If you have an issue with planning standards.....

[awk]

Then the person at BOF you should be contacting is the chair of Event Operations, Ranald Macdonald. That is, after it's been discussed with planner/controller if you can contact them.

His BOF email address is vicechairman2@britishorienteering.org.uk

I know I've put this on the junior badge scheme thread, but it's likely to get buried there, and given that there is NO indication of the "ethical" or correct channel on the BOF website (in spite of my being rapped over the knuckles by BOF for my comments about Wharnecliff), we wouldn't want this to get buried, would we?

[Mrs H.]

Do you not think that' BOF's "Ethical Communication" initiative is just not a fancy term for the surpression of freedom of speech? We are after all completely free to say what we like as long as it is not defamatory, pornagraphic or inciting violence and hatred.

I also have received phone calls from BOF warning me off views I have expressed in my magazine (one late on a sunday evening - very ethical communication) - perhaps they should consider the opinion of President Thomas Jefferson:"Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate to prefer the latter."

There should be no such thing as ethical communication - weeding out the unpalatable bits is pure censorship. How effective can it be if we can only say good things in public and bad things private - it simply erodes the weight of public opinion if it goes against someone or something.

[gross2004]

Ethical Communication.....???? My not so good English translates that to mean.... don't call BOF B******s in public

I too have had words with Matlock on the subject.... particulary my various comments about the BOF website.

[Simon]

Do you not think that' BOF's "Ethical Communication" initiative is just not a fancy term for the surpression of freedom of speech?

Sounds like it to me.
Nothing I mention about events on nopesport is anything I would not say (and have not said) when discussing it with others at an event or afterwards. I will not censor my opinion here.

my various comments about the BOF website.

Or as I would refer to it: the continuing BOF website farce.

[Jene]

you know...i dont think bof are gonna end up liking nope.....ever.
tho i dont see what was wrong with what awk (?) said on here when commenting on recent events...

[Mrs H.]

Ha Ha Ha - and steady on Gross - we're in danger of agreeing on something here - next thing you know i'll be asking you what size thongs you want for Christmas

but on a serious note I wonder how many other people have had their knuckles rapped - in an ethical fashion of course. Samsonite?

Simon - I was thinking the same thing - we here are simply occupying an electronic assembly field. I have always maintained that BOF can either stifle the debate (at their peril) or listen and learn - it seems they are choosing the former! and yet the latter is a communication godsend - they never had access to their members' views like this before (except through the magazines where they have made it perfectly clear they do not want opinions being expressed). I'm off on JK business now for the day (on a purely voluntarily basis you know ) I shall return with interest at tea time!

[El]

At the risk of being shot down completely, I don't think "BOF", is anti-nopesport, in fact I think it's generally seen as a good thing, and a lot of people who would be classed as "BOF" read it. Whether or not any notice is taken of the opinions is another matter and one I don't know anything about . . .
I would point out that we need a national governing body and I'm sure the people there are doing the best they can as they see it.

[bendover]

have to agree. in my limited communication with BOF office i've only ever found them to be polite and keen to help out.

from this site we can either build or burn bridges. continually deriding the naffness of the BOF site is fine but has it got to a point where we're not being constructive? has anyone stepped forward and contacted BOF offering to help with the website? even if they say no then at least it shows that we're keen to help out.

hmm.. anyway i'm shooting from the hip a bit here. theres no doubt that people from BOF office read this site so perhaps every so often someone from BOF could comment on here in an 'official' context? that way perhaps the 'essay writers' in the discussion forum can be reassured that there aching fingers are worth the effort and are being taken note of...

[pyrat]

great point dover, a bof spokesperson would be a good addition to this thriving community.

[FatBoy]

I can understand and support BOF wanting to deal with breaches of planning standards through the proper channels, so people can be gently steered back to the straight and narrow without putting them off doing it, but so long as we're not malicious with it what's the problem with a little bit of discussion on Nope?

An event would have to be pretty bad for me to consider reporting it to BOF for bad planning but as has been said, you'd discuss a control that didn't feel was very good in the car on the way home, so why not here?

[bendover]

who here said that you shouldnt?

[FatBoy]

the "ethical" or correct channel

OK it doesn't say specifically we shouldn't but that is surely the implication?

[gg]

i think we are quite luckily compared to most sports as far as a governing body is concerned - a lot of sports have no structure at all

[harry]

Finally some people on nopesport talking some sense about BOF. Of course we need a national governing body otherwise there wouldn't be a sport. it would just be some unofficial unstructured recreational activity. there are so many things that people don't realise going on behind the scenes when they slag BOF. people working away gradually quietly to improve the sport. endless committees full of willing volunteers looking at mapping, technicalities, coaching, development, elite competitions, how to get government money etc.
So just becaue "BOF" people are not shouting about things on nope it doesn't mean they are not discussing, fine tuning and making a difference to these kinds of things regularly and have been doing so for years. Why should "BOF" people come to nope? I would suggest it would be more beneficial for "nope" people to go to BOF. Take the views from this community to the committees where policy can actually be changed. If you feel strongly about something don't just complain on nope, make sure your rep on the relevant committee takes the matter to BOF technical commitee or wherever. Or get a position on a committee yourself. Don't assume your rants are changing policy, make certain that they are.

[FatBoy]

I don't think anybody is saying we don't need BOF. From what I can see the 3 people most critical of SOME of the ways BOF is doing it's work are those who already do and have contributed massively to the way the sport is run. All I think we are asking on this thread is not to censor the banter both good and bad about event planning and standards.