Chris6791 said...
I know you don't like to be misquoted RSC so it took a bit of time (its hot, humid and I can't sleep) and collated the following.
RSC page 4, “And the 'problem' is? ... I'm not insured! Bingo. So what? The chances of me being close to you and causing damage by intent is zero. So what is your point? I'll get insured then what will you do?”, intent is irrelevant in a criminal court, though if there is intent to wilfully damage there is scope for a higher penalty, and if someone were to sue you for damaging your kite in a civil court I'd imagine it would be pretty easy, intent or not.
You keep mentioning ‘Ignorance of the law is no excuse’ sure that’s a defence in the Criminal Code but so is ‘mistake of Fact’, if the girl thought the bar was around the wrong way, that’s a mistake of fact. If she can prove that she made a mistake and she acted reasonably under the circumstances, any action, criminal or civil on your part would be pretty hard to get over the line.
RSC page 7, “This was a case study for private research and testing purposes. It is based on a real event although some aspects may have been exaggerated to solicite effects.”
RSC page 8, “I would just like to add to my other comments – this is not an “exaggerated scenario”
Is it exaggerated or not?
RSC page 7, “The Act applies to the conduct of “persons” in trade or commerce”
RSC quoting me on page 8 then adding his reply, "Quoting the Trade Practices Act is useless, I'd imagine there is a close zero chance or proving the 'advice given' was either misleading or deceptive, especially as there was no commercial arrangement between you and the person that offered the advice."-- the bar was not around the wrong way.”
I've covered that the bar was around the wrong way already, but there was still no trade or commercial arrangement between you or the girl on the beach, back to my original point that the Trade Practices Act has no relevance to your argument in your case study/scenario.
RSC page 2, “I was a member of the public on a public beach and not in any way contracted to, or contracting (at that time), the school or their staff.”, her you counter your own arguement?
RSC page 2, “2. Someone who was under their contract/employment intervened in my recreational activities and (in my mind) contributed (if not caused) a potentially serious accident and damage to my equipment.”,
RSC page 8, “ I'm not blaming the girl.”
We know you didn't use the word 'blame' but thats exactly how it reads. But are you blaming her or not, you contradict yourself again.
RSC page 3, “This is getting closer to the core attitudes and tone I'm seeking to study.”, page 4, “I was not going to offer analysis until the end of this case-study.”
RSC page 7, “I'm not playing with people. I declared my context.”, it took you the better part of two days to declare your agenda was to solicit responses for a research paper.
RSC page 7, “This is just a very small section of a larger peer reviewed paper being put together on 'the cybernetics of kitesurfing and the cultural infeasibility of desirable change'.”
RSC page 7, “I am not associated formally with any research organisation. I write my papers for fun and to progress knowledge.”
RSC page 8, “The case study is an intervention -- you don't know what it is designed to do. Its worth will be dependent on how I frame it in context. It is a side by-product, not my primary focus. Primary focus of paper will by Soft Systems Methodology (by Peter Checkland) and the Viable Systems Model (VSM) by Stafford Beer.” I tried to read up a little on SSM and VSM, it did my head in, if you are writing paper for fun and both know what these are and how to put them into context using kite surfing culture as your basis, I take my hat off to you, but seriously, what the heck? (rhetorical question so no need to reply to that bit, unless you want to start a new thread?).
RSC page 8, “As for declaring it. Well, if it was a real research programme then what you say is correct. But it is not. It is me, myself, working in my own backyard to fix my problems such as road and traffic noise, hoon behaviour on the roads and in some cases on the beach. It is a GLOCAL phenomena. This website which I normally use to check the weather/wind conditions simply attracted my eye with the title “Show Pony”.”
RSC elsewhere, "I live down S/Bay way and ....", and you allude to the Rockingham area in this thread… then on page 8, “I am justified and empowered in my efforts (using all my skills and resources) by the very fact that under sustainability theory I am perfectly able to start investigating the area around my house and neighborhood (say within a radius of 1 km) for various boundaries of contention (my actual research interest)”, Isn’t it about 50 clicks between Brighton and Safety Bay? definitely not in your backyard.
