New posts

Gord-B's posts

221 posts found

Dec. 22, 2016, 8:16 p.m.
Posts: 221
Joined: March 27, 2014
Look at this forum

Who was arguing for no action? You are putting words in my mouth Gord. That's not like you. I was simply commenting on the nature of accountability and internet hostility.

New things are already well under way. A new forum solution with improved functionality and user focussed moderation will be part of that solution.

Hi Cam, let me explain my point of view: in my other thread "Forum Changes" you offered up the reply I quoted you on. My opinion… and it is only an opinion… is that you threw me a bone… there was nothing on it… maybe you were sidetracked with family and just threw it out there but, "what I read" was a nothing… so I responded to what I interpreted.

Is how I interpreted "putting words in your mouth?" In your point of view, it was.

I will acknowledge that I was being provocative… yes… as a tactic, to draw something, (what I do not know) out…

And now we hear there are changes afoot and Scrooge is gone.

Fantastic… I wish you could have indicated that initially in the "Forum Changes" thread that predated this one as it would have alleviated my not knowing the facts of what was afoot. So in this regard I apologize by putting you on the spot.

We all know business has two variables… money in and money out. As one forum participant noted… you make no money in on the clicks. We get that. I hope the money out on the changes afoot are not too much.

We all appreciate the opportunity to share our points of view in your NSMB shared space that you and Pete provide us.

It is special and meaningful to many, if not all, of us…

And it is that reason why there is such a great discussion with shared points of view on this exact topic.

Recall… I initiated this conversation in the thread "Forum Changes" with that this is my first sentence: This is my opinion… Please discuss…

So, it is all really a point of view, as each of us have. So, at the end of the day… we are here since you let us and as I have said before, some things have to be top down. And I respect that. Which is why I suggested that maybe a members only forum would be better suited at the NSMBA where they have the Societies Act providing a back stop on participation etiquette. I intend to approach the NSMBA on this in the New Year and to see if they would be willing to embark on a strategy for this within the next 5 years.

This way, the anon aspect of fun can be maintained here… yet, as a community, we defer to you and the moderators to keep it a safe place.

The false news perpetrated by individuals being initially a wolf in sheeps clothing harms the personal reputations of those related to the vitriol and gas lighting of the post. We do not need that. Irrespective of personal viewpoints of subject matter, no one needs that here.

We should be accountable to us, real names or anon, and those crossing the community line of acceptableness of remark need to have a response.

I think there is some work to do on a new rule of Forum Participation… and really, you could nuke all the accounts and start fresh on the same architecture with an acceptance of a new Terms and Conditions for participation.

Dunno… maybe getting ahead of myself on that one as I am not the decision maker… but anyways, thanks for your time on this matter and thanks for the NSMB community channel you provide. It is important to all of us here.


Dec. 22, 2016, 7:57 p.m.
Posts: 221
Joined: March 27, 2014
Look at this forum

The forum is really a gift from NSMB

We need to remember this point… it is important, we are participants in Cam and Pete's shared space. As a result, and legally too… we are guests in this space and they make the rules.

Dec. 22, 2016, 7:55 p.m.
Posts: 221
Joined: March 27, 2014
Look at this forum

pretty much everyone that replied here has posted helpful intelligent things at some point for the purpose of enriching discussion here

this is the point of my piping up in the last day with "Forum Changes" and even if the proposed changes are not shared… fine, the fact is now we are having real impactful conversation with one another. Thx Julie for your post.

Dec. 22, 2016, 7:53 p.m.
Posts: 221
Joined: March 27, 2014
Look at this forum

I just got a call… "Dude… did you see the shit on the board…" here we go again : )

OMG… is it my fault? Shit I am sorry. Seriously… but as I read the postings… they were refreshing since it was my colleagues, Cam included, that were having a serious point of view conversation with one another… and I learned a bunch: the whole point of the forum… yay!

… all kidding aside… I will respond in a bunch of posts due to the time out thing…

Dec. 22, 2016, 10:21 a.m.
Posts: 221
Joined: March 27, 2014
Look at this forum

Yup. I think Cam wants the clicks though.


