. Importantly it will need to be known whether the party to be sued have the means to pay not only what is owing to members but also the costs of the proceedings.
DAG will have to decide on the whether the odds of winning are substantially in its favour, otherwise it will be liable for the huge costs should the case fail.
legal proceedings would be costly. It is possible that because 70% of members have less than £50,000 on deposit, (which they will get back in full) , the cost of legal proceedings may fall on the 30% of those with more than £50,000.
DAG will also need to ascertain whether there is a clear cut case of members having been illegally dispossessed of their property as defined by the European Human Rights legislation. If the advice is in the affirmative then a decision will need to be made as to whether to take the matter before the European Court. This too would be a costly matter.
7. a decision will need to be taken right now as to whether the IOM Government should be told that if depositors do not get their money back in full, then DAG proposes to recover the money through the courts.
Tactics/Plan of Action
Diver's Team is now advised that members will not support a SoA that does not give back 100% of their money, & that Diver (or his successor) conveys this message forthwith to the IOM Government
Although the Chief Minister has said that the IOM Government will NOT ask for a loan, nevertheless the motion presently enjoying 96% support of members should be sent without delay
The full Motion reads:
The Depositors Action Group (DAG) will not accept any proposal that does not secure a 100% return of its members' deposits. No SoA that falls short of this is acceptable. DAG will support the IOM Government if it will negotiate a loan from HMG in order to bridge the gap that presently exists in the accounts of KSFIOM in order that depositors may be paid fully and speedily. DAG believes that to fail to do so will precipitate the collapse of the IOM financial services industry
this Motion to be incorporated in a Press Release
legal advice is obtained with a view to DAG seeking redress through the courts
if it is considered that the DAG has a strong case then an assessment of the costs involved should be made and members advised accordingly so that a decision can be made as to how the DAG will wish to proceed.
I attach a table showing current & suggested DAG Strategy, Tactics & Action.
Members are invited to comment thereon, suggesting any additions to the Strategy &/or Tactics. Also to suggest who should do what in relation to blanks under 'ACTION' in the table
Many people felt the offer was an insult. Others may have other reasons for not applying. This information may be useful for PR purposes.
Posted 27/01/2009 - 20:39 by Anonymous
involving at least two ofthe same people including a director of our former bank
Posted 26/01/2009 - 19:44 by ng
Poll-frenzy seems to be taking place taking place, probably a good thing. I've enhanced the poll facility to include a text area called "background and objectives".
DAG calls on the IOM Government to negotiate a loan with HMG to enable 100% restoration of depositors' money
[Background and objectives should be described here.]