RSC page 8, “I am normally participating in a small forum of cybernetic experts who participate from all around the world. I am a junior in those ranks... I write a paper every odd year for a small journal on Systemic Practice and Action Research. I am not an academic and have no interest in being one.”
Hanging out with your buddies on the net in a cybernetics forum and seeking feedback from them is a fairly relaxed interpretation of peer reviewed. It kinda sounds like me getting on here and getting advice on how to stick a back roll, or crooks in prison discussing the best way to steal a car, it just doesn’t cut the mustard for ‘peer reviewed’ for me.
Sure you are empowered to investigate what ever you like, but you hijacked this thread to impose your own research agenda, and then when people respond to your posts you play sweet and innocent and try and steer it back onto the original issue, which is so far removed from you research needs its not funny. Next time it might be better to start your own topic, seeking to address your specific research needs, I'm willing to bet you would have got some great feedback. Instead you hide behind a 'case study' and effectively treat the kiting community all like neanderthals that don't care about other kiters, don't take safety, responsibility, duty of care, community concerns and perceptions seriously and don't want to progress the sport for the benefit of all. I'm fairly new to the sport but this perception you have, and are trying to impose on us is so far from the reality that I have experienced I am not surprised your posts have resulted in so many 'robust' responses.
“You keep mentioning ‘Ignorance of the law is no excuse’" – once I think.
“Is it exaggerated or not?”—in hindsight not the best descriptor. I have rephrased it as "emphasis".
“… or commercial arrangement between you or the girl on the beach, back to my original point that the Trade Practices Act has no relevance to your argument in your case study/scenario.”—it was just an example of a law that some here think is not real and does not exist. Whether it or other laws are relevant in this case is another issue. You are missing the original point and chasing yourself. I am not making comment on law. I had no commercial connection to other people doing business on the beach and in that case interfering (with good intentions or not) in my private activities. That is the point related to risk. The actual law /s are not material here unless they do not exist at all. I’m not a business and I’m not spending my time and energy finding out the answer. But if I was a business then I would.
“... her (sic) you counter your own arguement?”—"here" I assume you mean, and you are chasing the wrong point.
“We know you didn't use the word 'blame' but thats exactly how it reads.” -- Your nature, and this culture, sees meaning in using the “blame” word. I do not. We differ.
“... it took you the better part of two days to declare your agenda was to solicit responses for a research paper.” -- covered elsewhere. What was submitted originally was a comment to a minor point on a Show Pony at Briton Beach (and by extension to any other public place). What subsequently developed as a response to the response is a matter of responding to the response. It has become of some small value to some private research in due course because of the response – not because of my original submission/comment.
“I tried to read up a little on SSM and VSM, it did my head in, if you are writing paper for fun and both know what these are and how to put them into context using kite surfing culture as your basis, I take my hat off to you, but seriously, what the heck? (rhetorical question so no need to reply to that bit, unless you want to start a new thread?).” —yes, it is difficult material. But also rewarding. It can help one see and think about the situation being described in the thread title and original posting (and one other at Kanana). I am persisting not irritate but to help the people who are trying to solve this complex matter of public-private interaction achieve the best result for everyone. At Briton beach and elsewhere. If they pick up a few tips then it has been worth it imo. The rest is noise.
“Isn’t it about 50 clicks between Brighton and Safety Bay? definitely not in your backyard.”— these same antics happen in my area and they are a national and most likely global phenomena. Briton beach is just a case study example to raise the point.
“Hanging out with your buddies on the net in a cybernetics forum and seeking feedback from them is a fairly relaxed interpretation of peer reviewed." – this here is not peer review. A final paper for a journal on the (working) title I suggested would be reviewed before publication by people who understand the process of applying cybernetics/system thinking to a real world situations. It could be baking cakes for all they care.