I like a lot of the thrust here but there's one problem. Facebook for the most part involves discussions with people using their real identities, and it can be every bit as toxic. Often more so.

I agree that transparency would help, but I think much of the problem we are talking about is a result of the medium rather than the level of anonymity.

Has anyone seen the comments below a CBC article regarding some polarizing political issue? You'd think CBC listeners would be like minded, but the vitriol and ignorance is mind-boggling. Maybe they are paid to be shit disturbers?

Anyone that argues vague edge conditions as a rationale for taking no action, which, in itself, is his business decision, has decided there is no value for any action for his business which lends credibility to the top reference.

Like I said in my other post "Forum Changes"… maybe this place is not the place for real in depth conversation.

User moderating anon posts still is not a solution since the stuff is posted. Accountability starts at the top in this case. It cannot be sustained in a real manner from below since by then the vitriol has already been posted… so what if an anon account gets banned, the cycle starts over with another anon account.

Yet there are many which have decency with their participation within their anon accounts. So it is a balancing act.

Yet from what I have seen, sure does not seem like it is balanced. It seems like the decent anon accounts love being baited… like their own responses to the stuff is actually making a difference in a crazy OP's mind. Anon accounts that participate in feeding the trolls are as much of an issue here than the original perp IMO.

Anyways, Happy New Year!!!

Dec. 21, 2016, 9:46 p.m.
Posts: 221
Joined: March 27, 2014
Forum Changes

So I am sensing this: there are those of us that which to remain anon and be able to just go anon and anon and anon… lol…

; )

but then there are time when there is an important topic, and it gets derailed by someone, and then that gets its own traction and goes anon and anon and anon… and the whole thread is poisened.

In the last six months I have been phoned three or four times with the "have you heard about… blah blah blah " and I go onto this Forum and read page after page after page of complete BS to try to understand "what up".

It would be nice to go somewhere where a sincere question is posed, and a sincere answer appears. I am a member of an moto forum and they have their "fun and stupid" forums, but then there are the spots where I actually learn a bunch from others wanting to share.

Maybe I am naive. It would be great to have that here with the great history of the participants… but shit gets sideways within 5 posts. Anyways, I will check back next year! Hope you all have a great holiday!

Dec. 21, 2016, 9:09 p.m.
Posts: 221
Joined: March 27, 2014
Forum Changes


Heckler and Walleater have valid points, sure there are outlets to engage (with the NSMBA) - but that was not my angle on it… to engage with the trail association. My angle was to engage with like minded people whom are respectful, and have the same caring passion, but not necessarily viewpoints, since this leads to fruitful discussion.

Sure, all the links Heckler points out are there for "engagement" with the trail association, and they all work for their intended design considerations… but a "forum" tool is especially important for the context and the timeliness and the being able to quote for context, other people's points- like I did here.

And maybe, if we keep on with the ideas… maybe the NSMBA can implement a Members Forum with Participation Rules, under full accountability, and that can separate the ducks from the Swans.

It would not be a "volunteer" run Forum per se… it would be part of a larger communications strategy in place to ramp up members and accountability of the association in the eyes of its' business partners and community leaders.

So yea, maybe status quo here (NSMB) and this idea goes up to a monthly Directors meeting in the New Year at the NSMBA… and let them consider it into the Spring and see where that sits with them and their priorities. Then, we can have professional, sincere, entertaining too, interactions with people we know and meet on the trails… and can have interesting debates with knowing the other person, which can lead to other conversations in the bike shops that actually lead to creating more community.

dunno, a work in progress concept for sure.

Dec. 21, 2016, 4:53 p.m.
Posts: 221
Joined: March 27, 2014
Forum Changes

I like a lot of the thrust here but there's one problem. Facebook for the most part involves discussions with people using their real identities, and it can be every bit as toxic. Often more so.

I agree that transparency would help, but I think much of the problem we are talking about is a result of the medium rather than the level of anonymity.

