• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

ICC Survey Regarding Bulletin Boards

I for one am very interested to hear what Jeff has to say on this topic. Playing devil's advocate here I think that the fact that they are eating crow and admitting failure is both hilarious and also professional in a way. If they brought back the old BB the way it was I would participate. I think that all of us should feel obligated to participate because it would do what we do here...educate, learn, vent, reminisce, argue and thus make for a better qualified group of construction professionals. I feel that we are obligated to participate and help where we can because this is our livelihood. The problem is that people don't know about this site and other similar sites. When people look for help and information about codes they seek the ICC. If the ICC BB lacks code experts it only hurts the cause. I was angry when they shut us down also but I will participate actively here and there if they bring it back like it was. I know that this is not a popular position right now but I feel that it is a good position.

Jeff....thoughts....

What will you all do if JAR has to shut this one down for some reason? I like this board the best but I am at least willing to hear what they have to say. Ducking now.
 
Relax Daddy-O, no slinging of stones here.

My biggest issues were about making it a pay site and the whole Communities of Interest concept that I felt limited discussion rather than encouraged it.

I have not returned my survey, but did get one under my old ICC username. I went a few times after the change, but between poor access and poor useability, just gave up. At that point this board was up and running, and most of the 'regulars' found their way here. I like it here, but mostly because of the company. Like family. Bring THAT back to the ICC board, let us have some fun and post where we want to post.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Seems that the ICC survey has touched a nerve. What is evident to me here is

that we all have and demonstrate a sincere passion, ...some a little, ...some a

lot.

Our benevolent benefactor Jeff, has graciously provided an excellent, fully

functioning forum for everyone, ...no membership required, and did I mention

that it is ** F R E E **? I for one, DO feel a great sense of gratitude and

loyalty to Jeff for stepping up, at a time when we all needed an alternative.

I continue to have mixed thoughts and feelings about ICC and their decisions.

They sure as heck didn't ask me for my input on their decision to change their

format and entry requirements to their site [ and associated databases ] and

I was a fully active, registered member at the time.

There are a lot of us on here that well remember Coca-Cola's decision to

go from the "old" Coke to the "new" Coke without testing their market

waters. They just made the decision, thinking that "new" Coke would be

better and the public wouldn't notice. That decision turned out to be

one of the most costly ( $$$ ) marketing blunders in history - - see

the link.

http://www.thecoca-colacompany.com/heritage/cokelore_newcoke.html

The members on this board are nowhere near the numbers of the

American public as it relates to quantity, but we DO relate in that we

have an industry leader [ the ICC "Cash Cow" ] that didn't bother to

get our [ the old Bulletin Board members ] input on their "new" Bulletin

Board look, and even if they had, ...they would not have listened! I believe

that they are still not listening, but rather maneuvering.

I have not received any surveys. If I do, I will not participate. I have

found a good home here thanks to Jeff, AND to all of you!

Everyone on this board has helped me in one way or another.

My hope is that Jeff "will" and "can" continue to provide this site for us.

.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sorry Peach I did not mean to imply that you where Cindy (there is only one Peach)

It is nice to see women involved in the codes that are not Architects or Engineers by proffession/training.
 
* * *

How do you know that peach isn't an architect or engineer by

profession / training?

FWIW, me thinks that she IS an engineer by training... :cool:

BTW, you are correct! There is only one " peach "! :D

* * *
 
MLC,

Thanks for making my day; that's too funny. :D

Been there; done that,

Uncle Bob
 
I haven't take the survey yet, but I got the invite. I will tell ICC the same thing that I posted early-on on this BB: I've found my new home page, and it's not ICC. I go to ICC to buy books, to check Evaluation Reports, to renew my certs, etc., but that's about the size of it. The discussions here, even when I don't participate with my two cents worth, are valuable to read, and sometimes good for a laugh. No going back.
 
JBI,

I am not mad or upset. I am not (making up a word) rileupable. I love this site and will stay put; however, we do not yet reach enough of an audience to have a big impact. Clearly they have shot themselves in the foot with this one and I am only saying that we should not yet slam the door in their face. Remember that on some level we all have to deal with the ICC on a daily basis and if we have the opportunity to try to make them better why not add our 2cents? Just my opinion. I know it may not be popular but it is just an opinion.

I also feel like this core group here is a family. I like to try and add my small piece to that puzzle when I can.

I also blasted them on the survey for charging for the board among other things. Not trying to sling stones at you, the ICC or anyone else. Just adding fodder.
 
ICC is reaching out to us; I think we should participate. We participate in the code change hearings as we can (I haven't heard of a boycott of the hearings) and we enforce the codes they promulgate.

We're all code enforcement professionals; I for one will listen to what they have to say.

This is still the site to go to and I don't have the patience to try to log into the Communities of Interest.. I still maintain my membership with them.
 
It's good to read everyone's comments. I appreciate Peach's perspective and reasoning most of all. Yes, I feel betrayed by ICC. But like a divorce, it doesn't mean that we can't be professionals and work together. I will continue to hope for the best... and be prepared for the worst.