“Sure you are empowered to investigate what ever you like, but you hijacked this thread to impose your own research agenda …”—
oh no, I did not! There are no victims here. I have several times tried to suggest people focus on the title of the thread rather than me. But that is the nature of the culture here – and by extension elsewhere in the kitesurfing fraternity (although at least one or two people have indicated otherwise). If you like, it is one the operating heuristics. The ‘blame culture’ is what is interesting for me now. It is based on closed organisation, poor structure, ineffective governance, lack of suitable policy, bullying etc etc. It cannot and will not learn. It is at risk of greater supervision and control from external sources. In general, as I mentioned in an earlier posting, I am not interested in the noise of the individual ‘kids’. But I am very interested in responses from senior leader types who set and maintain the ‘tone at the top’. They are the people who have higher responsibility imo. There has been at least one commentator here who falls into that category I believe -- and he believes the law is not real. Hmmm, there are outlaw motocylce gangs who believe that as well. Is there a link between the "1%-ers" and the "100%-ers"? In attitude perhaps. Others are more wisely silent, or they are none existent. Or they are speaking with a private individual web persona (as I am).
“Next time it might be better to start your own topic, seeking to address your specific research needs, I'm willing to bet you would have got some great feedback.”— If my intention was to do research originally then I would proceed respectfully as you suggest. That would be ethical. However, my intention was to make a +ve contribution to the thread topic. The results surprised me and then I took more interest in studying the phenomena. At the earliest opportunity I raised the idea that what was being said could be used by anyone (now and in the future) as research material (myself included). Those with ‘ears to hear’ would have then taken note and proceeded with that additional information in mind. Basic really.
“Instead you hide behind a 'case study' and effectively treat the kiting community all like neanderthals that don't care about other kiters, don't take safety, responsibility, duty of care, community concerns and perceptions seriously and don't want to progress the sport for the benefit of all.” – these are your words, not mine. But for your implications that I am “hiding” and “treating” (which I reject) your statement might indeed reflect what an objective observer could conclude imo. That should concern some people in the kitesurfing governance arena. Time will tell whether they take responsible action or not. Certainly it seems that the Briton beach example is not a one-off and there is a culture of both denial and concern in the kitesurfing world. One thing is for certain, the external world of city councils and government agencies responsible for public safety will read it their own way. Therefore, the strategic response would be to read this thread “as if” all points of view had validity and then develop considered responses to them. “RSC” is just one point of view, but one I suggest that is more closely aligned to the outside world and the governance systems that will impose their will on this sport if it does not self govern effectively and operate safely for all beach users. Therefore, I’d suggest if you cannot handle my comments without ad hominem, or at least neutral indifference, then you have a problem – not with me, but with all those out there who also hold my general line of thinking. They are not kitesurfers and they are decision makers in councils and government. Go figure.
“I'm fairly new to the sport but this perception you have, and are trying to impose on us is so far from the reality that I have experienced”—I am also relatively new to the area. I am only surprised by the levels of ignorance and rudeness displayed in a public forum. But then again, why would that be different to what is displayed to people on the beach who are not kitesurfers – e.g. at Briton beach? If you are in the cult then fine: group hugs. If not then ... well, read all about it here. The issue of interest to me now is how this ‘culture’ self adjusts so that it accepts criticism, faces reality and the risks of inaction. And again, I reject your implications that I am “imposing” – I am simply contributing as you are. Your comment may well be what you feel. But it says more about you. This effect is only because in relative terms there is little else being said. This thread should be full of hot intelligent debate about risk, safety and communication and how it can help solve the Brion beach affair. Rather, because of group culture and dynamics, it is chasing me. The incapacity and avoidance in one is related to the focus on the other. I am only responsible for what I say and write here. Nothing more.
However, in my opinion, there is some slow progress in this ‘debate’ from my perspective. For example: (a) there has been set up another thread titled “rsc” which now implies that a certain active element has reacted and taken the initiative to vent their frustrations in a separate area; and (b) the bullying control culture is now turning to its other side – the 'poor me' victim dynamic. Both these represent healthy progress. Firstly, if ‘rsc’ enters the lexicon of kitesurfing then fine – use it for good effect. Language development is a good indicator of change and progress. Secondly, if you and others can get over your self pity and realise that your behaviour is mirrored in your attitudes (and vice vera) then you will see things more clearly – including that you are not victims. You are simply willing participants in a public debate on a topic of public concern related to safety, responsible behaviour and risk. The rest is a matter of style and content – and we can all learn there.
Who can cut and paste the most 