What I am easily suggesting in my OP, I know being from technology side of things, is indeed somewhat challenging to implement. And it would cost you money.

Cam, does your current forum technology even allow for this?

Anonymity is good for you since your real costs of oversight are minimized to the lowest common denominator- you have less liability.

For every problem, there is a solution. It just needs to be prioritized as needed.

Maybe what I am suggesting here is, in fact, misplaced… maybe it should not even be here. Maybe it should be a forum at NSMBA's website, since NSMBA members are bound to act according to the societies rules (Read the Act people…) and they already have the website membership technology piece and payments processing.

As I think about this… it would be a better fit there….

Dec. 21, 2016, 12:34 p.m.
Posts: 221
Joined: March 27, 2014
Forum Changes

Here is my opinion:

The Forum in its' current form is detrimental to the community and to the NSMB brand due to the unaccountability of its' participants.

The quality of conversation, idea generating, and momentum towards a communicative community for the greater good for our sport is constantly derailed with the ever increasing false news, trolls, disrespect, and, in some instance, vulgarity, of the threads/posts.

As a result, I have, as I am sure others have, spent far less of my precious, well intentioned, time- here.

And this is sad, since it is our silent majority's intention to do good. Yet we just turn off NSMB and discount the Forum as being, far a large part, a lot of BS.

For those public figures whom post, and ARE accountable, there is a distinct difference in tone and quality of conversation- like this one.


Cam, keep a part of the Forum anonymous, sure… but consider making the part of the Forum that deals with specific areas, such as the Shore, a Member Only access: for $15 bucks a year paid by credit card or paypal account… (an amount of the NSMBA Trail Pass [exactly why this… to be explained]) Forum participants have to register and provide personal details.

Update your privacy policy. Terms of Membership will be such that any abusive or flagged postings to a certain limit is tolerated. After three strikes your membership is revoked and access to the Forum blocked.

But the idea of the $15 a year Forum membership is that that money is then donated back to the NSMBA for Trail Passes… and the NSMBA and NSMB revitalize the concept that the Trail Pass is a part of an interactive positive communicating community with accountability.

There are many ideas and ways you can slice/dice this concept.

Respectful participants of this Forum: Please discuss.

July 24, 2016, 12:47 a.m.
Posts: 221
Joined: March 27, 2014
Why has Pink Starfish been decommissioned?

Fantastic post. (quoted below)
This isn't as clear-cut as many of you suggest.

Great post Cam, and I want to highlight your remark here ^^^.

As I have learned, no one can assume to have perfect information. Those with the most information on what is going on is the Land Manager and the trail association.

Trail associations and their Directors have responsibilities under the law as to information dissemination and privacy. Their relationship with the Land Manager is very important. So careful, considered steps are taken to maintain and grow that relationship- PS, MC or otherwise.

Just because I am a Telus Shareholder does not mean I get my every question answered on any matter of business that may be occurring… and the same is with my membership to the NSMBA. We elect our Directors since we believe they can do the best job all things considered.

So we should let them do that job… and when they can tell us what is going on, then they will. We need to trust a bit more, and not be "that rider" that expects what they want to know, how they want to know it, when they want to know it. It just does not work that way.

Cam's post is brilliant. Thanks for that.

June 15, 2016, 11:57 a.m.
Posts: 221
Joined: March 27, 2014
Time to ride Sex Boy & Shore Play

Kudos to Alan and the Builders. Whatever approach they're using is clearly working.

Alan chatted with me today about some things that were not visible to me. I removed my earlier post as it was predicated on some blind spots. What is important is that it is moving forward in a manner which may not be perfect, but it is moving forward!

September 15 is the big day to see what BPP is thinking.

June 8, 2016, 5:31 p.m.
Posts: 221
Joined: March 27, 2014
Fences appear on Cypress

Has anyone noticed that there are gaps in the fence?

The trails are not closed.
The fences are part of site safety for work being done on Fern Trail. This is part of the wild fire management plan for the area. They're putting in 3 new water tanks for fire fighting too.

