I think I know exactly where you are going with that question. I thought the same.Tokyo Sex Whale wrote:How many members does STAR have?HoneyRoastHoax wrote:cypry did you read their 21 page rule book before attending?
http://star-reading.org/index.php/membership/
Can I ask where they have said this? As they have not done so for the last few forums, and as far as I am aware they were only planning on putting a summary in their next newsletter.Wimb wrote:Beside from that you're utterly missing my point here. STAR have said they would have posted a summary of what was said at the event, they just haven't done it yet. My only point has ever been that it's a shame that someone in the room took it upon THEMSELVES to go and publish all the info
That and there is never a summary of the Fans Forums do the argument of STAR would have posted one if they were not beaten to it is a load of BullshitMaguire wrote:Why wouldn't he? He's attended his first Fans Forum, found it interesting and passed a summary on to a (relatively small) group of other supporters. It's only a day later, no wonder he didn't wonder why there wasn't a thread.Wimb wrote:Beside from that you're utterly missing my point here. STAR have said they would have posted a summary of what was said at the event, they just haven't done it yet. My only point has ever been that it's a shame that someone in the room took it upon THEMSELVES to go and publish all the info
As I mentioned to Turns earlier, it's simply a case of trust and a mutual deterrent.leicsRoyal wrote:Wimb, I really don't understand any of this.
Unless all of STARs members have to sign confidentiality agreements, how the hell do you stop it being posted in public forums. Yes STAR can fly about requesting posts are removed but there is nothing to stop anyone just reposting it in the same place or somewhere else.
In response to that and Turns latest reply then perhaps I'll agree that STAR should have ensured a quicker edit and making sure that they got their own version out faster.Maguire wrote:Why wouldn't he? He's attended his first Fans Forum, found it interesting and passed a summary on to a (relatively small) group of other supporters. It's only a day later, no wonder he didn't wonder why there wasn't a thread.
hobnob wrote:FU all
Fair one HobNob.hobnob wrote:It was the club that asked for the post to be removed as the event, as per STAR’s instruction, is behind closed doors.
The original author of the summary had also asked for it to be removed anyway.
I do think that it's a fans forum so surely all fans are entitled to know what was said... and surely everyone will find out anyway as it's not like the people there aren't going to talk to other fans.
However, they are running a "private" event and don't want it reported on so you have to respect those wishes!
Funny thing is that STAR used to supply the script of previous fans forums to publish on this website.
Agreed, it's a bit frustrating all around.Turns8 wrote:...and despite the club requesting it as a 'behind closed doors' event...I'm pretty sure that nothing was said that would be harmful to the club in anyway...so the whole thing is abit of a farce really...
Shameless....Maguire wrote:Fair one HobNob.hobnob wrote:It was the club that asked for the post to be removed as the event, as per STAR’s instruction, is behind closed doors.
The original author of the summary had also asked for it to be removed anyway.
I do think that it's a fans forum so surely all fans are entitled to know what was said... and surely everyone will find out anyway as it's not like the people there aren't going to talk to other fans.
However, they are running a "private" event and don't want it reported on so you have to respect those wishes!
Funny thing is that STAR used to supply the script of previous fans forums to publish on this website.
In future perhaps an eagle-eyed moderator might be able to swoop on these things before it gets escalated to you
a welcome climbdown - applying the logic of your earlier posts of not reporting anything that hasnt already appeared; can I perhaps suggest that a similar approach is taken to slightly dull player profile blogs on other reading fan websitesWimb wrote:Agreed, it's a bit frustrating all around.Turns8 wrote:...and despite the club requesting it as a 'behind closed doors' event...I'm pretty sure that nothing was said that would be harmful to the club in anyway...so the whole thing is abit of a farce really...
Needless to say lessons would have been learned. Hopefully what can happen in future is a fans forum where an edited transcript can be made available a day or two after.
Won't really continue to throw posts into this because it's taken up most of the afternoon and I have no real beef with anyone. Apologies to Cypry if he felt I was OTT.
Interesting that the club swooped within a couople of hours - obviously HNA is required reading in the comms dept.southbank1871 wrote:It's nice that hobnob agrees with us but it sounds like he was put under tremendous pressure from the club to delete the thread. Dear oh dear. Like others have said, if Cypry had reported on anything remotely controversial or revealing, then I could understand it, but he didn't.
You can request it but those writing them on other fans websites might not listenOnly one Trevor Morley wrote:a welcome climbdown - applying the logic of your earlier posts of not reporting anything that hasnt already appeared; can I perhaps suggest that a similar approach is taken to slightly dull player profile blogs on other fan websitesWimb wrote:Agreed, it's a bit frustrating all around.Turns8 wrote:...and despite the club requesting it as a 'behind closed doors' event...I'm pretty sure that nothing was said that would be harmful to the club in anyway...so the whole thing is abit of a farce really...
Needless to say lessons would have been learned. Hopefully what can happen in future is a fans forum where an edited transcript can be made available a day or two after.
Won't really continue to throw posts into this because it's taken up most of the afternoon and I have no real beef with anyone. Apologies to Cypry if he felt I was OTT.
Indeed.southbank1871 wrote:It's nice that hobnob agrees with us but it sounds like he was put under tremendous pressure from the club to delete the thread. Dear oh dear. Like others have said, if Cypry had reported on anything remotely controversial or revealing, then I could understand it, but he didn't.
Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot] and 102 guests