PS: Thanks Jeff for this site, and for your part in keeping our collective group of professionals and excentrics together!
 
Daddy-O - I was referring to the last part of your post... "Ducking now." and I meant noone was going to throw stones at YOU! LOL You crack me up!
 
Inspector Gift said:
It's good to read everyone's comments. I appreciate Peach's perspective and reasoning most of all. Yes, I feel betrayed by ICC. But like a divorce, it doesn't mean that we can't be professionals and work together. I will continue to hope for the best... and be prepared for the worst.PS: Thanks Jeff for this site, and for your part in keeping our collective group of professionals and excentrics together!
Click to expand...
Good point, Terre.

If ICC is now making steps back in the right direction then professionally, we should strive to help them. I think we need to be level-headed in this while conveying our points. I don't have any issue with the new features per se. Supplanting a working system that was working well with a system (that certainly has potential) in a manner that was initially closed off to public and is sort of still or has the appearance of that on the front end. If they added these new features with the old "Code Talk" board (in full functioning order) and kept some of the new features like the Communities of Interest Discussion Boards open to everyone as was the Code Talk section then I would say that it would been not such an issue. Now, doing that would be a step in returning to the correct course of action while consulting our opinions and honestly considering it, would be a good step.

The new features such as the Job Openings listing is a good and useful feature. This is my opinion. Trust is another topic altogether and will take time for ICC to re-earn. Working professionally with open eyes will be the modus of operandi for any time foreseeable.
 
mark handler said:
Inspector GiftWashington Then Oregon and now Montana

Getting around....
Click to expand...
Yeah, he moved to a job position in Montana about a year ago - IIRC.
 
Having a unique bulletin board system for one site just does not make sense. Perhaps if you do not frequent any other systems it doesn't make that big of a difference.

When NFPA solicited questions for their bulletin board system, I told them the same thing. Have you ever looked at the NFPA discussion boards? Similarly confusing and dead.

If you want to promote participation versus inflate your own ego "hey, look how much money we spent building this new system", you stick with what is familiar.

I don't understand how moving our conversations to their site benefits us. They don't provide anything in return, except increased censoring.

They could, instead, work with us. When you click on the "Communities of Interest", it redirects here :)
 
Whew!

What a couple of weeks!

I just got to take the survey and posted my comments. One item I mentioned was the fact Ha the "old bulletin board" had a sense of camaraderie that is not present in the new Discussion boards on the ICC site.

And, there are two technical things that make using the Discussion boards a pain in the . . well. . a real hemorrhoid.

1. There's no way to know when someone has posted a comment on any given topic without going to the discussion board (and that's about fifteen clicks from the main page); and

2. you can't back out effectively. The back button gets to you a page that's expired and then you need to refresh - again adding time.

Bottom line, it's impersonal and overly complicated - unlike this one (and the old board).

Oh, TinNY, If we'd get them to redirect to this site, I think a few people might have to eat crow and swallow their pride. Not going to happen.
 
I filled out the survey. They didn't listen in Baltimore so I really don't think they will listen (or "get it") now?
 
Yes JP and I sat in to the fire side in Baltimore along with others from other states. I listen and later invited Dominic to post here and give some real debate. Am I disgruntle? Sure am! I don't disagree with Peach's approach, But since the twin cites mess to the present I just hear lip service. Most of you know I feel every member should be able to vote and not have to spend money they don't have to attend a hearing. Hearings are good and have educational aspects to them, but the real nuts and bolts are the code provision and the votes for them. Sorry to say that when the hall is filled with bought votes, something is wrong!

The changes I have seen are not improvements at ICC. The BB turn off is only one grain of sand on a beach that is polluted. Sorry for the rant and I will get off the stump. JMHO!

one more thing! There is nothing I would like better then to see real change at ICC. A real professional code group. Not sure I will live to see that!
 
RJJ, I'd love it if every member got to vote. Then maybe I could do that once in my lifetime.

On the substantive note, there is discussion about a six month moratorium on voting privileges for all new members. That would eliminate the last minute bought votes. They are also looking at changing the funding provisions for attendance so that chapters are OK, municipalities are OK and the member is OK but no funding from anyone that is profit driven or represents an organization with products involved in building construction.
 
Gene,

How could they monitor and enforce funding for attendance? Granted they could exclude letting Mr. Building Material pay for all of us on the BB to register for the conference, but how they going to really monitor something like that?
 
texas transplant said:
Gene,How could they monitor and enforce funding for attendance? Granted they could exclude letting Mr. Building Material pay for all of us on the BB to register for the conference, but how they going to really monitor something like that?
Click to expand...
They're not "monitoring it. They're just saying what the rules are. That way if someone complains, they can investigate and dismiss the vote if allegations prove warranted. And, if Mr. wine and vents is paying for someone's attendance and vote, both can be expelled from membership or censored from attending future hearings.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top