Sex Boy and Shore Play will be kept open during construction, including access to Fern.

I merely mentioned "Fences appear on Cypress" : )

I hiked it today, fence with open pass throughs for Shoreplay, Sex Boy and SOB on the high side of Fern. There is another on the lower side of Fern for Sex Boy, and maybe another further down at the actual development border.

Water tanks are a good thing.

June 7, 2016, 10 p.m.
Posts: 221
Joined: March 27, 2014
Fences appear on Cypress

Lower Sex Girl above Fern Trail
End of SOB above Fern Trail

See MTB Cypress facebook page. Could not figure out how to post a photo.

June 6, 2016, 8:42 p.m.
Posts: 221
Joined: March 27, 2014
Cypress overview to date.

All great points Kever, yes, the ball is in their court.

Also, do not be surprised in the "development deal makings with DWV" that BPP may put as a condition that all trails above 1200 are taken over by DWV- which lands us back into the Parks conversation.

So, any off the record conversations could only be as a band aid to keep the community "on-side" to prevent any grumblings until the topic of trails is discussed by BPP and DWV.

In a ULWG meeting last year… the transfer of trail corridors was mentioned to DWV if I recall correctly. BPP does have some leverage with respect to this IMO.

June 6, 2016, 8:27 a.m.
Posts: 221
Joined: March 27, 2014
Cypress overview to date.

Alan B likely has a better grasp on these points- here are my views:

Wont DWVs schedule be dictated by BPPs actions?

There are multiple issues:

A Trails Master Plan- which is completely independent of anything BPP does. The Trails plan in for the entire municipality and covers all types of trails for all types of activity. So, the Trails Plan had to wait for the Parks Master Plan to be completed… and then was put on ice until the Upper Lands Working Group- a citizen board- completed their non binding recommendations to DWV. Now that these two pieces are done… (ULWG took longer than expected- Alan B was in the group as a DWV citizen and Old Growth Conservancy member)- the trails plan can begin… but right now they are calling it a trail review… this will take a lot of time. Time which will see BPP push forward on their planning concepts to present DWV Planning and Council.

Then quickly, all the points I mention above responding to Jonathan.

Isnt DWV sitting on its hands waiting at this point?

DWV Parks is not.
DWV Planning is… and will see Sept 15 what the first design considerations are that BPP will forward to the public and to DWV- this to start the conversation which will be likely taken up in a Cypress Village Working Group…

DWV may want to have a comprehensive plan in place but if BPP moves quicker than they can, DWV be stuck - they cant delay the development for too long while they put a plan together. BPP will circle back on their obligations - the highest bar of which will be environmental - and theyll plow forward with their commercial real estate plan that may incorporate X% of greenspace that will probably be disc golf and paved paths!

And really, that is pretty much the fear I have.

Does all of the your comments suggest that whatever is outside of the current development plan is likely to see status quo? Seems that BPP will likely be focused on the development area and DWV wants no part of anything on BPP land due to liability, so….. is this discussion limited to the development area?

The current status quo is that the sport of mountain biking is not managed. When the private lands get developed… they are incorporated into the District, so they will become part of the city, then, the Parks Trail Plan will oversee the management of trails in parkland. So this is why they are linked and such an important part of a conversation- Private Trails, if not in a bike park context, will become Public Trails. This is why I say a Trail is a Trail. The status quo will change. It has to.

I suspect that a bike park above the snow line would be much less viable than one below, but would expect that if they put on in that could be operated all year, that it would see huge attendance. They probably wouldnt even need a lift. Simple access road off of Cypress Bowl could do it.

There are possibilities… it all does come down to the political and municipal will, as well as DWV citizen feedback and regional feedback, which will help guide BPP to make its' developmental decisions.

It comes down to the $. A vibrant village center with a cross section of activities and ages at the gateway to a mountain provincial park, and, a DWV managed "Near Woods Park"- which will need to be proactively managed and budgeted and prioritized by DWV Council.

221 posts found

Forum jump: