Forums: Rockclimbing.com: Suggestions & Feedback:
Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users?
RSS FeedRSS Feeds for Suggestions & Feedback

Premier Sponsor:

 


TonyB3


Jan 24, 2011, 10:41 AM
Post #1 of 173 (8103 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 24, 2011
Posts: 32

Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users?
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (8 ratings)  
Can't Post

A small sample of ad hominem attacks and insults lobbed by one particular user.

http://www.rockclimbing.com/...post=2442512#2442512


http://www.rockclimbing.com/...post=2442041#2442041


http://www.rockclimbing.com/...post=2442331#2442331


http://www.rockclimbing.com/...post=2441563#2441563


http://www.rockclimbing.com/...post=2441597#2441597


http://www.rockclimbing.com/...post=2441373#2441373

http://www.rockclimbing.com/...post=2427524#2427524


http://www.rockclimbing.com/...post=2425049#2425049


http://www.rockclimbing.com/...post=2422628#2422628


http://www.rockclimbing.com/...post=2420018#2420018


http://www.rockclimbing.com/...post=2414921#2414921


http://www.rockclimbing.com/...post=1662878#1662878


http://www.rockclimbing.com/...post=2406916#2406916


http://www.rockclimbing.com/...ost=2449669;#2449669


http://www.rockclimbing.com/...ost=2445171;#2445171


airscape


Jan 24, 2011, 10:46 AM
Post #2 of 173 (8094 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 26, 2001
Posts: 4240

Re: [TonyB3] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

 
So you are implying that he is an asshole?


chadnsc


Jan 24, 2011, 10:47 AM
Post #3 of 173 (8090 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 24, 2003
Posts: 4449

Re: [TonyB3] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

He’s allowed to do that because we've all heard the stories about his ridiculous small stature.



Now the real question . . . . why are you stalking Jay?


spikeddem


Jan 24, 2011, 10:49 AM
Post #4 of 173 (8078 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 27, 2007
Posts: 6319

Re: [chadnsc] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

You're going to be sad when this is moved to the appropriate forum.


chadnsc


Jan 24, 2011, 10:50 AM
Post #5 of 173 (8070 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 24, 2003
Posts: 4449

Re: [spikeddem] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

No, no I'm not.


sungam


Jan 24, 2011, 10:51 AM
Post #6 of 173 (8061 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 24, 2004
Posts: 26597

Re: [TonyB3] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

Homebrew sometimes makes bad ideas seem like good ideas.


Partner macherry


Jan 24, 2011, 10:52 AM
Post #7 of 173 (8051 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 10, 2003
Posts: 15802

Re: [sungam] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

moved to suggestions and feedback, a more appropriate forum.


chadnsc


Jan 24, 2011, 10:53 AM
Post #8 of 173 (8049 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 24, 2003
Posts: 4449

Re: [airscape] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

airscape wrote:
Do you think this might be him trying for the simpattie postz under udder uszernames?

Jay's not THAT desperate for attention.


spikeddem


Jan 24, 2011, 10:57 AM
Post #9 of 173 (8035 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 27, 2007
Posts: 6319

Re: [sungam] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

sungam wrote:
Homebrew sometimes makes bad ideas seem like good ideas.
I'd like to also point out that every post made by sungam is an ad hominem attack against yours truly. In a Jay-inspired maneuver, I must point out that the similar observation I've made about Sungam is just a simple statement of observation.


(This post was edited by spikeddem on Jan 24, 2011, 10:57 AM)


dynosore


Jan 24, 2011, 11:10 AM
Post #10 of 173 (8005 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 29, 2004
Posts: 1761

Re: [spikeddem] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

I didn't even need to click a link to know who you were talking about. My advice is to do a mental *plonk* and skip over his posts.


TonyB3


Jan 24, 2011, 11:13 AM
Post #11 of 173 (8002 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 24, 2011
Posts: 32

Re: [macherry] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (4 ratings)  
Can't Post

macherry wrote:
moved to suggestions and feedback, a more appropriate forum.

Thank you.

It seems like this has been going on for some time and it gets overlooked. I know a certain amount of good natured ribbing is to be expected, but there is nothing good natured about jt512's posts. In general they are mean spirited and condescending, to say the least.

I just got sick of reading them and would like an honest explanation as to why they are tolerated. I know that as a long time lurker my voice has little weight, but I think a good many others fail to post here because of the caustic nature of this particular user. Is being self important enough to get away with abusing fellow members?


shoo


Jan 24, 2011, 11:34 AM
Post #12 of 173 (7977 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 22, 2006
Posts: 1501

Re: [TonyB3] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (4 ratings)  
Can't Post

TonyB3 wrote:
macherry wrote:
moved to suggestions and feedback, a more appropriate forum.

Thank you.

It seems like this has been going on for some time and it gets overlooked. I know a certain amount of good natured ribbing is to be expected, but there is nothing good natured about jt512's posts. In general they are mean spirited and condescending, to say the least.

I just got sick of reading them and would like an honest explanation as to why they are tolerated. I know that as a long time lurker my voice has little weight, but I think a good many others fail to post here because of the caustic nature of this particular user. Is being self important enough to get away with abusing fellow members?

jt512 is the Dr. House of RC.com. He's an asshole, but he's also generally right.


marc801


Jan 24, 2011, 12:17 PM
Post #13 of 173 (7932 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 1, 2005
Posts: 2747

Re: [TonyB3] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

TonyB3 wrote:
...but there is nothing good natured about jt512's posts. In general they are mean spirited and condescending, to say the least.
But as Shoo points out, spot-on correct more often than not, plus refreshingly honest and often quite funny. The other point you miss is that often it's his targets that are the self-important ones.

So.......
STFU, n00b! Wink


Partner cracklover


Jan 24, 2011, 12:28 PM
Post #14 of 173 (7919 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10010

Re: [shoo] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

shoo wrote:
TonyB3 wrote:
macherry wrote:
moved to suggestions and feedback, a more appropriate forum.

Thank you.

It seems like this has been going on for some time and it gets overlooked. I know a certain amount of good natured ribbing is to be expected, but there is nothing good natured about jt512's posts. In general they are mean spirited and condescending, to say the least.

I just got sick of reading them and would like an honest explanation as to why they are tolerated. I know that as a long time lurker my voice has little weight, but I think a good many others fail to post here because of the caustic nature of this particular user. Is being self important enough to get away with abusing fellow members?

jt512 is the Dr. House of RC.com. He's an asshole, but he's also generally right.

That's a fair comparison, but I prefer to think of him as the Professor Severus Snape of rc.com.

Mind yourself closely, and you'll get quite an education. Mouth off, and you'd better watch out.

GO


Partner cracklover


Jan 24, 2011, 12:29 PM
Post #15 of 173 (7917 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10010

Re: [cracklover] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

 
To answer the original question - I don't think attacks (ad hominem or otherwise) by individuals here are anything close to the worst of what goes on here on rc.com.

GO


Partner cracklover


Jan 24, 2011, 12:37 PM
Post #16 of 173 (7900 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10010

Re: [cracklover] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post





GO


ncrockclimber


Jan 24, 2011, 12:38 PM
Post #17 of 173 (7899 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 6, 2006
Posts: 274

Re: [TonyB3] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

TonyB3 wrote:

A small sample of ad hominem attacks and insults lobbed by one particular user.

So, TonyB3 creates an account and writes a post just because he thing jt512 is an mean. HMMM... something smells fishy. Could TonyB3 be someone else? What site member, or former site member, has an an ax to grind with Jay? I could never prove it, but I would be willing to bet that TonyB3 has posted here before under another name.


dynosore


Jan 24, 2011, 12:55 PM
Post #18 of 173 (7881 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 29, 2004
Posts: 1761

Re: [shoo] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (3 ratings)  
Can't Post

shoo wrote:
TonyB3 wrote:
macherry wrote:
moved to suggestions and feedback, a more appropriate forum.

Thank you.

It seems like this has been going on for some time and it gets overlooked. I know a certain amount of good natured ribbing is to be expected, but there is nothing good natured about jt512's posts. In general they are mean spirited and condescending, to say the least.

I just got sick of reading them and would like an honest explanation as to why they are tolerated. I know that as a long time lurker my voice has little weight, but I think a good many others fail to post here because of the caustic nature of this particular user. Is being self important enough to get away with abusing fellow members?

jt512 is the Dr. House of RC.com. He's an asshole, but he's also generally right.

healyje, rgold, and a few others here certainly know more than he does, and they convey information without belittling people on a daily basis. The fact that he has a small fan club only reminds me how easily impressed some people are by pseudo intellectualism. I have an IQ in the top 1/2% of the population yet I don't feel the need to belittle others. We all have different gifts. Truly smart people understand their gifts have been given to help others, not to puff up their chest and daily tend to their fragile ego. He added me to his ignore list when I pointed out the paradox of him calling other people close minded. I'm honored to be on it.


boymeetsrock


Jan 24, 2011, 2:47 PM
Post #19 of 173 (7848 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 11, 2005
Posts: 1709

Re: [TonyB3] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

TonyB3 wrote:
macherry wrote:
moved to suggestions and feedback, a more appropriate forum.

Thank you.

It seems like this has been going on for some time and it gets overlooked. I know a certain amount of good natured ribbing is to be expected, but there is nothing good natured about jt512's posts. In general they are mean spirited and condescending, to say the least.

I just got sick of reading them and would like an honest explanation as to why they are tolerated. I know that as a long time lurker my voice has little weight, but I think a good many others fail to post here because of the caustic nature of this particular user. Is being self important enough to get away with abusing fellow members?

If you really think this gets overlooked you need to lurk harder.


jakedatc


Jan 24, 2011, 3:38 PM
Post #20 of 173 (7839 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 11054

Re: [cracklover] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

cracklover wrote:


[image]http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Film/Pix/gallery/2001/07/03/severussnape.jpg[/image]

GO
better..



notapplicable


Jan 24, 2011, 3:50 PM
Post #21 of 173 (7831 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17766

Re: [TonyB3] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (5 ratings)  
Can't Post

TonyB3 wrote:
A small sample of ad hominem attacks and insults lobbed by one particular user.

*Yawn*

Have you tried hardening the fuck up? I hear it works wonders for nancy boys like yourself.


areyoumydude


Jan 24, 2011, 8:56 PM
Post #22 of 173 (7784 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 27, 2003
Posts: 1971

Re: [jakedatc] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post






curt


Jan 24, 2011, 9:16 PM
Post #23 of 173 (7774 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 26, 2002
Posts: 18230

Re: [TonyB3] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (4 ratings)  
Can't Post

TonyB3 wrote:
macherry wrote:
moved to suggestions and feedback, a more appropriate forum.

Thank you.

It seems like this has been going on for some time and it gets overlooked. I know a certain amount of good natured ribbing is to be expected, but there is nothing good natured about jt512's posts. In general they are mean spirited and condescending, to say the least.

I just got sick of reading them and would like an honest explanation as to why they are tolerated. I know that as a long time lurker my voice has little weight, but I think a good many others fail to post here because of the caustic nature of this particular user. Is being self important enough to get away with abusing fellow members?

I hope I don't come across as mean spirited or condescending, but have you considered how much you are sounding like the sniveling little cry-baby who routinely gets beat up in the schoolyard?

Curt


qwert


Jan 25, 2011, 1:22 AM
Post #24 of 173 (7752 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 24, 2004
Posts: 2394

Re: [curt] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (3 ratings)  
Can't Post

I wonder why i already did know who this was about before even clicking the first link in this thread?

Personally i dont have any problem with him (maybe i'm already plonked?), and i dont think there is any reason to be overly polite to utter idiots, however i would suggest that Jay readjusts his thresholds for "utter idiot" and "overly polite". sometimes his shouting does indeed get rather distracting.

qwert


notapplicable


Jan 25, 2011, 8:08 PM
Post #25 of 173 (7903 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17766

Re: [qwert] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

qwert wrote:
I wonder why i already did know who this was about before even clicking the first link in this thread?

Personally i dont have any problem with him (maybe i'm already plonked?), and i dont think there is any reason to be overly polite to utter idiots, however i would suggest that Jay readjusts his thresholds for "utter idiot" and "overly polite". sometimes his shouting does indeed get rather distracting.

qwert

I think we have indeed been seeing a kinder, gentler jt over the last 2 months or so. Not too long ago he would have been trolling the shit out of this and other recent threads where he is being openly attacked.


spikeddem


Jan 26, 2011, 7:43 AM
Post #26 of 173 (5085 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 27, 2007
Posts: 6319

Re: [notapplicable] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

notapplicable wrote:
qwert wrote:
I wonder why i already did know who this was about before even clicking the first link in this thread?

Personally i dont have any problem with him (maybe i'm already plonked?), and i dont think there is any reason to be overly polite to utter idiots, however i would suggest that Jay readjusts his thresholds for "utter idiot" and "overly polite". sometimes his shouting does indeed get rather distracting.

qwert

I think we have indeed been seeing a kinder, gentler jt over the last 2 months or so. Not too long ago he would have been trolling the shit out of this and other recent threads where he is being openly attacked.
killfile.


spikeddem


Jan 27, 2011, 12:32 PM
Post #27 of 173 (5053 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 27, 2007
Posts: 6319

Re: [spikeddem] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Hmm. Is "STFU" an Ad Hominem? I don't think so. Jay is on a roll.


jt512


Jan 29, 2011, 10:33 PM
Post #28 of 173 (5011 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21892

Re: [TonyB3] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (5 ratings)  
Can't Post


After having actually looked at these, the first few links that you posted, they're innocuous. What's your problem?

jay


k.l.k


Jan 30, 2011, 6:32 PM
Post #29 of 173 (4980 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 9, 2007
Posts: 1190

Re: [TonyB3] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

personally, i think j needs to dial it up a notch.

usnavy is still here, for instance.


caughtinside


Jan 31, 2011, 9:23 AM
Post #30 of 173 (4951 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 30411

Re: [k.l.k] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

k.l.k wrote:
personally, i think j needs to dial it up a notch.

usnavy is still here, for instance.

He and jt are buddies.


TonyB3


Feb 2, 2011, 3:59 PM
Post #31 of 173 (4906 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 24, 2011
Posts: 32

Re: [jt512] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

jt512 wrote:

After having actually looked at these, the first few links that you posted, they're innocuous. What's your problem?

jay

http://www.rockclimbing.com/...post=2453845#2453845


jt512


Feb 2, 2011, 4:37 PM
Post #32 of 173 (4901 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21892

Re: [TonyB3] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (3 ratings)  
Can't Post

TonyB3 wrote:
jt512 wrote:

After having actually looked at these, the first few links that you posted, they're innocuous. What's your problem?

jay

http://www.rockclimbing.com/...post=2453845#2453845

After looking at that, what's your problem?

Jay


curt


Feb 2, 2011, 9:46 PM
Post #33 of 173 (4868 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 26, 2002
Posts: 18230

Re: [jt512] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

jt512 wrote:
TonyB3 wrote:
jt512 wrote:

After having actually looked at these, the first few links that you posted, they're innocuous. What's your problem?

jay

http://www.rockclimbing.com/...post=2453845#2453845

After looking at that, what's your problem?

Jay

Yes, after all you did say "please." Cool

Curt


jt512


Feb 2, 2011, 10:24 PM
Post #34 of 173 (4860 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21892

Re: [curt] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (7 ratings)  
Can't Post

curt wrote:
jt512 wrote:
TonyB3 wrote:
jt512 wrote:

After having actually looked at these, the first few links that you posted, they're innocuous. What's your problem?

jay

http://www.rockclimbing.com/...post=2453845#2453845

After looking at that, what's your problem?

Jay

Yes, after all you did say "please." Cool

Curt

That and the fact that I was replying to an ignorant babbling fool.

Jay


ddt


Feb 3, 2011, 4:28 AM
Post #35 of 173 (4837 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 20, 2005
Posts: 2304

Re: [TonyB3] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

TonyB3 wrote:
A small sample of ad hominem attacks and insults lobbed by one particular user.

http://www.rockclimbing.com/...post=2442512#2442512


http://www.rockclimbing.com/...post=2442041#2442041


http://www.rockclimbing.com/...post=2442331#2442331


http://www.rockclimbing.com/...post=2441563#2441563


http://www.rockclimbing.com/...post=2441597#2441597


http://www.rockclimbing.com/...post=2441373#2441373

http://www.rockclimbing.com/...post=2427524#2427524


http://www.rockclimbing.com/...post=2425049#2425049


http://www.rockclimbing.com/...post=2422628#2422628


http://www.rockclimbing.com/...post=2420018#2420018


http://www.rockclimbing.com/...post=2414921#2414921


http://www.rockclimbing.com/...post=1662878#1662878


http://www.rockclimbing.com/...post=2406916#2406916


http://www.rockclimbing.com/...ost=2449669;#2449669


http://www.rockclimbing.com/...ost=2445171;#2445171

(Sorry for the somewhat belated response. I just returned from some time off.)

I am not going to enter into a public discussion about a specific user, nor will I discuss the merits of the examples given. What I will say is that personal attacks are against the forum rules and will not be tolerated. Bear in mind however that the loose definition of "personal attack" allows for varying degrees of tolerance to be applied depending on the forum, topic and context of the conversation. This is after all an adult internet forum and a certain degree of "thick skin" is expected of users who choose to participate in the conversation. We also expect some amount of "self-moderation" from the community.

Having said that, I would also like to make it clear that repeat and/or habitual offenders stand a chance of losing their posting privileges permanently. This applies not only to offenses in the category of "personal attacks", but also to excessive profanity, rudeness, inflammatory material, disruptive posts, and trolls (i.e. posts with the sole aim of invoking negative responses).

DDT


climbs4fun
Moderator

Feb 5, 2011, 8:01 AM
Post #36 of 173 (4769 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 18, 2003
Posts: 9622

Re: [ddt] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (3 ratings)  
Can't Post

ok, after a lot of discussion in the green room, this is what it boils down to. The decision included in this statement is unanimous from ddt phil, and all moderators. Our decision on this particular case pertains to JT510, however, we have also decided that this type of situation will not arise again with any other user. it will be dealt with long before it gets to this point. So, with that, the staff answer to the OP's question is this:

In reply to:
Jay, your latest tirade is yet another episode in your history of hostility towards the moderator and management team, which includes explicit verbal assaults on us on multiple occasions. This despite past warnings, both publicly and in private to you. You are on thin ice, considering that we're currently also dealing with a growing upwelling of frustration from the rest of the community towards you. Your motivation seems to be the misconception that "knowledgeablility about climbing (according to you)" is the ultimate requirement for being a good moderator of a community site, when in fact your own history as a mod of this site has so elegantly proven this fallacy. We as mods are certainly not above criticism, as we've shown over and over again in the past, but your abrasive approach is doing nothing but undermine the entire staff and management team's credibility. You are making our jobs (as volunteers I will add) as unpleasant as it can possibly be. You may think this is "helping" the site, but it is not. You are only perpetuating an environment of hostility for everyone on this site. I suggest you do some serious introspection and start working with us, not against us.


jt512


Feb 5, 2011, 8:39 AM
Post #37 of 173 (4764 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21892

Re: [climbs4fun] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (8 ratings)  
Can't Post

climbs4fun wrote:
ok, after a lot of discussion in the green room, this is what it boils down to. The decision included in this statement is unanimous from ddt phil, and all moderators. Our decision on this particular case pertains to JT510, however, we have also decided that this type of situation will not arise again with any other user. it will be dealt with long before it gets to this point. So, with that, the staff answer to the OP's question is this:

In reply to:
Jay, your latest tirade is yet another episode in your history of hostility towards the moderator and management team, which includes explicit verbal assaults on us on multiple occasions. This despite past warnings, both publicly and in private to you. You are on thin ice, considering that we're currently also dealing with a growing upwelling of frustration from the rest of the community towards you. Your motivation seems to be the misconception that "knowledgeablility about climbing (according to you)" is the ultimate requirement for being a good moderator of a community site, when in fact your own history as a mod of this site has so elegantly proven this fallacy. We as mods are certainly not above criticism, as we've shown over and over again in the past, but your abrasive approach is doing nothing but undermine the entire staff and management team's credibility. You are making our jobs (as volunteers I will add) as unpleasant as it can possibly be. You may think this is "helping" the site, but it is not. You are only perpetuating an environment of hostility for everyone on this site. I suggest you do some serious introspection and start working with us, not against us.

So you, the moderators, whom I'm supposed to "work with," bury an ad hominem attack against me in your trumped up accusation of "episode of...hostility toward the moderator and management team." Classy. I'm undermining you? What a joke.

Jay


(This post was edited by jt512 on Feb 5, 2011, 8:42 AM)


notapplicable


Feb 5, 2011, 4:30 PM
Post #38 of 173 (4727 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17766

Re: [jt512] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

jt512 wrote:
climbs4fun wrote:
ok, after a lot of discussion in the green room, this is what it boils down to. The decision included in this statement is unanimous from ddt phil, and all moderators. Our decision on this particular case pertains to JT510, however, we have also decided that this type of situation will not arise again with any other user. it will be dealt with long before it gets to this point. So, with that, the staff answer to the OP's question is this:

In reply to:
Jay, your latest tirade is yet another episode in your history of hostility towards the moderator and management team, which includes explicit verbal assaults on us on multiple occasions. This despite past warnings, both publicly and in private to you. You are on thin ice, considering that we're currently also dealing with a growing upwelling of frustration from the rest of the community towards you. Your motivation seems to be the misconception that "knowledgeablility about climbing (according to you)" is the ultimate requirement for being a good moderator of a community site, when in fact your own history as a mod of this site has so elegantly proven this fallacy. We as mods are certainly not above criticism, as we've shown over and over again in the past, but your abrasive approach is doing nothing but undermine the entire staff and management team's credibility. You are making our jobs (as volunteers I will add) as unpleasant as it can possibly be. You may think this is "helping" the site, but it is not. You are only perpetuating an environment of hostility for everyone on this site. I suggest you do some serious introspection and start working with us, not against us.

So you, the moderators, whom I'm supposed to "work with," bury an ad hominem attack against me in your trumped up accusation of "episode of...hostility toward the moderator and management team." Classy. I'm undermining you? What a joke.

Jay

HA! You just got downgraded!


notapplicable


Feb 5, 2011, 4:48 PM
Post #39 of 173 (4716 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17766

Re: [climbs4fun] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (3 ratings)  
Can't Post

climbs4fun wrote:
ok, after a lot of discussion in the green room, this is what it boils down to. The decision included in this statement is unanimous from ddt phil, and all moderators. Our decision on this particular case pertains to JT510, however, we have also decided that this type of situation will not arise again with any other user. it will be dealt with long before it gets to this point. So, with that, the staff answer to the OP's question is this:

In reply to:
Jay, your latest tirade is yet another episode in your history of hostility towards the moderator and management team, which includes explicit verbal assaults on us on multiple occasions. This despite past warnings, both publicly and in private to you. You are on thin ice, considering that we're currently also dealing with a growing upwelling of frustration from the rest of the community towards you. Your motivation seems to be the misconception that "knowledgeablility about climbing (according to you)" is the ultimate requirement for being a good moderator of a community site, when in fact your own history as a mod of this site has so elegantly proven this fallacy. We as mods are certainly not above criticism, as we've shown over and over again in the past, but your abrasive approach is doing nothing but undermine the entire staff and management team's credibility. You are making our jobs (as volunteers I will add) as unpleasant as it can possibly be. You may think this is "helping" the site, but it is not. You are only perpetuating an environment of hostility for everyone on this site. I suggest you do some serious introspection and start working with us, not against us.


A. This^ is retarded.

B. Jay has gotten, from all sides, as good or better than he has given. The notion that he is victimizing the knob and it's users is laughable.

C. He may be abrasive but he has also been on the right side of a good number of critiques of this website that have been politely acknowledged and then hastily disregarded by DDT and the Mods. It's funny how often people perceive being told they are wrong (especially when they are) as an attack or insult.


climbs4fun
Moderator

Feb 5, 2011, 5:19 PM
Post #40 of 173 (4709 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 18, 2003
Posts: 9622

Re: [notapplicable] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

notapplicable wrote:
jt512 wrote:
climbs4fun wrote:
ok, after a lot of discussion in the green room, this is what it boils down to. The decision included in this statement is unanimous from ddt phil, and all moderators. Our decision on this particular case pertains to JT510, however, we have also decided that this type of situation will not arise again with any other user. it will be dealt with long before it gets to this point. So, with that, the staff answer to the OP's question is this:

In reply to:
Jay, your latest tirade is yet another episode in your history of hostility towards the moderator and management team, which includes explicit verbal assaults on us on multiple occasions. This despite past warnings, both publicly and in private to you. You are on thin ice, considering that we're currently also dealing with a growing upwelling of frustration from the rest of the community towards you. Your motivation seems to be the misconception that "knowledgeablility about climbing (according to you)" is the ultimate requirement for being a good moderator of a community site, when in fact your own history as a mod of this site has so elegantly proven this fallacy. We as mods are certainly not above criticism, as we've shown over and over again in the past, but your abrasive approach is doing nothing but undermine the entire staff and management team's credibility. You are making our jobs (as volunteers I will add) as unpleasant as it can possibly be. You may think this is "helping" the site, but it is not. You are only perpetuating an environment of hostility for everyone on this site. I suggest you do some serious introspection and start working with us, not against us.

So you, the moderators, whom I'm supposed to "work with," bury an ad hominem attack against me in your trumped up accusation of "episode of...hostility toward the moderator and management team." Classy. I'm undermining you? What a joke.

Jay

HA! You just got downgraded!

Actually, that was NOT intended


jt512


Feb 5, 2011, 7:32 PM
Post #41 of 173 (4693 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21892

Re: [notapplicable] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (6 ratings)  
Can't Post

notapplicable wrote:
climbs4fun wrote:
ok, after a lot of discussion in the green room, this is what it boils down to. The decision included in this statement is unanimous from ddt phil, and all moderators. Our decision on this particular case pertains to JT510, however, we have also decided that this type of situation will not arise again with any other user. it will be dealt with long before it gets to this point. So, with that, the staff answer to the OP's question is this:

In reply to:
Jay, your latest tirade is yet another episode in your history of hostility towards the moderator and management team, which includes explicit verbal assaults on us on multiple occasions. This despite past warnings, both publicly and in private to you. You are on thin ice, considering that we're currently also dealing with a growing upwelling of frustration from the rest of the community towards you. Your motivation seems to be the misconception that "knowledgeablility about climbing (according to you)" is the ultimate requirement for being a good moderator of a community site, when in fact your own history as a mod of this site has so elegantly proven this fallacy. We as mods are certainly not above criticism, as we've shown over and over again in the past, but your abrasive approach is doing nothing but undermine the entire staff and management team's credibility. You are making our jobs (as volunteers I will add) as unpleasant as it can possibly be. You may think this is "helping" the site, but it is not. You are only perpetuating an environment of hostility for everyone on this site. I suggest you do some serious introspection and start working with us, not against us.


A. This^ is retarded.

B. Jay has gotten, from all sides, as good or better than he has given.

Thank you for noticing.

In reply to:
The notion that he is victimizing the knob and it's users is laughable.

C. He may be abrasive but he has also been on the right side of a good number of critiques of this website that have been politely acknowledged and then hastily disregarded by DDT and the Mods.

Yes, as I predict the mod's 5x-vote advantage will be, as well as the now thoroughly discredited system of anonymous voting.

In reply to:
It's funny how often people perceive being told they are wrong (especially when they are) as an attack or insult.

Indeed it is.

Jay


guangzhou


Feb 5, 2011, 8:13 PM
Post #42 of 173 (4686 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 26, 2004
Posts: 3389

Re: [shoo] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

shoo wrote:
TonyB3 wrote:
macherry wrote:
moved to suggestions and feedback, a more appropriate forum.

Thank you.

It seems like this has been going on for some time and it gets overlooked. I know a certain amount of good natured ribbing is to be expected, but there is nothing good natured about jt512's posts. In general they are mean spirited and condescending, to say the least.

I just got sick of reading them and would like an honest explanation as to why they are tolerated. I know that as a long time lurker my voice has little weight, but I think a good many others fail to post here because of the caustic nature of this particular user. Is being self important enough to get away with abusing fellow members?

jt512 is the Dr. House of RC.com. He's an asshole, but he's also generally right.

I am not sure he is generally right. Just because he post often and yells the loudest doesn't mean he's right.


guangzhou


Feb 5, 2011, 8:30 PM
Post #43 of 173 (4678 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 26, 2004
Posts: 3389

Re: [TonyB3] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

Now, in defence of Jay,

First, I have never met you face to face, but I do think we would enjoy climbing together if we ever had the opportunity.

In the case of your postings here, I don't agree with most of what you write, but I do enjoy reading it. Sometimes I ask myself if you're just playing the Devil's Advocate or if you really believe every post.

Personally, I've never been offended by the things you write. Some of them have caused me to pause and think a bit, but I don't think I've ever been offended, shocked, or pissed by what anything you've written. About me or others.

over all, you do have a wealth of knowledge, I don't agree with how you apply it or interpret it sometimes, but climbing is personal and everyone can decide how to apply or interpret what they know.

I think a day at a crag with you would be interesting. The banter or conversations we could have would make any climbing area interesting. A lot of climbers I've met lately have been to scared or insecure to speak their mind, I miss having my views, and ideas challenged.

Like you, I have my own, personal and often strong belief, and I think a face to face conversation would be more interesting than exchanges on this site.

One thing I do try to keep in mind when I post, not everyone has a tough skin, especially on this forum. You do, and I think I do, so I don't mind giving you crap and arguing with you. I do think that many climbers I meet today are insecure about climbing, their belief system, and themselves.

While I agree you are aggressive on this site, I am actually one of the ones who would miss reading your post. (I do still wonder who else would)

My two cents,
Eman


(This post was edited by guangzhou on Feb 5, 2011, 8:34 PM)


notapplicable


Feb 5, 2011, 8:39 PM
Post #44 of 173 (4673 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17766

Re: [climbs4fun] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

climbs4fun wrote:
notapplicable wrote:
jt512 wrote:
climbs4fun wrote:
ok, after a lot of discussion in the green room, this is what it boils down to. The decision included in this statement is unanimous from ddt phil, and all moderators. Our decision on this particular case pertains to JT510, however, we have also decided that this type of situation will not arise again with any other user. it will be dealt with long before it gets to this point. So, with that, the staff answer to the OP's question is this:

In reply to:
Jay, your latest tirade is yet another episode in your history of hostility towards the moderator and management team, which includes explicit verbal assaults on us on multiple occasions. This despite past warnings, both publicly and in private to you. You are on thin ice, considering that we're currently also dealing with a growing upwelling of frustration from the rest of the community towards you. Your motivation seems to be the misconception that "knowledgeablility about climbing (according to you)" is the ultimate requirement for being a good moderator of a community site, when in fact your own history as a mod of this site has so elegantly proven this fallacy. We as mods are certainly not above criticism, as we've shown over and over again in the past, but your abrasive approach is doing nothing but undermine the entire staff and management team's credibility. You are making our jobs (as volunteers I will add) as unpleasant as it can possibly be. You may think this is "helping" the site, but it is not. You are only perpetuating an environment of hostility for everyone on this site. I suggest you do some serious introspection and start working with us, not against us.

So you, the moderators, whom I'm supposed to "work with," bury an ad hominem attack against me in your trumped up accusation of "episode of...hostility toward the moderator and management team." Classy. I'm undermining you? What a joke.

Jay

HA! You just got downgraded!

Actually, that was NOT intended

Twas hilarious nonetheless


jt512


Feb 5, 2011, 9:12 PM
Post #45 of 173 (4669 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21892

Re: [guangzhou] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (10 ratings)  
Can't Post

guangzhou wrote:
Now, in defence of Jay,

First, I have never met you face to face, but I do think we would enjoy climbing together if we ever had the opportunity.

In the case of your postings here, I don't agree with most of what you write, but I do enjoy reading it. Sometimes I ask myself if you're just playing the Devil's Advocate or if you really believe every post.

Personally, I've never been offended by the things you write. Some of them have caused me to pause and think a bit, but I don't think I've ever been offended, shocked, or pissed by what anything you've written. About me or others.

over all, you do have a wealth of knowledge, I don't agree with how you apply it or interpret it sometimes, but climbing is personal and everyone can decide how to apply or interpret what they know.

I think a day at a crag with you would be interesting. The banter or conversations we could have would make any climbing area interesting. A lot of climbers I've met lately have been to scared or insecure to speak their mind, I miss having my views, and ideas challenged.

Like you, I have my own, personal and often strong belief, and I think a face to face conversation would be more interesting than exchanges on this site.

One thing I do try to keep in mind when I post, not everyone has a tough skin, especially on this forum. You do, and I think I do, so I don't mind giving you crap and arguing with you. I do think that many climbers I meet today are insecure about climbing, their belief system, and themselves.

While I agree you are aggressive on this site, I am actually one of the ones who would miss reading your post. (I do still wonder who else would)

My two cents,
Eman

Thanks for this post.

We do seem to disagree on a surprisingly large number of issues. I have to admit that I have taken some of these disagreements personally, but now that I have a better appreciation of where you are coming from, I'll be less prone to do that in the future.

Thanks, again.

My communication style generally is not to sugar coat. I try to plainly state my opinions. IRL, my circle of friends, most of whom are scientists or mathematicians, have learned to do the same thing. Scientists and mathematicians value the truth, and spend much of their time having vigorous debates about it. They're used to being told they're flatly wrong, and are used to telling others that they are flatly wrong. It's nothing personal. Outside of scientific circles, such straight talk is often politically incorrect (literally! since in politics it is incorrect by definition). Many people probably go through most of their lives without being told, without any sugar coating, "No, you are wrong," and so they take it personally on the rare occasion they encounter it.

By those who don't like me, I am often accused of "personally attacking" other users. Although, I can't claim to be entirely innocent of that charge, I maintain that the vast majority of the time that I am perceived as personally attacking someone, I am either just speaking plain truth or I have been provoked into making the insult. Obviously, being insulted is not a valid reason for insulting someone back, but it is at least a reason, and I shouldn't be blamed for these occasions. And, of course, since the majority of the mods have turned against me, users have free reign to attack me at will (which, as notapplicable has noted, above, they do), while I have to walk on eggshells in my responses to their attacks.

I may not have the highest post count on the website, but I suspect I have, by far, the highest post count in the climbing-specific forums (i.e, outside of Community, etc.). I've got over 20 years climbing experience, and nearly 20,000 posts on this website using that experience to debate substantive climbing topics. Those posts are not all flames. They're not mostly flames. They're not even remotely mostly flames. And most of the time that they've been flames, the flamee had it coming, either by first attacking me (usually more than once) or by posting completely idiotic or irresponsible information.

Jay


Partner philbox
Moderator

Feb 6, 2011, 1:07 AM
Post #46 of 173 (4648 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 26, 2002
Posts: 13104

Re: [jt512] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (3 ratings)  
Can't Post

So to be very clear, what we are asking you to do Jay is to bring a little diplomacy into your posts. We are asking as politely as possible. I am not going to debate any of the issues from the past or any of your justifications. We are here at this point in time, it is what it is.

Take it and run with it or see ya later. Can't be plainer than that.

Over to you.


dr_feelgood


Feb 6, 2011, 3:52 AM
Post #47 of 173 (4631 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 6, 2004
Posts: 25818

Re: [philbox] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (3 ratings)  
Can't Post

philbox wrote:
So to be very clear, what we are asking you to do Jay is to bring a little diplomacy into your posts. We are asking as politely as possible. I am not going to debate any of the issues from the past or any of your justifications. We are here at this point in time, it is what it is.

Take it and run with it or see ya later. Can't be plainer than that.

Over to you.

There would be a lot less of a grey area if jt would just call a mod a "sanctimonious bitch" again and be done with it. At least the little fellow has learned that lesson.


ubu


Feb 6, 2011, 5:35 AM
Post #48 of 173 (4618 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 17, 2008
Posts: 1477

Re: [notapplicable] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

notapplicable wrote:
climbs4fun wrote:
ok, after a lot of discussion in the green room, this is what it boils down to. The decision included in this statement is unanimous from ddt phil, and all moderators. Our decision on this particular case pertains to JT510, however, we have also decided that this type of situation will not arise again with any other user. it will be dealt with long before it gets to this point. So, with that, the staff answer to the OP's question is this:

In reply to:
Jay, your latest tirade is yet another episode in your history of hostility towards the moderator and management team, which includes explicit verbal assaults on us on multiple occasions. This despite past warnings, both publicly and in private to you. You are on thin ice, considering that we're currently also dealing with a growing upwelling of frustration from the rest of the community towards you. Your motivation seems to be the misconception that "knowledgeablility about climbing (according to you)" is the ultimate requirement for being a good moderator of a community site, when in fact your own history as a mod of this site has so elegantly proven this fallacy. We as mods are certainly not above criticism, as we've shown over and over again in the past, but your abrasive approach is doing nothing but undermine the entire staff and management team's credibility. You are making our jobs (as volunteers I will add) as unpleasant as it can possibly be. You may think this is "helping" the site, but it is not. You are only perpetuating an environment of hostility for everyone on this site. I suggest you do some serious introspection and start working with us, not against us.


A. This^ is retarded.

B. Jay has gotten, from all sides, as good or better than he has given. The notion that he is victimizing the knob and it's users is laughable.

C. He may be abrasive but he has also been on the right side of a good number of critiques of this website that have been politely acknowledged and then hastily disregarded by DDT and the Mods. It's funny how often people perceive being told they are wrong (especially when they are) as an attack or insult.

+1

This whole whine-fest of a thread is retarded.


beetlebug


Feb 6, 2011, 10:06 AM
Post #49 of 173 (4588 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 3, 2009
Posts: 16

Re: [jt512] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (3 ratings)  
Can't Post

jt512 wrote:
... scientists or mathemeticians...

What are two groups generly known for their pronounced lack of social skills, condescending behavior and overinflated egos. I'll take "Not helping your argument" for $200, Alex.


jt512


Feb 6, 2011, 10:25 AM
Post #50 of 173 (4852 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21892

Re: [beetlebug] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (7 ratings)  
Can't Post

beetlebug wrote:
jt512 wrote:
... scientists or mathemeticians...

What are two groups generly known for their pronounced lack of social skills, condescending behavior and overinflated egos.

Really? That's odd. The scientists and mathematicians I know are the nicest people I've ever met. Just don't try to bullshit them.

Jay


beetlebug


Feb 6, 2011, 10:30 AM
Post #51 of 173 (4574 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 3, 2009
Posts: 16

Re: [jt512] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

jt512 wrote:
beetlebug wrote:
jt512 wrote:
... scientists or mathemeticians...

What are two groups generly known for their pronounced lack of social skills, condescending behavior and overinflated egos.

Really? That's odd. The scientists and mathematicians I know are the nicest people I've ever met. Just don't try to bullshit them.

Jay


Guess you're the exception to the rule then.


Partner macherry


Feb 6, 2011, 10:53 AM
Post #52 of 173 (4568 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 10, 2003
Posts: 15802

Re: [dr_feelgood] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

dr_feelgood wrote:
philbox wrote:
So to be very clear, what we are asking you to do Jay is to bring a little diplomacy into your posts. We are asking as politely as possible. I am not going to debate any of the issues from the past or any of your justifications. We are here at this point in time, it is what it is.

Take it and run with it or see ya later. Can't be plainer than that.

Over to you.

There would be a lot less of a grey area if jt would just call a mod a "sanctimonious bitch" again and be done with it. At least the little fellow has learned that lesson.

remarks like that and most recently,

"The moderators' maturity level? Newsflash: the moderators here are a total joke, or more accurately, an inside joke.",

do nothing for me.


jt512


Feb 6, 2011, 11:15 AM
Post #53 of 173 (4560 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21892

Re: [macherry] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (6 ratings)  
Can't Post

macherry wrote:
dr_feelgood wrote:
philbox wrote:
So to be very clear, what we are asking you to do Jay is to bring a little diplomacy into your posts. We are asking as politely as possible. I am not going to debate any of the issues from the past or any of your justifications. We are here at this point in time, it is what it is.

Take it and run with it or see ya later. Can't be plainer than that.

Over to you.

There would be a lot less of a grey area if jt would just call a mod a "sanctimonious bitch" again and be done with it. At least the little fellow has learned that lesson.

remarks like that and most recently,

"The moderators' maturity level?

Actually, I thought that that was what j_ung meant, and I was trying to clarify.

In reply to:
Newsflash: the moderators here are a total joke, or more accurately, an inside joke."

Out of context. That was the topic sentence of the paragraph. The next sentence, which you conveniently did not quote, was this: "Half of them only rarely visit the site. And of the half who visit often enough to be able to moderate (if they actually had any inclination to), half hide their online status." So, to be literally true, I should have said "a significant fraction" instead of "half," since I didn't actually calculate the exact proportions. So, with that correction in mind, what part of that sentence can you honestly say is not true?

And, while we're on the subject, climbs4fun, one of the moderators who takes her responsibilities to the users so seriously that she hides her online status from them, is still doing so. Perhaps the others are to; I haven't checked.

Jay


(This post was edited by jt512 on Feb 6, 2011, 11:17 AM)


climbs4fun
Moderator

Feb 6, 2011, 11:42 AM
Post #54 of 173 (4553 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 18, 2003
Posts: 9622

Re: [jt512] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

jt512 wrote:
guangzhou wrote:
Now, in defence of Jay,

First, I have never met you face to face, but I do think we would enjoy climbing together if we ever had the opportunity.

In the case of your postings here, I don't agree with most of what you write, but I do enjoy reading it. Sometimes I ask myself if you're just playing the Devil's Advocate or if you really believe every post.

Personally, I've never been offended by the things you write. Some of them have caused me to pause and think a bit, but I don't think I've ever been offended, shocked, or pissed by what anything you've written. About me or others.

over all, you do have a wealth of knowledge, I don't agree with how you apply it or interpret it sometimes, but climbing is personal and everyone can decide how to apply or interpret what they know.

I think a day at a crag with you would be interesting. The banter or conversations we could have would make any climbing area interesting. A lot of climbers I've met lately have been to scared or insecure to speak their mind, I miss having my views, and ideas challenged.

Like you, I have my own, personal and often strong belief, and I think a face to face conversation would be more interesting than exchanges on this site.

One thing I do try to keep in mind when I post, not everyone has a tough skin, especially on this forum. You do, and I think I do, so I don't mind giving you crap and arguing with you. I do think that many climbers I meet today are insecure about climbing, their belief system, and themselves.

While I agree you are aggressive on this site, I am actually one of the ones who would miss reading your post. (I do still wonder who else would)

My two cents,
Eman

Thanks for this post.

We do seem to disagree on a surprisingly large number of issues. I have to admit that I have taken some of these disagreements personally, but now that I have a better appreciation of where you are coming from, I'll be less prone to do that in the future.

Thanks, again.

My communication style generally is not to sugar coat. I try to plainly state my opinions. IRL, my circle of friends, most of whom are scientists or mathematicians, have learned to do the same thing. Scientists and mathematicians value the truth, and spend much of their time having vigorous debates about it. They're used to being told they're flatly wrong, and are used to telling others that they are flatly wrong. It's nothing personal. Outside of scientific circles, such straight talk is often politically incorrect (literally! since in politics it is incorrect by definition). Many people probably go through most of their lives without being told, without any sugar coating, "No, you are wrong," and so they take it personally on the rare occasion they encounter it.

By those who don't like me, I am often accused of "personally attacking" other users. Although, I can't claim to be entirely innocent of that charge, I maintain that the vast majority of the time that I am perceived as personally attacking someone, I am either just speaking plain truth or I have been provoked into making the insult. Obviously, being insulted is not a valid reason for insulting someone back, but it is at least a reason, and I shouldn't be blamed for these occasions. And, of course, since the majority of the mods have turned against me, users have free reign to attack me at will (which, as notapplicable has noted, above, they do), while I have to walk on eggshells in my responses to their attacks.

I may not have the highest post count on the website, but I suspect I have, by far, the highest post count in the climbing-specific forums (i.e, outside of Community, etc.). I've got over 20 years climbing experience, and nearly 20,000 posts on this website using that experience to debate substantive climbing topics. Those posts are not all flames. They're not mostly flames. They're not even remotely mostly flames. And most of the time that they've been flames, the flamee had it coming, either by first attacking me (usually more than once) or by posting completely idiotic or irresponsible information.

Jay

Jay,
thank you for posting this. It actually does impart some insight into your posts. I don't always disagree when you tell somebody they are wrong, however, I disagree many times with the manner in which you do it and I'm not alone. While I am not a fan of some of your unprovoked attacks against me, I do take offense to the attacks on others. And they do exist. Plain and simple.

I'll offer this olive branch. You say that the mods ignore blatant unprovoked attacks against you while you are held to a higher standard. You soften your posting style and we'll do our part to make sure that fair is fair. I'm not saying you have to sugar coat anything or coddle anybody. What I am saying is that you may debate what is said, but not attack the person saying it. We've all thought "what a fucking idiot" when we read certain posts, the difference is we don't always actually say it! Instead, state why they are wrong. Give examples.That's healthy debate and more than welcome. But I also think you know that you aren't going to sway everybody's opinion to that of your own, which is where you usually tend to get personal.

It's not a secret that you and I don't like each other. Not on the site and not IRL. That's fine. We don't have to. You do your part and I'll do mine. Fairly.

Agreed?


jt512


Feb 6, 2011, 1:38 PM
Post #55 of 173 (4533 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21892

Re: [climbs4fun] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (10 ratings)  
Can't Post

climbs4fun wrote:
jt512 wrote:
guangzhou wrote:
Now, in defence of Jay,

First, I have never met you face to face, but I do think we would enjoy climbing together if we ever had the opportunity.

In the case of your postings here, I don't agree with most of what you write, but I do enjoy reading it. Sometimes I ask myself if you're just playing the Devil's Advocate or if you really believe every post.

Personally, I've never been offended by the things you write. Some of them have caused me to pause and think a bit, but I don't think I've ever been offended, shocked, or pissed by what anything you've written. About me or others.

over all, you do have a wealth of knowledge, I don't agree with how you apply it or interpret it sometimes, but climbing is personal and everyone can decide how to apply or interpret what they know.

I think a day at a crag with you would be interesting. The banter or conversations we could have would make any climbing area interesting. A lot of climbers I've met lately have been to scared or insecure to speak their mind, I miss having my views, and ideas challenged.

Like you, I have my own, personal and often strong belief, and I think a face to face conversation would be more interesting than exchanges on this site.

One thing I do try to keep in mind when I post, not everyone has a tough skin, especially on this forum. You do, and I think I do, so I don't mind giving you crap and arguing with you. I do think that many climbers I meet today are insecure about climbing, their belief system, and themselves.

While I agree you are aggressive on this site, I am actually one of the ones who would miss reading your post. (I do still wonder who else would)

My two cents,
Eman

Thanks for this post.

We do seem to disagree on a surprisingly large number of issues. I have to admit that I have taken some of these disagreements personally, but now that I have a better appreciation of where you are coming from, I'll be less prone to do that in the future.

Thanks, again.

My communication style generally is not to sugar coat. I try to plainly state my opinions. IRL, my circle of friends, most of whom are scientists or mathematicians, have learned to do the same thing. Scientists and mathematicians value the truth, and spend much of their time having vigorous debates about it. They're used to being told they're flatly wrong, and are used to telling others that they are flatly wrong. It's nothing personal. Outside of scientific circles, such straight talk is often politically incorrect (literally! since in politics it is incorrect by definition). Many people probably go through most of their lives without being told, without any sugar coating, "No, you are wrong," and so they take it personally on the rare occasion they encounter it.

By those who don't like me, I am often accused of "personally attacking" other users. Although, I can't claim to be entirely innocent of that charge, I maintain that the vast majority of the time that I am perceived as personally attacking someone, I am either just speaking plain truth or I have been provoked into making the insult. Obviously, being insulted is not a valid reason for insulting someone back, but it is at least a reason, and I shouldn't be blamed for these occasions. And, of course, since the majority of the mods have turned against me, users have free reign to attack me at will (which, as notapplicable has noted, above, they do), while I have to walk on eggshells in my responses to their attacks.

I may not have the highest post count on the website, but I suspect I have, by far, the highest post count in the climbing-specific forums (i.e, outside of Community, etc.). I've got over 20 years climbing experience, and nearly 20,000 posts on this website using that experience to debate substantive climbing topics. Those posts are not all flames. They're not mostly flames. They're not even remotely mostly flames. And most of the time that they've been flames, the flamee had it coming, either by first attacking me (usually more than once) or by posting completely idiotic or irresponsible information.

Jay

Jay,
thank you for posting this. It actually does impart some insight into your posts. I don't always disagree when you tell somebody they are wrong, however, I disagree many times with the manner in which you do it and I'm not alone. While I am not a fan of some of your unprovoked attacks against me, I do take offense to the attacks on others. And they do exist. Plain and simple.

I'll offer this olive branch. You say that the mods ignore blatant unprovoked attacks against you while you are held to a higher standard. You soften your posting style and we'll do our part to make sure that fair is fair. I'm not saying you have to sugar coat anything or coddle anybody. What I am saying is that you may debate what is said, but not attack the person saying it. We've all thought "what a fucking idiot" when we read certain posts, the difference is we don't always actually say it! Instead, state why they are wrong. Give examples.That's healthy debate and more than welcome. But I also think you know that you aren't going to sway everybody's opinion to that of your own, which is where you usually tend to get personal.

It's not a secret that you and I don't like each other. Not on the site and not IRL. That's fine. We don't have to. You do your part and I'll do mine. Fairly.

Agreed?

Agreed, with the caveat that I still think that many times when I'm just speaking plainly it is incorrectly and inappropriately interpreted as a personal attack.

Although I think that your moderation style is too authority oriented, I have no idea how you could have gotten an impression that I don't like you IRL—and, for the record, it's not true.

Jay


Partner macherry


Feb 6, 2011, 4:33 PM
Post #56 of 173 (4507 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 10, 2003
Posts: 15802

Re: [jt512] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

jt512 wrote:
macherry wrote:
dr_feelgood wrote:
philbox wrote:
So to be very clear, what we are asking you to do Jay is to bring a little diplomacy into your posts. We are asking as politely as possible. I am not going to debate any of the issues from the past or any of your justifications. We are here at this point in time, it is what it is.

Take it and run with it or see ya later. Can't be plainer than that.

Over to you.

There would be a lot less of a grey area if jt would just call a mod a "sanctimonious bitch" again and be done with it. At least the little fellow has learned that lesson.

remarks like that and most recently,

"The moderators' maturity level?

Actually, I thought that that was what j_ung meant, and I was trying to clarify.

In reply to:
Newsflash: the moderators here are a total joke, or more accurately, an inside joke."

Out of context. That was the topic sentence of the paragraph. The next sentence, which you conveniently did not quote, was this: "Half of them only rarely visit the site. And of the half who visit often enough to be able to moderate (if they actually had any inclination to), half hide their online status." So, to be literally true, I should have said "a significant fraction" instead of "half," since I didn't actually calculate the exact proportions. So, with that correction in mind, what part of that sentence can you honestly say is not true?

And, while we're on the subject, climbs4fun, one of the moderators who takes her responsibilities to the users so seriously that she hides her online status from them, is still doing so. Perhaps the others are to; I haven't checked.

Jay

how does hiding status made a moderator a total joke or the moderators that are active a total joke. you can talk around that statement all you want, but it shows a lack of respect for us that volunteer our time. And if you don't respect us, how can we respect you?

I have hidden my status on occasion, it doesn't have any effect on the job i do.


jt512


Feb 6, 2011, 5:11 PM
Post #57 of 173 (4498 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21892

Re: [macherry] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (7 ratings)  
Can't Post

macherry wrote:
jt512 wrote:
macherry wrote:
dr_feelgood wrote:
philbox wrote:
So to be very clear, what we are asking you to do Jay is to bring a little diplomacy into your posts. We are asking as politely as possible. I am not going to debate any of the issues from the past or any of your justifications. We are here at this point in time, it is what it is.

Take it and run with it or see ya later. Can't be plainer than that.

Over to you.

There would be a lot less of a grey area if jt would just call a mod a "sanctimonious bitch" again and be done with it. At least the little fellow has learned that lesson.

remarks like that and most recently,

"The moderators' maturity level?

Actually, I thought that that was what j_ung meant, and I was trying to clarify.

In reply to:
Newsflash: the moderators here are a total joke, or more accurately, an inside joke."

Out of context. That was the topic sentence of the paragraph. The next sentence, which you conveniently did not quote, was this: "Half of them only rarely visit the site. And of the half who visit often enough to be able to moderate (if they actually had any inclination to), half hide their online status." So, to be literally true, I should have said "a significant fraction" instead of "half," since I didn't actually calculate the exact proportions. So, with that correction in mind, what part of that sentence can you honestly say is not true?

And, while we're on the subject, climbs4fun, one of the moderators who takes her responsibilities to the users so seriously that she hides her online status from them, is still doing so. Perhaps the others are to; I haven't checked.

Jay

how does hiding status made a moderator a total joke or the moderators that are active a total joke. you can talk around that statement all you want, but it shows a lack of respect for us that volunteer our time. And if you don't respect us, how can we respect you?

I have hidden my status on occasion, it doesn't have any effect on the job i do.

I think you are being overly sensitive, but okay "total joke" was an exaggeration. As I said in another post, that there are moderators (quite possibly the minority) who are active and do a good job, and I even said that you were in that group.

I would think that it would be obvious why a moderator should not be allowed to (or even want to) hide their online status. When a user needs to get in touch with a moderator, he has to know which moderators are actually online.

Maybe I don't understand why some moderators habitually hide their online status. The impression the practice gives me, though, is that they don't take their responsibility to users seriously enough even to allow users to know when they are available to moderate.

Jay


(This post was edited by jt512 on Feb 6, 2011, 5:17 PM)


notapplicable


Feb 6, 2011, 5:35 PM
Post #58 of 173 (4485 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17766

Re: [macherry] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

macherry wrote:
jt512 wrote:
macherry wrote:
dr_feelgood wrote:
philbox wrote:
So to be very clear, what we are asking you to do Jay is to bring a little diplomacy into your posts. We are asking as politely as possible. I am not going to debate any of the issues from the past or any of your justifications. We are here at this point in time, it is what it is.

Take it and run with it or see ya later. Can't be plainer than that.

Over to you.

There would be a lot less of a grey area if jt would just call a mod a "sanctimonious bitch" again and be done with it. At least the little fellow has learned that lesson.

remarks like that and most recently,

"The moderators' maturity level?

Actually, I thought that that was what j_ung meant, and I was trying to clarify.

In reply to:
Newsflash: the moderators here are a total joke, or more accurately, an inside joke."

Out of context. That was the topic sentence of the paragraph. The next sentence, which you conveniently did not quote, was this: "Half of them only rarely visit the site. And of the half who visit often enough to be able to moderate (if they actually had any inclination to), half hide their online status." So, to be literally true, I should have said "a significant fraction" instead of "half," since I didn't actually calculate the exact proportions. So, with that correction in mind, what part of that sentence can you honestly say is not true?

And, while we're on the subject, climbs4fun, one of the moderators who takes her responsibilities to the users so seriously that she hides her online status from them, is still doing so. Perhaps the others are to; I haven't checked.

Jay

how does hiding status made a moderator a total joke or the moderators that are active a total joke. you can talk around that statement all you want, but it shows a lack of respect for us that volunteer our time. And if you don't respect us, how can we respect you?

I have hidden my status on occasion, it doesn't have any effect on the job i do.

It doesn't effect your ability to moderate posts that YOU see but it does prevent other users from calling something to the attention of the mod(s) who are online and able to efficiently address an issue. It really does not make any sense at all that a moderator would hide their online status.


notapplicable


Feb 6, 2011, 5:53 PM
Post #59 of 173 (4474 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17766

Re: [dr_feelgood] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

dr_feelgood wrote:
philbox wrote:
So to be very clear, what we are asking you to do Jay is to bring a little diplomacy into your posts. We are asking as politely as possible. I am not going to debate any of the issues from the past or any of your justifications. We are here at this point in time, it is what it is.

Take it and run with it or see ya later. Can't be plainer than that.

Over to you.

There would be a lot less of a grey area if jt would just call a mod a "sanctimonious bitch" again and be done with it. At least the little fellow has learned that lesson.

While I think that insults about peoples height are kind of like insults about people being gay, in that they aren't really insults and serve only to highlight how much of an immature asshole the insulter is, I will ignore that in favor of taking this thread waaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyy of topic.

I just noticed your sig line and it reminded me of a T-shirt I have. Thought you might find it amusing.




dr_feelgood


Feb 6, 2011, 6:59 PM
Post #60 of 173 (4452 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 6, 2004
Posts: 25818

Re: [jt512] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

jt512 wrote:
macherry wrote:
jt512 wrote:
macherry wrote:
dr_feelgood wrote:
philbox wrote:
So to be very clear, what we are asking you to do Jay is to bring a little diplomacy into your posts. We are asking as politely as possible. I am not going to debate any of the issues from the past or any of your justifications. We are here at this point in time, it is what it is.

Take it and run with it or see ya later. Can't be plainer than that.

Over to you.

There would be a lot less of a grey area if jt would just call a mod a "sanctimonious bitch" again and be done with it. At least the little fellow has learned that lesson.

remarks like that and most recently,

"The moderators' maturity level?

Actually, I thought that that was what j_ung meant, and I was trying to clarify.

In reply to:
Newsflash: the moderators here are a total joke, or more accurately, an inside joke."

Out of context. That was the topic sentence of the paragraph. The next sentence, which you conveniently did not quote, was this: "Half of them only rarely visit the site. And of the half who visit often enough to be able to moderate (if they actually had any inclination to), half hide their online status." So, to be literally true, I should have said "a significant fraction" instead of "half," since I didn't actually calculate the exact proportions. So, with that correction in mind, what part of that sentence can you honestly say is not true?

And, while we're on the subject, climbs4fun, one of the moderators who takes her responsibilities to the users so seriously that she hides her online status from them, is still doing so. Perhaps the others are to; I haven't checked.

Jay

how does hiding status made a moderator a total joke or the moderators that are active a total joke. you can talk around that statement all you want, but it shows a lack of respect for us that volunteer our time. And if you don't respect us, how can we respect you?

I have hidden my status on occasion, it doesn't have any effect on the job i do.

I think you are being overly sensitive, but okay "total joke" was an exaggeration. As I said in another post, that there are moderators (quite possibly the minority) who are active and do a good job, and I even said that you were in that group.

I would think that it would be obvious why a moderator should not be allowed to (or even want to) hide their online status. When a user needs to get in touch with a moderator, he has to know which moderators are actually online.

Maybe I don't understand why some moderators habitually hide their online status. The impression the practice gives me, though, is that they don't take their responsibility to users seriously enough even to allow users to know when they are available to moderate.

Jay

backpedal


jt512


Feb 6, 2011, 7:47 PM
Post #61 of 173 (4441 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21892

Re: [dr_feelgood] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (5 ratings)  
Can't Post

dr_feelgood wrote:
jt512 wrote:
macherry wrote:
jt512 wrote:
macherry wrote:
dr_feelgood wrote:
philbox wrote:
So to be very clear, what we are asking you to do Jay is to bring a little diplomacy into your posts. We are asking as politely as possible. I am not going to debate any of the issues from the past or any of your justifications. We are here at this point in time, it is what it is.

Take it and run with it or see ya later. Can't be plainer than that.

Over to you.

There would be a lot less of a grey area if jt would just call a mod a "sanctimonious bitch" again and be done with it. At least the little fellow has learned that lesson.

remarks like that and most recently,

"The moderators' maturity level?

Actually, I thought that that was what j_ung meant, and I was trying to clarify.

In reply to:
Newsflash: the moderators here are a total joke, or more accurately, an inside joke."

Out of context. That was the topic sentence of the paragraph. The next sentence, which you conveniently did not quote, was this: "Half of them only rarely visit the site. And of the half who visit often enough to be able to moderate (if they actually had any inclination to), half hide their online status." So, to be literally true, I should have said "a significant fraction" instead of "half," since I didn't actually calculate the exact proportions. So, with that correction in mind, what part of that sentence can you honestly say is not true?

And, while we're on the subject, climbs4fun, one of the moderators who takes her responsibilities to the users so seriously that she hides her online status from them, is still doing so. Perhaps the others are to; I haven't checked.

Jay

how does hiding status made a moderator a total joke or the moderators that are active a total joke. you can talk around that statement all you want, but it shows a lack of respect for us that volunteer our time. And if you don't respect us, how can we respect you?

I have hidden my status on occasion, it doesn't have any effect on the job i do.

I think you are being overly sensitive, but okay "total joke" was an exaggeration. As I said in another post, that there are moderators (quite possibly the minority) who are active and do a good job, and I even said that you were in that group.

I would think that it would be obvious why a moderator should not be allowed to (or even want to) hide their online status. When a user needs to get in touch with a moderator, he has to know which moderators are actually online.

Maybe I don't understand why some moderators habitually hide their online status. The impression the practice gives me, though, is that they don't take their responsibility to users seriously enough even to allow users to know when they are available to moderate.

Jay

backpedal

That word does not mean what you think it means.


climbs4fun
Moderator

Feb 6, 2011, 9:20 PM
Post #62 of 173 (4422 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 18, 2003
Posts: 9622

Re: [macherry] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

macherry wrote:
jt512 wrote:
macherry wrote:
dr_feelgood wrote:
philbox wrote:
So to be very clear, what we are asking you to do Jay is to bring a little diplomacy into your posts. We are asking as politely as possible. I am not going to debate any of the issues from the past or any of your justifications. We are here at this point in time, it is what it is.

Take it and run with it or see ya later. Can't be plainer than that.

Over to you.

There would be a lot less of a grey area if jt would just call a mod a "sanctimonious bitch" again and be done with it. At least the little fellow has learned that lesson.

remarks like that and most recently,

"The moderators' maturity level?

Actually, I thought that that was what j_ung meant, and I was trying to clarify.

In reply to:
Newsflash: the moderators here are a total joke, or more accurately, an inside joke."

Out of context. That was the topic sentence of the paragraph. The next sentence, which you conveniently did not quote, was this: "Half of them only rarely visit the site. And of the half who visit often enough to be able to moderate (if they actually had any inclination to), half hide their online status." So, to be literally true, I should have said "a significant fraction" instead of "half," since I didn't actually calculate the exact proportions. So, with that correction in mind, what part of that sentence can you honestly say is not true?

And, while we're on the subject, climbs4fun, one of the moderators who takes her responsibilities to the users so seriously that she hides her online status from them, is still doing so. Perhaps the others are to; I haven't checked.

Jay

how does hiding status made a moderator a total joke or the moderators that are active a total joke. you can talk around that statement all you want, but it shows a lack of respect for us that volunteer our time. And if you don't respect us, how can we respect you?

I have hidden my status on occasion, it doesn't have any effect on the job i do.

I will say that I have never hidden my online status. Mostly because I have nothing to hide. I will also say that I don't moderate user behavior frequently. This isn't because I don't care or I don't know any better, it's because, I think that for the most part the users self moderate quite well and I believe that adults should know how to behave and how not to. I do get proven wrong on a daily basis in this area, however. I step in when the staff consensus says that something needs to be moderated, I feel something is REALLY out of line, or in this case, I said that I would post the moderator decision because Phil was coordinating flood cleanup in his area. Or in normal cases when something needs to be moved or a spammer dealt with. There are a couple of others that tend to moderate the same way. I hope that this helps to dispel the perception that some of the moderators just don't care.

I've been a moderator around here longer than any of them with the exception of Phil. I've survived the wild west with little to no moderation, heavy handed moderation, and the current level of moderation. I believe that a happy medium tends to be the best policy. But I also see that a more civil environment is what is being requested by a large portion of the user base. This is not solely aimed at Jay, there are plenty that could play a little nicer as a general rule. And they will, or they will go away.


caughtinside


Feb 6, 2011, 9:23 PM
Post #63 of 173 (4417 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 30411

Re: [climbs4fun] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

climbs4fun wrote:
macherry wrote:
jt512 wrote:
macherry wrote:
dr_feelgood wrote:
philbox wrote:
So to be very clear, what we are asking you to do Jay is to bring a little diplomacy into your posts. We are asking as politely as possible. I am not going to debate any of the issues from the past or any of your justifications. We are here at this point in time, it is what it is.

Take it and run with it or see ya later. Can't be plainer than that.

Over to you.

There would be a lot less of a grey area if jt would just call a mod a "sanctimonious bitch" again and be done with it. At least the little fellow has learned that lesson.

remarks like that and most recently,

"The moderators' maturity level?

Actually, I thought that that was what j_ung meant, and I was trying to clarify.

In reply to:
Newsflash: the moderators here are a total joke, or more accurately, an inside joke."

Out of context. That was the topic sentence of the paragraph. The next sentence, which you conveniently did not quote, was this: "Half of them only rarely visit the site. And of the half who visit often enough to be able to moderate (if they actually had any inclination to), half hide their online status." So, to be literally true, I should have said "a significant fraction" instead of "half," since I didn't actually calculate the exact proportions. So, with that correction in mind, what part of that sentence can you honestly say is not true?

And, while we're on the subject, climbs4fun, one of the moderators who takes her responsibilities to the users so seriously that she hides her online status from them, is still doing so. Perhaps the others are to; I haven't checked.

Jay

how does hiding status made a moderator a total joke or the moderators that are active a total joke. you can talk around that statement all you want, but it shows a lack of respect for us that volunteer our time. And if you don't respect us, how can we respect you?

I have hidden my status on occasion, it doesn't have any effect on the job i do.

I will say that I have never hidden my online status. Mostly because I have nothing to hide. I will also say that I don't moderate user behavior frequently. This isn't because I don't care or I don't know any better, it's because, I think that for the most part the users self moderate quite well and I believe that adults should know how to behave and how not to. I do get proven wrong on a daily basis in this area, however. I step in when the staff consensus says that something needs to be moderated, I feel something is REALLY out of line, or in this case, I said that I would post the moderator decision because Phil was coordinating flood cleanup in his area. Or in normal cases when something needs to be moved or a spammer dealt with. There are a couple of others that tend to moderate the same way. I hope that this helps to dispel the perception that some of the moderators just don't care.

I've been a moderator around here longer than any of them with the exception of Phil. I've survived the wild west with little to no moderation, heavy handed moderation, and the current level of moderation. I believe that a happy medium tends to be the best policy. But I also see that a more civil environment is what is being requested by a large portion of the user base. This is not solely aimed at Jay, there are plenty that could play a little nicer as a general rule. And they will, or they will go away.

This site needs a new BANZing reign of terror!


jt512


Feb 6, 2011, 9:46 PM
Post #64 of 173 (4410 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21892

Re: [climbs4fun] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (3 ratings)  
Can't Post

climbs4fun wrote:
macherry wrote:
jt512 wrote:
macherry wrote:
dr_feelgood wrote:
philbox wrote:
So to be very clear, what we are asking you to do Jay is to bring a little diplomacy into your posts. We are asking as politely as possible. I am not going to debate any of the issues from the past or any of your justifications. We are here at this point in time, it is what it is.

Take it and run with it or see ya later. Can't be plainer than that.

Over to you.

There would be a lot less of a grey area if jt would just call a mod a "sanctimonious bitch" again and be done with it. At least the little fellow has learned that lesson.

remarks like that and most recently,

"The moderators' maturity level?

Actually, I thought that that was what j_ung meant, and I was trying to clarify.

In reply to:
Newsflash: the moderators here are a total joke, or more accurately, an inside joke."

Out of context. That was the topic sentence of the paragraph. The next sentence, which you conveniently did not quote, was this: "Half of them only rarely visit the site. And of the half who visit often enough to be able to moderate (if they actually had any inclination to), half hide their online status." So, to be literally true, I should have said "a significant fraction" instead of "half," since I didn't actually calculate the exact proportions. So, with that correction in mind, what part of that sentence can you honestly say is not true?

And, while we're on the subject, climbs4fun, one of the moderators who takes her responsibilities to the users so seriously that she hides her online status from them, is still doing so. Perhaps the others are to; I haven't checked.

Jay

how does hiding status made a moderator a total joke or the moderators that are active a total joke. you can talk around that statement all you want, but it shows a lack of respect for us that volunteer our time. And if you don't respect us, how can we respect you?

I have hidden my status on occasion, it doesn't have any effect on the job i do.

I will say that I have never hidden my online status.

Kelly, although you might not have been aware of it, your online status is currently hidden (click to enlarge).


Attachments: status.jpg (25.9 KB)


notapplicable


Feb 6, 2011, 10:01 PM
Post #65 of 173 (4400 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17766

Re: [caughtinside] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

caughtinside wrote:
climbs4fun wrote:
macherry wrote:
jt512 wrote:
macherry wrote:
dr_feelgood wrote:
philbox wrote:
So to be very clear, what we are asking you to do Jay is to bring a little diplomacy into your posts. We are asking as politely as possible. I am not going to debate any of the issues from the past or any of your justifications. We are here at this point in time, it is what it is.

Take it and run with it or see ya later. Can't be plainer than that.

Over to you.

There would be a lot less of a grey area if jt would just call a mod a "sanctimonious bitch" again and be done with it. At least the little fellow has learned that lesson.

remarks like that and most recently,

"The moderators' maturity level?

Actually, I thought that that was what j_ung meant, and I was trying to clarify.

In reply to:
Newsflash: the moderators here are a total joke, or more accurately, an inside joke."

Out of context. That was the topic sentence of the paragraph. The next sentence, which you conveniently did not quote, was this: "Half of them only rarely visit the site. And of the half who visit often enough to be able to moderate (if they actually had any inclination to), half hide their online status." So, to be literally true, I should have said "a significant fraction" instead of "half," since I didn't actually calculate the exact proportions. So, with that correction in mind, what part of that sentence can you honestly say is not true?

And, while we're on the subject, climbs4fun, one of the moderators who takes her responsibilities to the users so seriously that she hides her online status from them, is still doing so. Perhaps the others are to; I haven't checked.

Jay

how does hiding status made a moderator a total joke or the moderators that are active a total joke. you can talk around that statement all you want, but it shows a lack of respect for us that volunteer our time. And if you don't respect us, how can we respect you?

I have hidden my status on occasion, it doesn't have any effect on the job i do.

I will say that I have never hidden my online status. Mostly because I have nothing to hide. I will also say that I don't moderate user behavior frequently. This isn't because I don't care or I don't know any better, it's because, I think that for the most part the users self moderate quite well and I believe that adults should know how to behave and how not to. I do get proven wrong on a daily basis in this area, however. I step in when the staff consensus says that something needs to be moderated, I feel something is REALLY out of line, or in this case, I said that I would post the moderator decision because Phil was coordinating flood cleanup in his area. Or in normal cases when something needs to be moved or a spammer dealt with. There are a couple of others that tend to moderate the same way. I hope that this helps to dispel the perception that some of the moderators just don't care.

I've been a moderator around here longer than any of them with the exception of Phil. I've survived the wild west with little to no moderation, heavy handed moderation, and the current level of moderation. I believe that a happy medium tends to be the best policy. But I also see that a more civil environment is what is being requested by a large portion of the user base. This is not solely aimed at Jay, there are plenty that could play a little nicer as a general rule. And they will, or they will go away.

This site needs a new BANZing reign of terror!

I agree and I suggest you start with CI.


guangzhou


Feb 6, 2011, 10:06 PM
Post #66 of 173 (4394 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 26, 2004
Posts: 3389

Re: [jt512] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

jt512 wrote:
guangzhou wrote:
Now, in defence of Jay,

First, I have never met you face to face, but I do think we would enjoy climbing together if we ever had the opportunity.

In the case of your postings here, I don't agree with most of what you write, but I do enjoy reading it. Sometimes I ask myself if you're just playing the Devil's Advocate or if you really believe every post.

Personally, I've never been offended by the things you write. Some of them have caused me to pause and think a bit, but I don't think I've ever been offended, shocked, or pissed by what anything you've written. About me or others.

over all, you do have a wealth of knowledge, I don't agree with how you apply it or interpret it sometimes, but climbing is personal and everyone can decide how to apply or interpret what they know.

I think a day at a crag with you would be interesting. The banter or conversations we could have would make any climbing area interesting. A lot of climbers I've met lately have been to scared or insecure to speak their mind, I miss having my views, and ideas challenged.

Like you, I have my own, personal and often strong belief, and I think a face to face conversation would be more interesting than exchanges on this site.

One thing I do try to keep in mind when I post, not everyone has a tough skin, especially on this forum. You do, and I think I do, so I don't mind giving you crap and arguing with you. I do think that many climbers I meet today are insecure about climbing, their belief system, and themselves.

While I agree you are aggressive on this site, I am actually one of the ones who would miss reading your post. (I do still wonder who else would)

My two cents,
Eman

Thanks for this post.

We do seem to disagree on a surprisingly large number of issues. I have to admit that I have taken some of these disagreements personally, but now that I have a better appreciation of where you are coming from, I'll be less prone to do that in the future.

I don't take things to personally on the internet.

In reply to:
Thanks, again.

No worries

In reply to:
My communication style generally is not to sugar coat. I try to plainly state my opinions. IRL, my circle of friends, most of whom are scientists or mathematicians, have learned to do the same thing. Scientists and mathematicians value the truth, and spend much of their time having vigorous debates about it. They're used to being told they're flatly wrong, and are used to telling others that they are flatly wrong. It's nothing personal. Outside of scientific circles, such straight talk is often politically incorrect (literally! since in politics it is incorrect by definition). Many people probably go through most of their lives without being told, without any sugar coating, "No, you are wrong," and so they take it personally on the rare occasion they encounter it.

What I disagree with most of the itme is the tone that the message seem to imply. They do tend to be hostile, but I can look past that.

As for bluntness, I have never been accuse of beating around the bush. Actually, five years in the Army, a few year teaching middle school math, and a lifetime of climbing, I tend to get to the point. I am more direct face to face than online, but that's because I can guage people's reactions better.

For all I know, the person arguing about climbing with me online is a 300 pound bedridden guy who has never even seen a cliff, much less climbed one.

In reply to:
By those who don't like me, I am often accused of "personally attacking" other users. Although, I can't claim to be entirely innocent of that charge, I maintain that the vast majority of the time that I am perceived as personally attacking someone, I am either just speaking plain truth or I have been provoked into making the insult. Obviously, being insulted is not a valid reason for insulting someone back, but it is at least a reason, and I shouldn't be blamed for these occasions. And, of course, since the majority of the mods have turned against me, users have free reign to attack me at will (which, as notapplicable has noted, above, they do), while I have to walk on eggshells in my responses to their attacks.

I have to admit, I have read some of your post and understood them to be attacks too. (Not about me, but attacks non-the-less)

In reply to:
I may not have the highest post count on the website, but I suspect I have, by far, the highest post count in the climbing-specific forums (i.e, outside of Community, etc.). I've got over 20 years climbing experience, and nearly 20,000 posts on this website using that experience to debate substantive climbing topics. Those posts are not all flames. They're not mostly flames. They're not even remotely mostly flames. And most of the time that they've been flames, the flamee had it coming, either by first attacking me (usually more than once) or by posting completely idiotic or irresponsible information.

I could careless how many post someone has, I try to look at the content. In most cases, those with highest post counts seems the most lost to me.

I remember having a conversation here with a guy about bolting, on-lead versus rappel. He kept talking about my lack of ethics and not understand the true history of climbing, risk, and likes.

By chance, I met this guy face to face while climbing in China. He was there on business and someone gave him my contact info. I didn't know he was on this site and he didn't know who I was int he real world.

On the way tot he cliff, he let it slip that he had never climbed outdoors, and how excited he was to finally get to climb real rock. Again, I had no idea it was the same guy. I was bit worried about his lack of outdoor experience because we were headed into village china climbing scene.

When we arrived at the cliff, i lead ashort, maybe 120ft pitch of 5.6 climb on gear. When he got up to the belay, I hauled up the drill and added a two bolt belay for the rap. He said nothing.

Seeing he was a computant belayer, I jumped on a face I had looked at before. On lead, I placed one bolt about 80ft up, could handle the risk any more, most of my placement were same RPs to that point. At about 11ft, I placed a gear belay, not great gear, hauled up the drill and placed two bolts. On the way down, I added bolts to make it a 5.11 sport route instead of 5.11x. he didn't say anything and top=roped, sport of the route.

A couple weeks later, he attacked me, Guangzhou,l not eman for the ethics of rap bolting. He mentioned having climbed out Guangzhou and I found out this guy who was pissed off at my rap-bolting techniques was the same guy who was scared top-roping my route. When I told him I was the guy he climbed with in Southern China, he left the site and I have not seen him since.

I mention this only because you actually don't know who you are actually talking to on this site. I don't take things personally here or in person. SOme people like me and what I do, other hate me and what I do. To be honest, I could care less either way. I do my thing and if you don't like it, avoid me is my attitude. If I don;t like you, I'll avoid you too.

In reply to:
Jay

Again, I hope we can have a F2F one day, I think you'd be more interesting in person.

A middle School Math teacher in Asia
Eman


beetlebug


Feb 6, 2011, 10:46 PM
Post #67 of 173 (4384 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 3, 2009
Posts: 16

Re: [philbox] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

philbox wrote:
So to be very clear, what we are asking you to do Jay is to bring a little diplomacy into your posts. We are asking as politely as possible. I am not going to debate any of the issues from the past or any of your justifications. We are here at this point in time, it is what it is.

Take it and run with it or see ya later. Can't be plainer than that.

Over to you.

Just so we're clear, just how many warnings does it take to get to the center of this tootsie roll pop? Seriously, most everyone hates the guy (for good reason), he has a long history of abusing other users _AND_ the volunteer staff (which should be compounded by the fact he apparently had been a mod at one point and should know better).... The value of keeping him around is.... ? Seriously, what special knowledge does Jt512 possess that makes him worth keeping around? 99% of his posts are either condescending or attack other users, so where's the value?

My suggestion, before going back into lurk mode, is to institute a high maintenance user policy like lots if other sites are doing and make an example of Jt512. Seriously, he doesn't pull this shit anywhere else, only on RC. Why he gets away with it is beyond me.


Partner philbox
Moderator

Feb 7, 2011, 12:52 AM
Post #68 of 173 (4366 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 26, 2002
Posts: 13104

Re: [beetlebug] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (4 ratings)  
Can't Post

beetlebug wrote:
philbox wrote:
So to be very clear, what we are asking you to do Jay is to bring a little diplomacy into your posts. We are asking as politely as possible. I am not going to debate any of the issues from the past or any of your justifications. We are here at this point in time, it is what it is.

Take it and run with it or see ya later. Can't be plainer than that.

Over to you.

Just so we're clear, just how many warnings does it take to get to the center of this tootsie roll pop? Seriously, most everyone hates the guy (for good reason), he has a long history of abusing other users _AND_ the volunteer staff (which should be compounded by the fact he apparently had been a mod at one point and should know better).... The value of keeping him around is.... ? Seriously, what special knowledge does Jt512 possess that makes him worth keeping around? 99% of his posts are either condescending or attack other users, so where's the value?

My suggestion, before going back into lurk mode, is to institute a high maintenance user policy like lots if other sites are doing and make an example of Jt512. Seriously, he doesn't pull this shit anywhere else, only on RC. Why he gets away with it is beyond me.

I can't argue against any points you have made. Yes, we the mods and management have allowed this situation to develop and exist. We have now drawn a line in the sand and will not tolerate any sort of uncivil behaviour from this day forward. We are way beyond wanting to put up with what we have done so in the past.


dr_feelgood


Feb 7, 2011, 6:23 AM
Post #69 of 173 (4329 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 6, 2004
Posts: 25818

Re: [philbox] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

philbox wrote:
beetlebug wrote:
philbox wrote:
So to be very clear, what we are asking you to do Jay is to bring a little diplomacy into your posts. We are asking as politely as possible. I am not going to debate any of the issues from the past or any of your justifications. We are here at this point in time, it is what it is.

Take it and run with it or see ya later. Can't be plainer than that.

Over to you.

Just so we're clear, just how many warnings does it take to get to the center of this tootsie roll pop? Seriously, most everyone hates the guy (for good reason), he has a long history of abusing other users _AND_ the volunteer staff (which should be compounded by the fact he apparently had been a mod at one point and should know better).... The value of keeping him around is.... ? Seriously, what special knowledge does Jt512 possess that makes him worth keeping around? 99% of his posts are either condescending or attack other users, so where's the value?

My suggestion, before going back into lurk mode, is to institute a high maintenance user policy like lots if other sites are doing and make an example of Jt512. Seriously, he doesn't pull this shit anywhere else, only on RC. Why he gets away with it is beyond me.

I can't argue against any points you have made. Yes, we the mods and management have allowed this situation to develop and exist. We have now drawn a line in the sand and will not tolerate any sort of uncivil behaviour from this day forward. We are way beyond wanting to put up with what we have done so in the past.

I'm talking about drawing a line in the sand, dude.


airscape


Feb 7, 2011, 6:40 AM
Post #70 of 173 (4318 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 26, 2001
Posts: 4240

Re: [philbox] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (5 ratings)  
Can't Post

 
I really do not understand the listening to of lurkers.

These are people that have contributed NOTHING to these forums, so they have no right to complain.

Unless of course they are not lurkers and users with multiple accounts, which is IMO a far greater transgression than mere sarcastic and condisending comments. Casting anonymous bricks is week.


beetlebug


Feb 7, 2011, 6:50 AM
Post #71 of 173 (4306 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 3, 2009
Posts: 16

Re: [airscape] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

airscape wrote:
I really do not understand the listening to of lurkers.

These are people that have contributed NOTHING to these forums, so they have no right to complain.

What value do you see in participating in flamefests and "what color rope should I get" threads? What little I have to say is better spent on other climbing forums, where not only are the people nicer to one another, but the discussions actually go somewhere.


airscape


Feb 7, 2011, 7:04 AM
Post #72 of 173 (4299 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 26, 2001
Posts: 4240

Re: [beetlebug] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

beetlebug wrote:
airscape wrote:
I really do not understand the listening to of lurkers.

These are people that have contributed NOTHING to these forums, so they have no right to complain.

What value do you see in participating in flamefests and "what color rope should I get" threads? What little I have to say is better spent on other climbing forums, where not only are the people nicer to one another, but the discussions actually go somewhere.

If it is as bleak as you say, then why do you read anything here at all?


edge


Feb 7, 2011, 7:19 AM
Post #73 of 173 (4290 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 14, 2003
Posts: 9100

Re: [philbox] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

There has been a lot of productive conversation in this thread, and I for one am thankful for that. In fact, this forum has probably been underused for
it's intended purpose as stated: "The forum to make suggestions, give feedback and discuss any features on Rockclimbing.com. Report defects separately in the forum dedicated for it. "

To hit on a few highlights, I guess I see the complaint about Mods hiding their online status as a non-issue. I have never hidden my status intentionally, and am on RC every half hour or so throughout the workday from 7 AM EST until 6 PM. However, going back over all of my PMs from calendar year 2010, I received exactly 2 messages from users concerning site moderation; both were alerts to spammers, which I dealt with and responded to the sender with a quick, "Thanks, got him."

Mods have the same job restrictions as other users, and sometimes operate from multiple computers where they may not neccesarily have the time to log in just to check the site, prefering to log in when needed to perform a mod duty. This is not sneaky or devious, just a real world scenario. I would bet that no one here is encouraged by their paying employer to visit the site as often as we do, and that each mod and user weighs the merits of listing their online status and real name against that fact. Fortunately, I am self employed, and so I only disgust myself with the amount of time I waste here.

Further, just because users can't see mod activity, doesn't mean that we do nothing or are lax. In December of 2010, 44 posts were moved to the Recycle Bin, a forum only available to mods. In January of 2011, 23 posts were moved there. Many of these were spammers who were moved before the vast majority of users were even aware of the posts, creating a less cluttered user interface. Other posts moved were blatant attacks and insults which were then brought up for discussion in the Green Room, the mod's exclusive forum. Most of these were followed up by sending a warning to the offender via PM, again all behind the scenes for the average user.

This brings us to the current situation: how much moderation is needed, and in what situations? It is no secret that RC has a bit of a reputation as the Wild West of the climbing forums, and let's face it, that is a rep that a lot of climbers revel in society. On the one hand it makes for lively discussion and activity, so that it can be very entertaining to check in on the latest debate and/or shit show.

On the other hand, the internet is a relatively new vehicle for climber interactions, and it is impossible to judge a posters intentions or demeanor via online posts. The mods as a whole have discussed the level to which we moderate in the Green Room, and by and large have opted to let the users self moderate except in extreme situations as I outlined above.

What I see as the outcome of this thread is that we will again be revisiting this issue. In the past it has been complicated by the site changing hands multiple times, and each new owner has a lot on their plate without trying to overhaul the whole system before settling in and getting a feel for the climate. You can't go back in time and change the ways things have progressed, but you can gather data and input and begin again to chart a new course. Expect a post with new guidelines or rules to appear in the forums in the future once we have analyzed this data and meshed it with the site ownership's intentions.

In the meantime, I will personally be more vigilant in moderating mean spirited or abusive behaviour. Calling a user a "gumby" or "shit for brains" may be meant as a light hearted jab to one, but also may provoke the target of said name calling to retaliate in kind or leave the site altogether, where our goal is to make RC.com a venue for all users to exchange ideas, information, and perhaps, if their not careful, to learn something.

Instead of name calling, it is much more productive to tell someone else that you disagree with their opinion and back that up with a persuasive but civil argument.

So, if the mods see a post that we consider "over the top" in this regard, we may excersize our judgement and hide the post, move it to recycling, or send it to the Green Room for discussion. Anyone who quotes that post "for posterity" may also have their post hidden to eliminate all remnants of it. If you don't want your post to disappear, then don't cross the lines of common decency.

Enough for now; discuss.

Loran Smith
Engineer, artist, washed up climber, and (gulp) mod.


beetlebug


Feb 7, 2011, 8:04 AM
Post #74 of 173 (4273 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 3, 2009
Posts: 16

Re: [airscape] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

airscape wrote:
beetlebug wrote:
airscape wrote:
I really do not understand the listening to of lurkers.

These are people that have contributed NOTHING to these forums, so they have no right to complain.

What value do you see in participating in flamefests and "what color rope should I get" threads? What little I have to say is better spent on other climbing forums, where not only are the people nicer to one another, but the discussions actually go somewhere.

If it is as bleak as you say, then why do you read anything here at all?

Because there's still a small amount of good info amongst the noise. I just choose not to participate in the noise, hence lurking rather than contributing. Should RC come around to becoming the sort of place that actually encourages discussion you'll get a lot more of us lurkers out of lurk mode.

That's about all I have to say on the subject, so back to lurking.


k.l.k


Feb 7, 2011, 10:55 AM
Post #75 of 173 (4250 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 9, 2007
Posts: 1190

Re: [climbs4fun] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (6 ratings)  
Can't Post

climbs4fun wrote:
. . . a more civil environment is what is being requested by a large portion of the user base. This is not solely aimed at Jay, there are plenty that could play a little nicer as a general rule. And they will, or they will go away.

That's the problem with the lack of editorial oversight.

The "user base" consists overwhelmingly of n00bs and career incompetents whose primary use of the site is to post bad and frequently dangerous advice to other n00bs and career incompetents on topics in which they have neither understanding nor experience. Since this site also sits on one of the nicer bits of internet real estate, it has earned a high-profile brand (given how small the market niche is), but that brand is for idiocy and incompetence.

At the moment, the only corrective to that sad state of affairs, is the fear that one's anonymous avatar may get publicly ridiculed by Jay or Curt.

Ironically, the BET slums are one of the least ridiculous environments here, largely because they post about nothing but baking, gardening, and pets.

I appreciate the misery of being a mod, but I am not a fan of the idea that policy here should be driven by the libidinal impulses of the loudest sheep. That's not the only model for a successful site.


Partner cracklover


Feb 7, 2011, 11:45 AM
Post #76 of 173 (2952 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10010

Re: [k.l.k] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

k.l.k wrote:
climbs4fun wrote:
. . . a more civil environment is what is being requested by a large portion of the user base. This is not solely aimed at Jay, there are plenty that could play a little nicer as a general rule. And they will, or they will go away.

That's the problem with the lack of editorial oversight.

The "user base" consists overwhelmingly of n00bs and career incompetents whose primary use of the site is to post bad and frequently dangerous advice to other n00bs and career incompetents on topics in which they have neither understanding nor experience. Since this site also sits on one of the nicer bits of internet real estate, it has earned a high-profile brand (given how small the market niche is), but that brand is for idiocy and incompetence.

At the moment, the only corrective to that sad state of affairs, is the fear that one's anonymous avatar may get publicly ridiculed by Jay or Curt.

Ironically, the BET slums are one of the least ridiculous environments here, largely because they post about nothing but baking, gardening, and pets.

I appreciate the misery of being a mod, but I am not a fan of the idea that policy here should be driven by the libidinal impulses of the loudest sheep. That's not the only model for a successful site.

All good points, but you're pissing into the wind. Perhaps that's admirable from a purely principled position, but surely you must see that the die has already been cast.

I, for one, would rather see JT aim for some kind of compromise and stay her for a long time, than encourage him to go out with guns blazing. The latter might be entertaining for five minutes, but doesn't really serve anyone's interest.

GO


k.l.k


Feb 7, 2011, 12:38 PM
Post #77 of 173 (2935 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 9, 2007
Posts: 1190

Re: [cracklover] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

cracklover wrote:
k.l.k wrote:
climbs4fun wrote:
. . . a more civil environment is what is being requested by a large portion of the user base. This is not solely aimed at Jay, there are plenty that could play a little nicer as a general rule. And they will, or they will go away.

That's the problem with the lack of editorial oversight.

The "user base" consists overwhelmingly of n00bs and career incompetents whose primary use of the site is to post bad and frequently dangerous advice to other n00bs and career incompetents on topics in which they have neither understanding nor experience. Since this site also sits on one of the nicer bits of internet real estate, it has earned a high-profile brand (given how small the market niche is), but that brand is for idiocy and incompetence.

At the moment, the only corrective to that sad state of affairs, is the fear that one's anonymous avatar may get publicly ridiculed by Jay or Curt.

Ironically, the BET slums are one of the least ridiculous environments here, largely because they post about nothing but baking, gardening, and pets.

I appreciate the misery of being a mod, but I am not a fan of the idea that policy here should be driven by the libidinal impulses of the loudest sheep. That's not the only model for a successful site.

All good points, but you're pissing into the wind. Perhaps that's admirable from a purely principled position, but surely you must see that the die has already been cast.

I, for one, would rather see JT aim for some kind of compromise and stay her for a long time, than encourage him to go out with guns blazing. The latter might be entertaining for five minutes, but doesn't really serve anyone's interest.

GO

Not just about jt or this particular incident. This is a long-term problem, partly because the climbing community is so fragmented, partly because we have a growing set of issues coming up with land managers and rc.n00b is, god help us, one of the most public faces of climbing.

so yeah, on the increasingly rare occasions that i surf or post here, it's worth pointing out one of the strucutral problems this site (and many others) face.

it's not really about me hating on the mods or even ownership or thinking there's another mid-school dust-up that could be resolved in a happier way.

the transition out of editorial journalism and into the big new wild world, esp. one without a reliable revenue model, isn't getting resolved by anything done to/by j. i expect this basic problem to be with us for years, and not just here at america's least favorite site for pets, baking, and gardening.


Partner cracklover


Feb 7, 2011, 1:08 PM
Post #78 of 173 (2913 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10010

Re: [k.l.k] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Tilt at windmills to your heart's content. Just don't spear any friendlies by accident while you're at it, lol.

GO


k.l.k


Feb 7, 2011, 1:25 PM
Post #79 of 173 (2899 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 9, 2007
Posts: 1190

Re: [cracklover] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

cracklover wrote:
Tilt at windmills to your heart's content.

Unfortunately, that's pretty much what I have to do every single frickin day at work.


guangzhou


Feb 7, 2011, 4:35 PM
Post #80 of 173 (2868 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 26, 2004
Posts: 3389

Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

k.l.k wrote:
Not just about jt or this particular incident. This is a long-term problem, partly because the climbing community is so fragmented, partly because we have a growing set of issues coming up with land managers and rc.n00b is, god help us, one of the most public faces of climbing.

This is a good, even great observation. People who know nothing about climbing are more likely to learn about climbing from this site than any other climbing site there. Let's face, type rock climbing anything in Google, and this site is the top of the finds.

With all the arguing, name calling, and outright insults, a person doing research for access issues that know nothing about climbing are more likely to be mislead about climbing being a serious activity. If I knew nothing about climbing and came to site to to research something for a court case, I would see climbers are genrally childish and spoiled with no real knowledge.

My first view of the sport would be that climbers can't even decide among themselves what is right or wrong. This would make it hard for me to take any climber seriously when the time came to have a real conversation.

Again, as an experienced climber, I have no issues with JT, but I would not say that Curt and him are in the same position on this site. (Implied in a previous post.) I find him amusing.

If you think RC has no power to non-climbers, consider that while having a meeting with a land owner about access to a small crag, he printed me 37 pages of bolts being unethical according to climbers. Every one came from this site.

Non-climber do read this site and form opinions about who we are as a community. If all I knew was this site, I would think that climbers hated one another and couldn't agree on anything, lucky for me, I find that not to be true when I frequent climbing areas. Actually, I find the real climbing community much friendlier and much more open than those who post here frequently.


climbs4fun
Moderator

Feb 7, 2011, 6:54 PM
Post #81 of 173 (2845 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 18, 2003
Posts: 9622

Re: [jt512] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

jt512 wrote:
climbs4fun wrote:
macherry wrote:
jt512 wrote:
macherry wrote:
dr_feelgood wrote:
philbox wrote:
So to be very clear, what we are asking you to do Jay is to bring a little diplomacy into your posts. We are asking as politely as possible. I am not going to debate any of the issues from the past or any of your justifications. We are here at this point in time, it is what it is.

Take it and run with it or see ya later. Can't be plainer than that.

Over to you.

There would be a lot less of a grey area if jt would just call a mod a "sanctimonious bitch" again and be done with it. At least the little fellow has learned that lesson.

remarks like that and most recently,

"The moderators' maturity level?

Actually, I thought that that was what j_ung meant, and I was trying to clarify.

In reply to:
Newsflash: the moderators here are a total joke, or more accurately, an inside joke."

Out of context. That was the topic sentence of the paragraph. The next sentence, which you conveniently did not quote, was this: "Half of them only rarely visit the site. And of the half who visit often enough to be able to moderate (if they actually had any inclination to), half hide their online status." So, to be literally true, I should have said "a significant fraction" instead of "half," since I didn't actually calculate the exact proportions. So, with that correction in mind, what part of that sentence can you honestly say is not true?

And, while we're on the subject, climbs4fun, one of the moderators who takes her responsibilities to the users so seriously that she hides her online status from them, is still doing so. Perhaps the others are to; I haven't checked.

Jay

how does hiding status made a moderator a total joke or the moderators that are active a total joke. you can talk around that statement all you want, but it shows a lack of respect for us that volunteer our time. And if you don't respect us, how can we respect you?

I have hidden my status on occasion, it doesn't have any effect on the job i do.

I will say that I have never hidden my online status.

Kelly, although you might not have been aware of it, your online status is currently hidden (click to enlarge).

Had no idea. Took a minute to figure out how to fix it, but it's visible now.


climbs4fun
Moderator

Feb 7, 2011, 7:20 PM
Post #82 of 173 (2833 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 18, 2003
Posts: 9622

Re: [k.l.k] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

k.l.k wrote:
cracklover wrote:
k.l.k wrote:
climbs4fun wrote:
. . . a more civil environment is what is being requested by a large portion of the user base. This is not solely aimed at Jay, there are plenty that could play a little nicer as a general rule. And they will, or they will go away.

That's the problem with the lack of editorial oversight.

The "user base" consists overwhelmingly of n00bs and career incompetents whose primary use of the site is to post bad and frequently dangerous advice to other n00bs and career incompetents on topics in which they have neither understanding nor experience. Since this site also sits on one of the nicer bits of internet real estate, it has earned a high-profile brand (given how small the market niche is), but that brand is for idiocy and incompetence.

At the moment, the only corrective to that sad state of affairs, is the fear that one's anonymous avatar may get publicly ridiculed by Jay or Curt.

Ironically, the BET slums are one of the least ridiculous environments here, largely because they post about nothing but baking, gardening, and pets.

I appreciate the misery of being a mod, but I am not a fan of the idea that policy here should be driven by the libidinal impulses of the loudest sheep. That's not the only model for a successful site.

All good points, but you're pissing into the wind. Perhaps that's admirable from a purely principled position, but surely you must see that the die has already been cast.

I, for one, would rather see JT aim for some kind of compromise and stay her for a long time, than encourage him to go out with guns blazing. The latter might be entertaining for five minutes, but doesn't really serve anyone's interest.

GO

Not just about jt or this particular incident. This is a long-term problem, partly because the climbing community is so fragmented, partly because we have a growing set of issues coming up with land managers and rc.n00b is, god help us, one of the most public faces of climbing.

so yeah, on the increasingly rare occasions that i surf or post here, it's worth pointing out one of the strucutral problems this site (and many others) face.

it's not really about me hating on the mods or even ownership or thinking there's another mid-school dust-up that could be resolved in a happier way.

the transition out of editorial journalism and into the big new wild world, esp. one without a reliable revenue model, isn't getting resolved by anything done to/by j. i expect this basic problem to be with us for years, and not just here at america's least favorite site for pets, baking, and gardening.

1) we were all noobs at one point. Including you.

2) when the site was considered slightly more civil, there were more informed sources willing to post. Many of them owners of gear companies and professional climbers. Most of them have now been run off the site by the "noise".

if you want to see things get better, then this is a good place to start. You want to see all of the noobery condensed, fine... we'll find a way to do so. As edge mentioned, that's what Suggestions and Feedback is for. But for a long time STFU noob was how it got handled and still does. Insults were thrown at the noobs to the point that real questions with real answers don't get asked anymore. You all say you want to learn things, and have useful information shared, but most people are afraid to post real questions and useful information for fear that majid or Jay or somebody else will come along and tell them how stupid they are for not wearing a helmet or not doing a search first. Maybe they should have worn a helmet, and hell yes they should have done a search, but there are better ways to handle these issues.


k.l.k


Feb 7, 2011, 8:33 PM
Post #83 of 173 (2816 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 9, 2007
Posts: 1190

Re: [climbs4fun] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (4 ratings)  
Can't Post

climbs4fun wrote:
1) we were all noobs at one point. Including you.

2) when the site was considered slightly more civil, there were more informed sources willing to post. Many of them owners of gear companies and professional climbers. Most of them have now been run off the site by the "noise". . .. Insults were thrown at the noobs to the point that real questions with real answers don't get asked anymore. . . .

1. Indeed, I, too, was once a n00b. Since I keep trying to work on new stuff, I have to go through it over and over again. There's nothing shameful about being a n00b. But there's nothing uplifting about it, either. The problem isn't that n00bs are asking questions. The problem is that n00bs are also answering those questions. Given anonymity, the general decline of belief in expertise and competence, and the corollary growth of belief that any opinion is as good as another, the mechanisms for separating out ignorant, idiotic and frankly dangerous responses or claims are pretty limited.

All institutions have mechanisms for sorting participants into hierarchies of popularity or experience or competence. Many of those mechanisms are pretty harsh, especially in professional environments. Hazing is one of the common ones, but that's only the beginning. One of the problems with this site, is that it doesn't have any mechanisms, so cutting criticisms of ungrounded or badly warranted claims becomes the default. I'm not saying that's the fault of the moderators, just that it's the case.

Folks are incorrect to claim that Jay's sarcasm and occasional viciousness serve no useful purpose. They do-- they provide a tiny bit of deterrent to the many posters here who press groundless opinions without bothering to acquire the experience or doing the work necessary to justify their claims.


2. I don't believe that the unfriendliness to n00bs has made this site unattractive to many folks of competence and accomplishment. Indeed, many of them have fled over to ST, which is far nastier than this place will ever be. If unfriendliness to n00bs were the problem, ST wouldn't even exist.

Again, the means you have at hand to make the site "friendlier" to posting by n00bs will also make the site friendlier to posting by incompetents and idiots.

I don't have an easy solution to that problem. There are at least two different models-- one is editorial oversight and heavy moderation (a la UKC). The other is virtually no moderation (a la ST). It's probably not an accident, that those two sites are also the ones with the best reputation for attracting a spectrum of knowledgeable and accomplished contributors.

Of course, those two sites also have different revenue models.


climbs4fun
Moderator

Feb 7, 2011, 9:01 PM
Post #84 of 173 (2806 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 18, 2003
Posts: 9622

Re: [k.l.k] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

k.l.k wrote:
climbs4fun wrote:
1) we were all noobs at one point. Including you.

2) when the site was considered slightly more civil, there were more informed sources willing to post. Many of them owners of gear companies and professional climbers. Most of them have now been run off the site by the "noise". . .. Insults were thrown at the noobs to the point that real questions with real answers don't get asked anymore. . . .

1. Indeed, I, too, was once a n00b. Since I keep trying to work on new stuff, I have to go through it over and over again. There's nothing shameful about being a n00b. But there's nothing uplifting about it, either. The problem isn't that n00bs are asking questions. The problem is that n00bs are also answering those questions. Given anonymity, the general decline of belief in expertise and competence, and the corollary growth of belief that any opinion is as good as another, the mechanisms for separating out ignorant, idiotic and frankly dangerous responses or claims are pretty limited.

All institutions have mechanisms for sorting participants into hierarchies of popularity or experience or competence. Many of those mechanisms are pretty harsh, especially in professional environments. Hazing is one of the common ones, but that's only the beginning. One of the problems with this site, is that it doesn't have any mechanisms, so cutting criticisms of ungrounded or badly warranted claims becomes the default. I'm not saying that's the fault of the moderators, just that it's the case.

Folks are incorrect to claim that Jay's sarcasm and occasional viciousness serve no useful purpose. They do-- they provide a tiny bit of deterrent to the many posters here who press groundless opinions without bothering to acquire the experience or doing the work necessary to justify their claims.


2. I don't believe that the unfriendliness to n00bs has made this site unattractive to many folks of competence and accomplishment. Indeed, many of them have fled over to ST, which is far nastier than this place will ever be. If unfriendliness to n00bs were the problem, ST wouldn't even exist.

Again, the means you have at hand to make the site "friendlier" to posting by n00bs will also make the site friendlier to posting by incompetents and idiots.

I don't have an easy solution to that problem. There are at least two different models-- one is editorial oversight and heavy moderation (a la UKC). The other is virtually no moderation (a la ST). It's probably not an accident, that those two sites are also the ones with the best reputation for attracting a spectrum of knowledgeable and accomplished contributors.

Of course, those two sites also have different revenue models.

Contrary to popular belief, this site really doesn't make a lot of money. If it did, namemedia wouldn't have handed the reins back to ddt as an alternative to shutting it down.

I'm sure that any and all legitimate suggestions for making RC a place that attracts more quality posting will be welcomed. The reality is that we don't have a way of keeping the n00bs from posting dangerous responses. If you look at the list of mods, it's a slim list. There isn't an army of us. Phil is out climbing a lot. ddt is on a time zone completely opposite us. I work as an enrollment counselor for a college (long hours) with no access to RC and am a full-time student, wonderwoman is also a student. Epoch (a single parent) will soon be moving cross-country with a young child. You get the idea. We all have responsibilities outside of this site to attend to. There isn't a single one of us that can devote the time to moderate that heavily with the current staffing level.


jt512


Feb 7, 2011, 9:03 PM
Post #85 of 173 (2799 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21892

Re: [climbs4fun] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (7 ratings)  
Can't Post

climbs4fun wrote:
You all say you want to learn things, and have useful information shared, but most people are afraid to post real questions and useful information for fear that majid or Jay or somebody else will come along and tell them how stupid they are for not wearing a helmet or not doing a search first. Maybe they should have worn a helmet, and hell yes they should have done a search, but there are better ways to handle these issues.

First of all, I've never told anybody that they were stupid for not wearing a helmet, and I don't think I've ever told anybody they were stupid for not doing a search. I have possibly told someone that they were stupid because they couldn't comprehend why they actually should do a search rather than ask a tired old question anew, but that's not the same thing.

Secondly, I am not one of the people around here who tells n00bs they're stupid or to shut up just because they are n00bs. "Do a search; it's been asked a million times before"? Sure. But I am not one of the people around here who run n00bs through some sort of gauntlet for entertainment. Don't tar me with that brush.

Now, are you claiming that there is a better way to handle a n00b who comes onto the site and asks a question that's been asked over and over again than to inform him that his question is redundant and that he should do a search? If so, I'd like to hear it. In my opinion, not only should he be told to do a search, he should be told by a moderator, just before she locks his thread. This lack of prudent moderation is exactly why ordinary users step in to fill the gap.

But where the mods go wrong is to blame the regular user base for doing what the moderators should be doing. If keeping unwanted redundancy out of the forums is left to the users, then, yeah, it's going to get messy, as it has. If, on the other hand, a mod steps in and locks the thread (and posts a link to the forum rule about not asking a redundant question), it's done. No argument, no flamefest, no butthurt n00b, nobody gets threatened with being banned. The n00b runs off and does his search, and if his question still isn't answered, he comes back and says "I did this search and found out A, B, C, but I still don't understand D. Now, he gets respect from the regular users, because he's shown he's done his homework, thought about the issue, and probably now has an intelligent, and possibly even original, question to ask.

This is the way it works at many other forums, and there is absolutely no question that it results in the informational content of those forums being orders off magnitude higher than it is here, and to the extent that the mods can be vigilant enough, eliminates users scolding n00bs for not doing a search.

Jay


climbs4fun
Moderator

Feb 7, 2011, 9:15 PM
Post #86 of 173 (2794 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 18, 2003
Posts: 9622

Re: [jt512] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

jt512 wrote:
climbs4fun wrote:
You all say you want to learn things, and have useful information shared, but most people are afraid to post real questions and useful information for fear that majid or Jay or somebody else will come along and tell them how stupid they are for not wearing a helmet or not doing a search first. Maybe they should have worn a helmet, and hell yes they should have done a search, but there are better ways to handle these issues.

First of all, I've never told anybody that they were stupid for not wearing a helmet, and I don't think I've ever told anybody they were stupid for not doing a search. I have possibly told someone that they were stupid because they couldn't comprehend why they actually should do a search rather than ask a tired old question anew, but that's not the same thing.

Secondly, I am not one of the people around here who tells n00bs they're stupid or to shut up just because they are n00bs. "Do a search; it's been asked a million times before"? Sure. But I am not one of the people around here who run n00bs through some sort of gauntlet for entertainment. Don't tar me with that brush.

Now, are you claiming that there is a better way to handle a n00b who comes onto the site and asks a question that's been asked over and over again than to inform him that his question is redundant and that he should do a search? If so, I'd like to hear it. In my opinion, not only should he be told to do a search, he should be told by a moderator, just before she locks his thread. This lack of prudent moderation is exactly why ordinary users step in to fill the gap.

But where the mods go wrong is to blame the regular user base for doing what the moderators should be doing. If keeping unwanted redundancy out of the forums is left to the users, then, yeah, it's going to get messy, as it has. If, on the other hand, a mod steps in and locks the thread (and posts a link to the forum rule about not asking a redundant question), it's done. No argument, no flamefest, no butthurt n00b, nobody gets threatened with being banned. The n00b runs off and does his search, and if his question still isn't answered, he comes back and says "I did this search and found out A, B, C, but I still don't understand D. Now, he gets respect from the regular users, because he's shown he's done his homework, thought about the issue, and probably now has an intelligent, and possibly even original, question to ask.

This is the way it works at many other forums, and there is absolutely no question that it results in the informational content of those forums being orders off magnitude higher than it is here, and to the extent that the mods can be vigilant enough, eliminates users scolding n00bs for not doing a search.

Jay

Jay, helmets are totally Majid's thing. We all know that. There are plenty that tell n00bs to do a search. It wasn't an attack. Relax. Not painting with any brush. I'm simply saying that there needs to be a solution. The last paragraph of your post provided a good start. But for it to happen, then we need to start recruiting more moderators. Any suggestions for that?


jt512


Feb 7, 2011, 9:23 PM
Post #87 of 173 (2791 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21892

Re: [climbs4fun] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (3 ratings)  
Can't Post

climbs4fun wrote:
I'm simply saying that there needs to be a solution. The last paragraph of your post provided a good start. But for it to happen, then we need to start recruiting more moderators. Any suggestions for that?

Suggestions for strategies to recruit moderators or for specific individuals?

Jay


k.l.k


Feb 7, 2011, 9:23 PM
Post #88 of 173 (2790 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 9, 2007
Posts: 1190

Re: [climbs4fun] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

climbs4fun wrote:
Contrary to popular belief, this site really doesn't make a lot of money. . . . The reality is that we don't have a way of keeping the n00bs from posting dangerous responses. If you look at the list of mods, it's a slim list. There isn't an army of us.

Exactly! And yes, that means that, in many cases, withering sarcasm and ridicule are going to be employed as mechanisms for dealing with folks who don't pass muster. Unfortunately, they'll also get directed at some who might. But "Jay" is a symptom rather than a cause, here. (Sorry, Jay.)

That's why I'm skeptical about riding folks to tone down the insults, sarcasm, etc., even though I'm hardly in love with the general mode of internet discourse.

You already have blue-lined forums for heavy moderation. I take it that there's a zero tolerance policy on racial epithets. There clearly isn't one for homophobic epithets, although there probably should be.

Aside from that, I don't believe you have any possible metric for adjudicating what can or can't count as "too much" sarcasm or whatever. And that means more work for mods and the inevitable politicking and factions.

Worst case scenario, the SP/VCF meltdown.


climbs4fun
Moderator

Feb 7, 2011, 9:33 PM
Post #89 of 173 (2780 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 18, 2003
Posts: 9622

Re: [jt512] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

jt512 wrote:
climbs4fun wrote:
I'm simply saying that there needs to be a solution. The last paragraph of your post provided a good start. But for it to happen, then we need to start recruiting more moderators. Any suggestions for that?

Suggestions for strategies to recruit moderators or for specific individuals?

Jay

Who does everybody think would make good, impartial, diligent moderators? I'm curious.


jt512


Feb 7, 2011, 9:37 PM
Post #90 of 173 (2774 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21892

Re: [climbs4fun] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

climbs4fun wrote:
jt512 wrote:
climbs4fun wrote:
I'm simply saying that there needs to be a solution. The last paragraph of your post provided a good start. But for it to happen, then we need to start recruiting more moderators. Any suggestions for that?

Suggestions for strategies to recruit moderators or for specific individuals?

Jay

Who does everybody think would make good, impartial, diligent moderators? I'm curious.

Although it's tempting to nominate k.l.k and tripperjim, I think vegastradguy would do a good jorb.

Jay


climbs4fun
Moderator

Feb 7, 2011, 9:47 PM
Post #91 of 173 (2768 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 18, 2003
Posts: 9622

Re: [jt512] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

jt512 wrote:
climbs4fun wrote:
jt512 wrote:
climbs4fun wrote:
I'm simply saying that there needs to be a solution. The last paragraph of your post provided a good start. But for it to happen, then we need to start recruiting more moderators. Any suggestions for that?

Suggestions for strategies to recruit moderators or for specific individuals?

Jay

Who does everybody think would make good, impartial, diligent moderators? I'm curious.

Although it's tempting to nominate k.l.k and tripperjim, I think vegastradguy would do a good jorb.

Jay

vegastradguy has stepped down as a staff member.


tripperjm


Feb 8, 2011, 12:21 AM
Post #92 of 173 (2744 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 7, 2002
Posts: 10612

Re: [climbs4fun] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

climbs4fun wrote:
jt512 wrote:
climbs4fun wrote:
I'm simply saying that there needs to be a solution. The last paragraph of your post provided a good start. But for it to happen, then we need to start recruiting more moderators. Any suggestions for that?

Suggestions for strategies to recruit moderators or for specific individuals?

Jay

Who does everybody think would make good, impartial, diligent moderators? I'm curious.

Didn't we just go over this, today? I wus elevated to Green Overlord by popular vote. I iz yore gnu greenie. I mean come on, knot many people on this site, with more experience than me and I have a plan. I mean who woodn't want to see sungam and enigma in cages, on teh ft page, with a button ewe can push that wood poke them with a stick? USn00b and Major Sorbet, who's gunna miss them? And who ewe gunna get to deal with those unrully losers in teh BET? Ewe awlready has two greenies in there with several others lurking and those knuckleheds are still a problem.

Thing is, instead of welcoming me with open arms and a little red banz button,... I am censored, without even a courtesy pm or a funny reply. Now, how could I ever trust this site again, after I wus treated this way?


enigma


Feb 8, 2011, 1:40 AM
Post #93 of 173 (2725 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 19, 2002
Posts: 2279

Re: [tripperjm] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (4 ratings)  
Can't Post

tripperjm wrote:
climbs4fun wrote:
jt512 wrote:
climbs4fun wrote:
I'm simply saying that there needs to be a solution. The last paragraph of your post provided a good start. But for it to happen, then we need to start recruiting more moderators. Any suggestions for that?

Suggestions for strategies to recruit moderators or for specific individuals?

Jay

Who does everybody think would make good, impartial, diligent moderators? I'm curious.

Didn't we just go over this, today? I wus elevated to Green Overlord by popular vote. I iz yore gnu greenie. I mean come on, knot many people on this site, with more experience than me and I have a plan. I mean who woodn't want to see sungam and enigma in cages, on teh ft page, with a button ewe can push that wood poke them with a stick? USn00b and Major Sorbet, who's gunna miss them? And who ewe gunna get to deal with those unrully losers in teh BET? Ewe awlready has two greenies in there with several others lurking and those knuckleheds are still a problem.

Thing is, instead of welcoming me with open arms and a little red banz button,... I am censored, without even a courtesy pm or a funny reply. Now, how could I ever trust this site again, after I wus treated this way?


Go on MountainProject isn't Jay the adminstrator there.?
Or go to New Jack City tar pit and use your sticks on each other.
Its time to grow up and act at least like adults.


Partner cracklover


Feb 8, 2011, 8:37 AM
Post #94 of 173 (2689 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10010

Re: [k.l.k] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

climbs4fun wrote:
2) when the site was considered slightly more civil, there were more informed sources willing to post. Many of them owners of gear companies and professional climbers. Most of them have now been run off the site by the "noise".

There has been a bit of back and forth about who ran off these people who have the potential to provide a much higher signal to noise ratio than the rest of us. Was it the incessant noob yammering? Was it the nasty posts?

I know and climb with several people who fit in the category above, who left around the same time, and I've talked to them about why they drifted away. The answer is pretty much what everyone here is saying, plus a few other things.

Here is what they told me in a nutshell:

What it boils down to is that the maturity level of the discourse was so low as to make it an unpleasant experience to participate. Noobs giving bad advice, people being rude to each other, a large and vocal group who treat the whole site and the posts in it as a big joke for their amusement.

And to top it all off, there were the frequent changes (seemingly every couple of years) in management, with major (and sometimes not fully implemented) site changes, new draconian restrictions on content and inline images, fights amongst the moderators resulting in mass layoffs....

The whole package left a bad taste in the mouth and these guys had limited patience for juvenile BS. Especially since they could be (and now are) spending their time online with people who respect them - at other climbing sites.

GO

[edited for clarity]


(This post was edited by cracklover on Feb 8, 2011, 1:47 PM)


caughtinside


Feb 8, 2011, 11:02 AM
Post #95 of 173 (2658 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 30411

Re: [cracklover] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

cracklover wrote:
and to top it all off, a large and vocal group who treat the whole site and the posts in it as a big joke for their amusement.

Are you suggesting that's not what this site is for?


Partner cracklover


Feb 8, 2011, 11:24 AM
Post #96 of 173 (2646 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10010

Re: [caughtinside] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

caughtinside wrote:
cracklover wrote:
and to top it all off, a large and vocal group who treat the whole site and the posts in it as a big joke for their amusement.

Are you suggesting that's not what this site is for?

Ha! I will not bite at your bait.

But seriously, as for what it's actually "for" - I think that's for the owner(s) to decide.

I won't claim to guess what exactly they're after, but I will say that based on how the site is run, the owners give every impression that they are more aligned with you than with those I was referring to who have left the site.

GO


Arrogant_Bastard


Feb 8, 2011, 11:42 AM
Post #97 of 173 (2638 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 30, 2007
Posts: 19994

Re: [cracklover] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (3 ratings)  
Can't Post

cracklover wrote:
The whole package leaves a bad taste in the mouth among people who have limited patience for juvenile BS. Especially if they know they could be spending online time with people who respect them elsewhere.

Perhaps such people shouldn't spend so much time on an internet chat forum. Or just lightenharden the fuck up.


drivel


Feb 8, 2011, 12:01 PM
Post #98 of 173 (2625 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 22, 2010
Posts: 2453

Re: [caughtinside] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

caughtinside wrote:
cracklover wrote:
and to top it all off, a large and vocal group who treat the whole site and the posts in it as a big joke for their amusement.

Are you suggesting that's not what this site is for?

i thought it was for talking about pets, baking, and gardening.

the pets, gardening, and bakings slums have more real climbing discussion and more concentrated climbing knowledge than anywhere else on this site.

oh, and noobs don't do searches cause 1998 called and wanted it's search function back.


meatbomz


Feb 8, 2011, 12:07 PM
Post #99 of 173 (2618 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 23, 2010
Posts: 7053

Re: [enigma] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

enigma wrote:
tripperjm wrote:
climbs4fun wrote:
jt512 wrote:
climbs4fun wrote:
I'm simply saying that there needs to be a solution. The last paragraph of your post provided a good start. But for it to happen, then we need to start recruiting more moderators. Any suggestions for that?

Suggestions for strategies to recruit moderators or for specific individuals?

Jay

Who does everybody think would make good, impartial, diligent moderators? I'm curious.

Didn't we just go over this, today? I wus elevated to Green Overlord by popular vote. I iz yore gnu greenie. I mean come on, knot many people on this site, with more experience than me and I have a plan. I mean who woodn't want to see sungam and enigma in cages, on teh ft page, with a button ewe can push that wood poke them with a stick? USn00b and Major Sorbet, who's gunna miss them? And who ewe gunna get to deal with those unrully losers in teh BET? Ewe awlready has two greenies in there with several others lurking and those knuckleheds are still a problem.

Thing is, instead of welcoming me with open arms and a little red banz button,... I am censored, without even a courtesy pm or a funny reply. Now, how could I ever trust this site again, after I wus treated this way?


Go on MountainProject isn't Jay the adminstrator there.?
Or go to New Jack City tar pit and use your sticks on each other.
Its time to grow up and act at least like adults.

Now we're talking!


Partner cracklover


Feb 8, 2011, 12:27 PM
Post #106 of 173 (2557 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10010

Re: [Arrogant_Bastard] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

Arrogant_Bastard wrote:
cracklover wrote:
The whole package leaves a bad taste in the mouth among people who have limited patience for juvenile BS. Especially if they know they could be spending online time with people who respect them elsewhere.

Perhaps such people shouldn't spend so much time on an internet chat forum. Or just lightenharden the fuck up.

Pay attention. We're not talking about current posters like me who are occasionally whiny. We're talking about people who've left rc.com. People who (perhaps unlike me) actually have interesting and worthwhile climbing content to contribute.

GO


(This post was edited by cracklover on Feb 8, 2011, 12:34 PM)


camhead


Feb 8, 2011, 12:37 PM
Post #107 of 173 (2547 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 9, 2001
Posts: 20747

Re: [cracklover] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

cracklover wrote:
Arrogant_Bastard wrote:
cracklover wrote:
The whole package leaves a bad taste in the mouth among people who have limited patience for juvenile BS. Especially if they know they could be spending online time with people who respect them elsewhere.

Perhaps such people shouldn't spend so much time on an internet chat forum. Or just lightenharden the fuck up.

Pay attention. We're not talking about current posters like me who are occasionally whiny. We're talking about people who've left rc.com. People who (unlike me) actually have worthwhile stuff to contribute.

GO

Has anyone thought of asking people like John Gill, John Long, or Rich Goldstone why they don't post on here as often as they used to? They are all still pretty prevalent on other sites.


carabiner96


Feb 8, 2011, 12:43 PM
Post #108 of 173 (2540 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 10, 2006
Posts: 12549

Re: [k.l.k] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

k.l.k wrote:
climbs4fun wrote:
. . . a more civil environment is what is being requested by a large portion of the user base. This is not solely aimed at Jay, there are plenty that could play a little nicer as a general rule. And they will, or they will go away.

That's the problem with the lack of editorial oversight.

The "user base" consists overwhelmingly of n00bs and career incompetents whose primary use of the site is to post bad and frequently dangerous advice to other n00bs and career incompetents on topics in which they have neither understanding nor experience. Since this site also sits on one of the nicer bits of internet real estate, it has earned a high-profile brand (given how small the market niche is), but that brand is for idiocy and incompetence.

At the moment, the only corrective to that sad state of affairs, is the fear that one's anonymous avatar may get publicly ridiculed by Jay or Curt.

Ironically, the BET slums are one of the least ridiculous environments here, largely because they post about nothing but baking, gardening, and pets.

I appreciate the misery of being a mod, but I am not a fan of the idea that policy here should be driven by the libidinal impulses of the loudest sheep. That's not the only model for a successful site.

Stalk much?


drivel


Feb 8, 2011, 12:46 PM
Post #109 of 173 (2533 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 22, 2010
Posts: 2453

Re: [carabiner96] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

carabiner96 wrote:
k.l.k wrote:
climbs4fun wrote:
. . . a more civil environment is what is being requested by a large portion of the user base. This is not solely aimed at Jay, there are plenty that could play a little nicer as a general rule. And they will, or they will go away.

That's the problem with the lack of editorial oversight.

The "user base" consists overwhelmingly of n00bs and career incompetents whose primary use of the site is to post bad and frequently dangerous advice to other n00bs and career incompetents on topics in which they have neither understanding nor experience. Since this site also sits on one of the nicer bits of internet real estate, it has earned a high-profile brand (given how small the market niche is), but that brand is for idiocy and incompetence.

At the moment, the only corrective to that sad state of affairs, is the fear that one's anonymous avatar may get publicly ridiculed by Jay or Curt.

Ironically, the BET slums are one of the least ridiculous environments here, largely because they post about nothing but baking, gardening, and pets.

I appreciate the misery of being a mod, but I am not a fan of the idea that policy here should be driven by the libidinal impulses of the loudest sheep. That's not the only model for a successful site.

Stalk much?

klk makes the occasionally cameo, oh skimbitch.


Partner cracklover


Feb 8, 2011, 12:50 PM
Post #110 of 173 (2525 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10010

Re: [camhead] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

camhead wrote:
cracklover wrote:
Arrogant_Bastard wrote:
cracklover wrote:
The whole package leaves a bad taste in the mouth among people who have limited patience for juvenile BS. Especially if they know they could be spending online time with people who respect them elsewhere.

Perhaps such people shouldn't spend so much time on an internet chat forum. Or just lightenharden the fuck up.

Pay attention. We're not talking about current posters like me who are occasionally whiny. We're talking about people who've left rc.com. People who (unlike me) actually have worthwhile stuff to contribute.

GO

Has anyone thought of asking people like John Gill, John Long, or Rich Goldstone why they don't post on here as often as they used to? They are all still pretty prevalent on other sites.

People like them, or those three in particular? If the former, then yes.

cracklover wrote:
climbs4fun wrote:
2) when the site was considered slightly more civil, there were more informed sources willing to post. Many of them owners of gear companies and professional climbers. Most of them have now been run off the site by the "noise".

There has been a bit of back and forth about who ran off these people who have the potential to provide a much higher signal to noise ratio than the rest of us. Was it the incessant noob yammering? Was it the nasty posts?

I know and climb with several people who fit in the category above, who left around the same time, and I've talked to them about why they drifted away.

I have two people I've spoken to. Both are active climbers, and are very good. One has a technical role in a climbing-gear specific company, and the other was pivotal in the development of one of the most popular trad climbing destinations in the US.

I miss both of their voices in the dialogue here on rc.com, and they are just two of many.

A_B and others, please don't take this personally. If you go back and re-read my post, I think you'll see I'm not primarily talking about what you think I am.

GO


jakedatc


Feb 8, 2011, 1:01 PM
Post #111 of 173 (2502 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 11054

Re: [camhead] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

camhead wrote:
cracklover wrote:
Arrogant_Bastard wrote:
cracklover wrote:
The whole package leaves a bad taste in the mouth among people who have limited patience for juvenile BS. Especially if they know they could be spending online time with people who respect them elsewhere.

Perhaps such people shouldn't spend so much time on an internet chat forum. Or just lightenharden the fuck up.

Pay attention. We're not talking about current posters like me who are occasionally whiny. We're talking about people who've left rc.com. People who (unlike me) actually have worthwhile stuff to contribute.

GO

Has anyone thought of asking people like John Gill, John Long, or Rich Goldstone why they don't post on here as often as they used to? They are all still pretty prevalent on other sites.

my thought on that is that their highly experienced answers get quickly drowned out by noobs answering incorrectly and the noobs asking do not know the difference. It is probably not worth their time to write well thought out responses only for someone to ignore it.

why should Rich write a great long post about anchor technique only to have some gumby that took a TR lesson once go Yea well any 3 pieces and a cordo you're good to go! noob goes ah that is way easier to read and apply than what Rich said so i'll go with that.


camhead


Feb 8, 2011, 1:13 PM
Post #112 of 173 (2489 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 9, 2001
Posts: 20747

Re: [jakedatc] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

jakedatc wrote:
camhead wrote:
cracklover wrote:
Arrogant_Bastard wrote:
cracklover wrote:
The whole package leaves a bad taste in the mouth among people who have limited patience for juvenile BS. Especially if they know they could be spending online time with people who respect them elsewhere.

Perhaps such people shouldn't spend so much time on an internet chat forum. Or just lightenharden the fuck up.

Pay attention. We're not talking about current posters like me who are occasionally whiny. We're talking about people who've left rc.com. People who (unlike me) actually have worthwhile stuff to contribute.

GO

Has anyone thought of asking people like John Gill, John Long, or Rich Goldstone why they don't post on here as often as they used to? They are all still pretty prevalent on other sites.

my thought on that is that their highly experienced answers get quickly drowned out by noobs answering incorrectly and the noobs asking do not know the difference. It is probably not worth their time to write well thought out responses only for someone to ignore it.

why should Rich write a great long post about anchor technique only to have some gumby that took a TR lesson once go Yea well any 3 pieces and a cordo you're good to go! noob goes ah that is way easier to read and apply than what Rich said so i'll go with that.

Rich was (and still is, when he posts) a great example of the star system working. If you go search his posts, almost all of them got very high reviews.

Not that someone like him would care about stars, but perhaps if there was some way of making it more obvious that ALL of his contributions are valuable, more of the noise would get ignored. Making posts searchable by rating, having a list of toprated users, some sort of "gold star on the forehead" icon under someone's avatar– any of these things would really help.


Arrogant_Bastard


Feb 8, 2011, 1:17 PM
Post #113 of 173 (2487 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 30, 2007
Posts: 19994

Re: [cracklover] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (8 ratings)  
Can't Post

cracklover wrote:
Arrogant_Bastard wrote:
cracklover wrote:
The whole package leaves a bad taste in the mouth among people who have limited patience for juvenile BS. Especially if they know they could be spending online time with people who respect them elsewhere.

Perhaps such people shouldn't spend so much time on an internet chat forum. Or just lightenharden the fuck up.

Pay attention. We're not talking about current posters like me who are occasionally whiny. We're talking about people who've left rc.com. People who (perhaps unlike me) actually have interesting and worthwhile climbing content to contribute.

GO

My post in no way implied I was talking about you. You did. My point was rather simple: it's a fucking internet chat forum. You want serious? Go to JuniorRepublicanDouchbags.com.

The climbing world doesn't turn fast enough to provide a constant stream of fresh topics to discuss. And despite Majid's beliefs, we don't need to beat ourselves senseless over every possible rescue scenario that will never happen. With the exception of injuries and accidents, and reports of whatever pebble the V18 cockroaches are currently crushing, you could sum up the year of new developments in climbing in an annual flyer that you could read cover to cover during your next bowel movement.

This place is nothing more than a chat forum of people with a loosely connected common interest who are looking for some entertainment. It's nothing more, I'm sorry if you thought it was.


spikeddem


Feb 8, 2011, 1:20 PM
Post #114 of 173 (2481 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 27, 2007
Posts: 6319

Re: [camhead] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

camhead wrote:
jakedatc wrote:
camhead wrote:
cracklover wrote:
Arrogant_Bastard wrote:
cracklover wrote:
The whole package leaves a bad taste in the mouth among people who have limited patience for juvenile BS. Especially if they know they could be spending online time with people who respect them elsewhere.

Perhaps such people shouldn't spend so much time on an internet chat forum. Or just lightenharden the fuck up.

Pay attention. We're not talking about current posters like me who are occasionally whiny. We're talking about people who've left rc.com. People who (unlike me) actually have worthwhile stuff to contribute.

GO

Has anyone thought of asking people like John Gill, John Long, or Rich Goldstone why they don't post on here as often as they used to? They are all still pretty prevalent on other sites.

my thought on that is that their highly experienced answers get quickly drowned out by noobs answering incorrectly and the noobs asking do not know the difference. It is probably not worth their time to write well thought out responses only for someone to ignore it.

why should Rich write a great long post about anchor technique only to have some gumby that took a TR lesson once go Yea well any 3 pieces and a cordo you're good to go! noob goes ah that is way easier to read and apply than what Rich said so i'll go with that.

Rich was (and still is, when he posts) a great example of the star system working. If you go search his posts, almost all of them got very high reviews.

Not that someone like him would care about stars, but perhaps if there was some way of making it more obvious that ALL of his contributions are valuable, more of the noise would get ignored. Making posts searchable by rating, having a list of toprated users, some sort of "gold star on the forehead" icon under someone's avatar– any of these things would really help.
Other forums have a "reputation" gauge. Very similar to what you're mentioning. Not sure I see that going so well here though...

But maybe?


camhead


Feb 8, 2011, 1:21 PM
Post #115 of 173 (2472 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 9, 2001
Posts: 20747

Re: [Arrogant_Bastard] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Arrogant_Bastard wrote:

My post in no way implied I was talking about you. You did. My point was rather simple: it's a fucking internet chat forum. You want serious? Go to JuniorRepublicanDouchbags.com.

URL tags, NOOB!


drivel


Feb 8, 2011, 1:24 PM
Post #116 of 173 (2463 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 22, 2010
Posts: 2453

Re: [camhead] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

camhead wrote:
Arrogant_Bastard wrote:

My post in no way implied I was talking about you. You did. My point was rather simple: it's a fucking internet chat forum. You want serious? Go to JuniorRepublicanDouchbags.com.

URL tags, NOOB!

i'm NOT clicking that.


drivel


Feb 8, 2011, 1:26 PM
Post #117 of 173 (2456 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 22, 2010
Posts: 2453

Re: [drivel] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

also, somebody "recycled" mah glories. Mad


camhead


Feb 8, 2011, 1:30 PM
Post #118 of 173 (2437 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 9, 2001
Posts: 20747

Re: [drivel] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

drivel wrote:
camhead wrote:
Arrogant_Bastard wrote:

My post in no way implied I was talking about you. You did. My point was rather simple: it's a fucking internet chat forum. You want serious? Go to JuniorRepublicanDouchbags.com.

URL tags, NOOB!

i'm NOT clicking that.

aw, come on, you know you wanna. just pretend it's an ice cream cone.


Partner cracklover


Feb 8, 2011, 1:34 PM
Post #119 of 173 (2429 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10010

Re: [Arrogant_Bastard] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

Arrogant_Bastard wrote:
cracklover wrote:
Arrogant_Bastard wrote:
cracklover wrote:
The whole package leaves a bad taste in the mouth among people who have limited patience for juvenile BS. Especially if they know they could be spending online time with people who respect them elsewhere.

Perhaps such people shouldn't spend so much time on an internet chat forum. Or just lightenharden the fuck up.

Pay attention. We're not talking about current posters like me who are occasionally whiny. We're talking about people who've left rc.com. People who (perhaps unlike me) actually have interesting and worthwhile climbing content to contribute.

GO

My post in no way implied I was talking about you. You did. My point was rather simple: it's a fucking internet chat forum. You want serious? Go to JuniorRepublicanDouchbags.com.

The climbing world doesn't turn fast enough to provide a constant stream of fresh topics to discuss. And despite Majid's beliefs, we don't need to beat ourselves senseless over every possible rescue scenario that will never happen. With the exception of injuries and accidents, and reports of whatever pebble the V18 cockroaches are currently crushing, you could sum up the year of new developments in climbing in an annual flyer that you could read cover to cover during your next bowel movement.

This place is nothing more than a chat forum of people with a loosely connected common interest who are looking for some entertainment. It's nothing more, I'm sorry if you thought it was.

You misunderstand completely.

1 - I think the forum is exactly what you think it is: a place for people with a common interest to talk about whatever interests them.

2 - Those folks who you think have no place on the internet have been posting interesting and entertaining content on the internet (and some of them before that on usenet). And so far as I can tell most of 'em still are posting interesting content. Just - not here.

Of course people should discuss whatever they want to discuss. The issue (for the nth time) is what the environment feels like to posters here, whether that's driving away any content the owners/managers would like to see stay here, and what, if anything, that means about the rules of engagement or enforcement of those rules.

GO


jt512


Feb 8, 2011, 7:40 PM
Post #120 of 173 (2465 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21892

Re: [jakedatc] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

jakedatc wrote:
camhead wrote:
cracklover wrote:
Arrogant_Bastard wrote:
cracklover wrote:
The whole package leaves a bad taste in the mouth among people who have limited patience for juvenile BS. Especially if they know they could be spending online time with people who respect them elsewhere.

Perhaps such people shouldn't spend so much time on an internet chat forum. Or just lightenharden the fuck up.

Pay attention. We're not talking about current posters like me who are occasionally whiny. We're talking about people who've left rc.com. People who (unlike me) actually have worthwhile stuff to contribute.

GO

Has anyone thought of asking people like John Gill, John Long, or Rich Goldstone why they don't post on here as often as they used to? They are all still pretty prevalent on other sites.

my thought on that is that their highly experienced answers get quickly drowned out by noobs answering incorrectly and the noobs asking do not know the difference. It is probably not worth their time to write well thought out responses only for someone to ignore it.

why should Rich write a great long post about anchor technique only to have some gumby that took a TR lesson once go Yea well any 3 pieces and a cordo you're good to go! noob goes ah that is way easier to read and apply than what Rich said so i'll go with that.

Rich gets a lot of respect over here. On mp.com, not so much. It's kinda funny to watch the know-it-alls over there flame him. There is a tad more civility over there, but the technical level of the discussion is much higher here. Believe it or not, all the noise notwithstanding, this is the number 1 site on the internet for bleeding edge discussion of technical climbing issues.

Jay


k.l.k


Feb 8, 2011, 10:04 PM
Post #121 of 173 (2376 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 9, 2007
Posts: 1190

Re: [jt512] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

jt512 wrote:
Believe it or not, all the noise notwithstanding, this is the number 1 site on the internet for bleeding edge discussion of technical climbing issues.

Not.


jt512


Feb 8, 2011, 10:05 PM
Post #122 of 173 (2375 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21892

Re: [k.l.k] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

k.l.k wrote:
jt512 wrote:
Believe it or not, all the noise notwithstanding, this is the number 1 site on the internet for bleeding edge discussion of technical climbing issues.

Not.

So, what site is?

Jay


k.l.k


Feb 8, 2011, 10:06 PM
Post #123 of 173 (2374 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 9, 2007
Posts: 1190

Re: [jt512] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

jt512 wrote:
climbs4fun wrote:
jt512 wrote:
climbs4fun wrote:
I'm simply saying that there needs to be a solution. The last paragraph of your post provided a good start. But for it to happen, then we need to start recruiting more moderators. Any suggestions for that?

Suggestions for strategies to recruit moderators or for specific individuals?

Jay

Who does everybody think would make good, impartial, diligent moderators? I'm curious.

it's tempting to nominate k.l.k and tripperjim

Jay

You are a sick man.

But I second the Preble solution.


k.l.k


Feb 8, 2011, 10:07 PM
Post #124 of 173 (2374 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 9, 2007
Posts: 1190

Re: [camhead] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

camhead wrote:
cracklover wrote:
Arrogant_Bastard wrote:
cracklover wrote:
The whole package leaves a bad taste in the mouth among people who have limited patience for juvenile BS. Especially if they know they could be spending online time with people who respect them elsewhere.

Perhaps such people shouldn't spend so much time on an internet chat forum. Or just lightenharden the fuck up.

Pay attention. We're not talking about current posters like me who are occasionally whiny. We're talking about people who've left rc.com. People who (unlike me) actually have worthwhile stuff to contribute.

GO

Has anyone thought of asking people like John Gill, John Long, or Rich Goldstone why they don't post on here as often as they used to? They are all still pretty prevalent on other sites.

According to the poll of the user base, it's because they're all afraid of Jay.

So they fled to the protective womb of Supertopo.


k.l.k


Feb 8, 2011, 10:14 PM
Post #125 of 173 (2556 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 9, 2007
Posts: 1190

Re: [drivel] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

drivel wrote:
skimbitch.

not even that.


jt512


Feb 8, 2011, 10:22 PM
Post #126 of 173 (3545 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21892

Re: [k.l.k] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (4 ratings)  
Can't Post

k.l.k wrote:
camhead wrote:
cracklover wrote:
Arrogant_Bastard wrote:
cracklover wrote:
The whole package leaves a bad taste in the mouth among people who have limited patience for juvenile BS. Especially if they know they could be spending online time with people who respect them elsewhere.

Perhaps such people shouldn't spend so much time on an internet chat forum. Or just lightenharden the fuck up.

Pay attention. We're not talking about current posters like me who are occasionally whiny. We're talking about people who've left rc.com. People who (unlike me) actually have worthwhile stuff to contribute.

GO

Has anyone thought of asking people like John Gill, John Long, or Rich Goldstone why they don't post on here as often as they used to? They are all still pretty prevalent on other sites.

According to the poll of the user base, it's because they're all afraid of Jay.

So they fled to the protective womb of Supertopo.

It's true that I humbled Gilll. Not as much as BURT BRONSON did, of course, as Gill admits.

Jay


notapplicable


Feb 9, 2011, 9:49 AM
Post #127 of 173 (3442 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17766

Re: [climbs4fun] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

climbs4fun wrote:
jt512 wrote:
climbs4fun wrote:
I'm simply saying that there needs to be a solution. The last paragraph of your post provided a good start. But for it to happen, then we need to start recruiting more moderators. Any suggestions for that?

Suggestions for strategies to recruit moderators or for specific individuals?

Jay

Who does everybody think would make good, impartial, diligent moderators? I'm curious.

After a review of the last 250 posts made by all the moderators I could think of, I have a suggestion.

Fenix83 hasn't posted since 2009 so I won't count him.

Epoch, Macherry, Edge, Climbs4fun & Bondegecko post almost exclusively in the "Community" and "Rockclimbing.com" forums (AKA the nonclimbing related forums). In several cases, only 1 in 25 of their posts are outside of those areas.

Philbox does much better with roughly 1 post in the climbing forums for every 5 in the nonclimbing related forums. And Wonderwoman dominated with 1/2 of all her posting being done in the climbing related forums.

So perhaps you could try to draw from the small pool of longterm posters who post more more frequently, or even exclusively in the climbing related forums. Might add a different perspective to the moderating mix while also boosting your numbers.


notapplicable


Feb 9, 2011, 9:54 AM
Post #128 of 173 (3432 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17766

Re: [notapplicable] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

I would volunteer (seeing as how I post in the climbing forums more than 3/4 of the mods) but I do not believe I would be seriously considered and would like to avoid the hurtful rejection. I just hate crying in public.


sungam


Feb 9, 2011, 9:55 AM
Post #129 of 173 (3430 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 24, 2004
Posts: 26597

Re: [notapplicable] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

notapplicable wrote:
climbs4fun wrote:
jt512 wrote:
climbs4fun wrote:
I'm simply saying that there needs to be a solution. The last paragraph of your post provided a good start. But for it to happen, then we need to start recruiting more moderators. Any suggestions for that?

Suggestions for strategies to recruit moderators or for specific individuals?

Jay

Who does everybody think would make good, impartial, diligent moderators? I'm curious.

After a review of the last 250 posts made by all the moderators I could think of, I have a suggestion.

Fenix83 hasn't posted since 2009 so I won't count him.

Epoch, Macherry, Edge, Climbs4fun & Bondegecko post almost exclusively in the "Community" and "Rockclimbing.com" forums (AKA the nonclimbing related forums). In several cases, only 1 in 25 of their posts are outside of those areas.

Philbox does much better with roughly 1 post in the climbing forums for every 5 in the nonclimbing related forums. And Wonderwoman dominated with 1/2 of all her posting being done in the climbing related forums.

So perhaps you could try to draw from the small pool of longterm posters who post more more frequently, or even exclusively in the climbing related forums. Might add a different perspective to the moderating mix while also boosting your numbers.
Hey, sungam is a long term user! AND he posts in both!


spikeddem


Feb 9, 2011, 10:01 AM
Post #130 of 173 (3419 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 27, 2007
Posts: 6319

Re: [notapplicable] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

notapplicable wrote:
climbs4fun wrote:
jt512 wrote:
climbs4fun wrote:
I'm simply saying that there needs to be a solution. The last paragraph of your post provided a good start. But for it to happen, then we need to start recruiting more moderators. Any suggestions for that?

Suggestions for strategies to recruit moderators or for specific individuals?

Jay

Who does everybody think would make good, impartial, diligent moderators? I'm curious.

After a review of the last 250 posts made by all the moderators I could think of, I have a suggestion.

Fenix83 hasn't posted since 2009 so I won't count him.

Epoch, Macherry, Edge, Climbs4fun & Bondegecko post almost exclusively in the "Community" and "Rockclimbing.com" forums (AKA the nonclimbing related forums). In several cases, only 1 in 25 of their posts are outside of those areas.

Philbox does much better with roughly 1 post in the climbing forums for every 5 in the nonclimbing related forums. And Wonderwoman dominated with 1/2 of all her posting being done in the climbing related forums.

So perhaps you could try to draw from the small pool of longterm posters who post more more frequently, or even exclusively in the climbing related forums. Might add a different perspective to the moderating mix while also boosting your numbers.

Check out the post I just made in the SPCI. It's got actual numbers on bunches of random users. Blondgecko is actually doing quite well at 60% non-campground posts.


tripperjm


Feb 9, 2011, 10:06 AM
Post #131 of 173 (3404 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 7, 2002
Posts: 10612

Re: [spikeddem] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

spikeddem wrote:
notapplicable wrote:
climbs4fun wrote:
jt512 wrote:
climbs4fun wrote:
I'm simply saying that there needs to be a solution. The last paragraph of your post provided a good start. But for it to happen, then we need to start recruiting more moderators. Any suggestions for that?

Suggestions for strategies to recruit moderators or for specific individuals?

Jay

Who does everybody think would make good, impartial, diligent moderators? I'm curious.

After a review of the last 250 posts made by all the moderators I could think of, I have a suggestion.

Fenix83 hasn't posted since 2009 so I won't count him.

Epoch, Macherry, Edge, Climbs4fun & Bondegecko post almost exclusively in the "Community" and "Rockclimbing.com" forums (AKA the nonclimbing related forums). In several cases, only 1 in 25 of their posts are outside of those areas.

Philbox does much better with roughly 1 post in the climbing forums for every 5 in the nonclimbing related forums. And Wonderwoman dominated with 1/2 of all her posting being done in the climbing related forums.

So perhaps you could try to draw from the small pool of longterm posters who post more more frequently, or even exclusively in the climbing related forums. Might add a different perspective to the moderating mix while also boosting your numbers.

Check out the post I just made in the SPCI. It's got actual numbers on bunches of random users. Blondgecko is actually doing quite well at 60% non-campground posts.

SPCI? Link please.


Partner cracklover


Feb 9, 2011, 10:49 AM
Post #135 of 173 (3339 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10010

Re: [jt512] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

jt512 wrote:
k.l.k wrote:
jt512 wrote:
Believe it or not, all the noise notwithstanding, this is the number 1 site on the internet for bleeding edge discussion of technical climbing issues.

Not.

So, what site is?

Jay

I'm on the same page as Jay on this one.

If there is another better site for such content, I'd like to know about it.

GO


notapplicable


Feb 9, 2011, 11:19 AM
Post #136 of 173 (3405 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17766

Re: [sungam] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

sungam wrote:
notapplicable wrote:
climbs4fun wrote:
jt512 wrote:
climbs4fun wrote:
I'm simply saying that there needs to be a solution. The last paragraph of your post provided a good start. But for it to happen, then we need to start recruiting more moderators. Any suggestions for that?

Suggestions for strategies to recruit moderators or for specific individuals?

Jay

Who does everybody think would make good, impartial, diligent moderators? I'm curious.

After a review of the last 250 posts made by all the moderators I could think of, I have a suggestion.

Fenix83 hasn't posted since 2009 so I won't count him.

Epoch, Macherry, Edge, Climbs4fun & Bondegecko post almost exclusively in the "Community" and "Rockclimbing.com" forums (AKA the nonclimbing related forums). In several cases, only 1 in 25 of their posts are outside of those areas.

Philbox does much better with roughly 1 post in the climbing forums for every 5 in the nonclimbing related forums. And Wonderwoman dominated with 1/2 of all her posting being done in the climbing related forums.

So perhaps you could try to draw from the small pool of longterm posters who post more more frequently, or even exclusively in the climbing related forums. Might add a different perspective to the moderating mix while also boosting your numbers.
Hey, sungam is a long term user! AND he posts in both!

Perhaps I didn't think this through...


ddt


Feb 9, 2011, 12:49 PM
Post #137 of 173 (3290 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 20, 2005
Posts: 2304

Re: [notapplicable] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

I've detached and move a sub-thread from this thread, related to a (mostly) different topic. The detached thread can be found here.

DDT


k.l.k


Feb 9, 2011, 12:52 PM
Post #138 of 173 (3286 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 9, 2007
Posts: 1190

Re: [cracklover] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

cracklover wrote:
jt512 wrote:
k.l.k wrote:
jt512 wrote:
Believe it or not, all the noise notwithstanding, this is the number 1 site on the internet for bleeding edge discussion of technical climbing issues.

Not.

So, what site is?

I'm on the same page as Jay on this one.

If there is another better site for such content, I'd like to know about it.

I don't really have time for this, but the basic problem is contained in J's phrase, "technical climbing issues." I see that as part of the problem, rather than the solution, because I think the basic avenue of approach to "technical climbing issues" here is actually part of the n00b issue.

So let me break this into two parts. The first is a basic response to a version of that question, which is, what climbing sites do you prefer for climbing-related content, if we set aside questions of format or whether i like the mods or whatever.

if i am wanting to think about alpinism (esp. in the us), whether glacier travel systems, the current status of mixed fas, current arguments over axes or changing glacial conditions or whatever, i'd go to cascadeclimbers.

if i'm wanting to think about anything involving sierras or free-wallclimbing or hauling systems or high-angle rescue or dealing with the transition from aid-to-free routes or most anything haveing to do with what could pass in amateur circles as history, i go to st.

if i am wanting anything about uk and europe (or one-stop for best editorial content) in english, first stop is ukc.

if i'm looking for 1 stop into on routes, weather, logistics and technical data for a lot of different ranges, i still go 1st to SP, despite the recent unpleasantness.

If I'm looking for stuff on climbing-specific training I'd go to any of a number of different sites.

But you get the idea: There is basically nothing, no topic, on which I would 1st go to rc.com. Not even baking, gardening, or pets.

Again, each of tehse sites has a culture very different from here, most of them have different revenue models, and only UKC and probably SP have similar or better metrics. But that, too, probably tells us something.


Partner cracklover


Feb 9, 2011, 1:12 PM
Post #139 of 173 (3273 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10010

Re: [k.l.k] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

k.l.k wrote:
cracklover wrote:
jt512 wrote:
k.l.k wrote:
jt512 wrote:
Believe it or not, all the noise notwithstanding, this is the number 1 site on the internet for bleeding edge discussion of technical climbing issues.

Not.

So, what site is?

I'm on the same page as Jay on this one.

If there is another better site for such content, I'd like to know about it.

I don't really have time for this, but the basic problem is contained in J's phrase, "technical climbing issues." I see that as part of the problem, rather than the solution, because I think the basic avenue of approach to "technical climbing issues" here is actually part of the n00b issue.

So let me break this into two parts. The first is a basic response to a version of that question, which is, what climbing sites do you prefer for climbing-related content, if we set aside questions of format or whether i like the mods or whatever.

if i am wanting to think about alpinism (esp. in the us), whether glacier travel systems, the current status of mixed fas, current arguments over axes or changing glacial conditions or whatever, i'd go to cascadeclimbers.

if i'm wanting to think about anything involving sierras or free-wallclimbing or hauling systems or high-angle rescue or dealing with the transition from aid-to-free routes or most anything haveing to do with what could pass in amateur circles as history, i go to st.

if i am wanting anything about uk and europe (or one-stop for best editorial content) in english, first stop is ukc.

if i'm looking for 1 stop into on routes, weather, logistics and technical data for a lot of different ranges, i still go 1st to SP, despite the recent unpleasantness.

If I'm looking for stuff on climbing-specific training I'd go to any of a number of different sites.

But you get the idea: There is basically nothing, no topic, on which I would 1st go to rc.com. Not even baking, gardening, or pets.

Again, each of tehse sites has a culture very different from here, most of them have different revenue models, and only UKC and probably SP have similar or better metrics. But that, too, probably tells us something.

I wouldn't disagree with anything substantive in your post, but you missed the point. What Jay and I are referring to as "technical" is the sort of stuff you'd find in "The Lab" forum here.

So I still think this technical arena is one area in which RC.com is above any of those other sites.

GO


snoopy138


Feb 9, 2011, 4:14 PM
Post #140 of 173 (3248 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 7, 2004
Posts: 28789

Re: [cracklover] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

cracklover wrote:
k.l.k wrote:
cracklover wrote:
jt512 wrote:
k.l.k wrote:
jt512 wrote:
Believe it or not, all the noise notwithstanding, this is the number 1 site on the internet for bleeding edge discussion of technical climbing issues.

Not.

So, what site is?

I'm on the same page as Jay on this one.

If there is another better site for such content, I'd like to know about it.

I don't really have time for this, but the basic problem is contained in J's phrase, "technical climbing issues." I see that as part of the problem, rather than the solution, because I think the basic avenue of approach to "technical climbing issues" here is actually part of the n00b issue.

So let me break this into two parts. The first is a basic response to a version of that question, which is, what climbing sites do you prefer for climbing-related content, if we set aside questions of format or whether i like the mods or whatever.

if i am wanting to think about alpinism (esp. in the us), whether glacier travel systems, the current status of mixed fas, current arguments over axes or changing glacial conditions or whatever, i'd go to cascadeclimbers.

if i'm wanting to think about anything involving sierras or free-wallclimbing or hauling systems or high-angle rescue or dealing with the transition from aid-to-free routes or most anything haveing to do with what could pass in amateur circles as history, i go to st.

if i am wanting anything about uk and europe (or one-stop for best editorial content) in english, first stop is ukc.

if i'm looking for 1 stop into on routes, weather, logistics and technical data for a lot of different ranges, i still go 1st to SP, despite the recent unpleasantness.

If I'm looking for stuff on climbing-specific training I'd go to any of a number of different sites.

But you get the idea: There is basically nothing, no topic, on which I would 1st go to rc.com. Not even baking, gardening, or pets.

Again, each of tehse sites has a culture very different from here, most of them have different revenue models, and only UKC and probably SP have similar or better metrics. But that, too, probably tells us something.

I wouldn't disagree with anything substantive in your post, but you missed the point. What Jay and I are referring to as "technical" is the sort of stuff you'd find in "The Lab" forum here.

So I still think this technical arena is one area in which RC.com is above any of those other sites.

GO

How does the lab now compare to whatever Aric's site is doing?


jt512


Feb 9, 2011, 6:36 PM
Post #141 of 173 (3224 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21892

Re: [snoopy138] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (4 ratings)  
Can't Post

snoopy138 wrote:
cracklover wrote:
k.l.k wrote:
cracklover wrote:
jt512 wrote:
k.l.k wrote:
jt512 wrote:
Believe it or not, all the noise notwithstanding, this is the number 1 site on the internet for bleeding edge discussion of technical climbing issues.

Not.

So, what site is?

I'm on the same page as Jay on this one.

If there is another better site for such content, I'd like to know about it.

I don't really have time for this, but the basic problem is contained in J's phrase, "technical climbing issues." I see that as part of the problem, rather than the solution, because I think the basic avenue of approach to "technical climbing issues" here is actually part of the n00b issue.

So let me break this into two parts. The first is a basic response to a version of that question, which is, what climbing sites do you prefer for climbing-related content, if we set aside questions of format or whether i like the mods or whatever.

if i am wanting to think about alpinism (esp. in the us), whether glacier travel systems, the current status of mixed fas, current arguments over axes or changing glacial conditions or whatever, i'd go to cascadeclimbers.

if i'm wanting to think about anything involving sierras or free-wallclimbing or hauling systems or high-angle rescue or dealing with the transition from aid-to-free routes or most anything haveing to do with what could pass in amateur circles as history, i go to st.

if i am wanting anything about uk and europe (or one-stop for best editorial content) in english, first stop is ukc.

if i'm looking for 1 stop into on routes, weather, logistics and technical data for a lot of different ranges, i still go 1st to SP, despite the recent unpleasantness.

If I'm looking for stuff on climbing-specific training I'd go to any of a number of different sites.

But you get the idea: There is basically nothing, no topic, on which I would 1st go to rc.com. Not even baking, gardening, or pets.

Again, each of tehse sites has a culture very different from here, most of them have different revenue models, and only UKC and probably SP have similar or better metrics. But that, too, probably tells us something.

I wouldn't disagree with anything substantive in your post, but you missed the point. What Jay and I are referring to as "technical" is the sort of stuff you'd find in "The Lab" forum here.

So I still think this technical arena is one area in which RC.com is above any of those other sites.

GO

How does the lab now compare to whatever Aric's site is doing?

There's not much going on over there.

Jay


curt


Feb 9, 2011, 8:07 PM
Post #142 of 173 (3208 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 26, 2002
Posts: 18230

Re: [guangzhou] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

guangzhou wrote:
...I could careless how many post someone has, I try to look at the content. In most cases, those with highest post counts seems the most lost to me...

Well, I hit my head. If you find me, could you please point me towards home? Thanks

Curt


curt


Feb 9, 2011, 8:11 PM
Post #143 of 173 (3205 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 26, 2002
Posts: 18230

Re: [camhead] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

camhead wrote:
...Has anyone thought of asking people like John Gill, John Long, or Rich Goldstone why they don't post on here as often as they used to? They are all still pretty prevalent on other sites.

Gill posts very rarely on any site anymore, I'm uncertain about JL, and Rich is on RC.com almost every day.

Curt


jt512


Feb 9, 2011, 8:17 PM
Post #144 of 173 (3198 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21892

Re: [curt] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (5 ratings)  
Can't Post

curt wrote:
camhead wrote:
...Has anyone thought of asking people like John Gill, John Long, or Rich Goldstone why they don't post on here as often as they used to? They are all still pretty prevalent on other sites.

Gill posts very rarely on any site anymore . . .
Curt

Pay attention. He was run off the site by me and Burt Bronson.

Jay


curt


Feb 9, 2011, 8:52 PM
Post #145 of 173 (3188 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 26, 2002
Posts: 18230

Re: [jt512] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

jt512 wrote:
curt wrote:
camhead wrote:
...Has anyone thought of asking people like John Gill, John Long, or Rich Goldstone why they don't post on here as often as they used to? They are all still pretty prevalent on other sites.

Gill posts very rarely on any site anymore . . .
Curt

Pay attention. He was run off the site by me and Burt Bronson.

Jay

Really, Jay? It should be "Burt Bronson and me."

Curt


Partner cracklover


Feb 11, 2011, 8:04 AM
Post #146 of 173 (3110 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10010

Re: [TonyB3] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (3 ratings)  
Can't Post

caughtinside wrote:
Also... I think that often posters have a life cycle on sites. I don't think this site is very informative any more.... <snip> Maybe that's why cracklover's friends bailed, because there was no new meaningful content.

Actually, I think you've got it backwards. They still post new "meaningful" (whatever that means) content. They just don't do it here. As for why they left, I'll quote my prior post where I explained (to the best of my recollection, this was like three years ago) what they told me:

cracklover wrote:
What it boils down to is that the maturity level of the discourse was so low as to make it an unpleasant experience to participate. Noobs giving bad advice, people being rude to each other, a large and vocal group who treat the whole site and the posts in it as a big joke for their amusement.

And to top it all off, there were the frequent changes (seemingly every couple of years) in management, with major (and sometimes not fully implemented) site changes, new draconian restrictions on content and inline images, fights amongst the moderators resulting in mass layoffs....

The whole package left a bad taste in the mouth and these guys had limited patience for juvenile BS. Especially since they could be (and now are) spending their time online with people who respect them - at other climbing sites.

As for:

caughtinside wrote:
but, if they're only going to PM him, and not either contribute something worthwhile, or at least complain to a mod who could potentially but won't do something, I guess they don't get a vote.

I have no idea what they did or didn't do on their own, and neither do you. As for whether they get a vote or not, climbsforfun and others were wondering why many of these types of posters frequent rc.com less and less. That sure sounds like a request for info, or, as you put it, a "vote".

GO


k.l.k


Feb 12, 2011, 9:44 AM
Post #147 of 173 (3053 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 9, 2007
Posts: 1190

Re: [cracklover] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (3 ratings)  
Can't Post

cracklover wrote:
I wouldn't disagree with anything substantive in your post, but you missed the point. What Jay and I are referring to as "technical" is the sort of stuff you'd find in "The Lab" forum here.

So I still think this technical arena is one area in which RC.com is above any of those other sites.

No I didn't miss the point, I just didn't have time to get to the second part of my post. As I said, what many folks here think of as the glory of RC.com-- the engidorking --is actually part of what screams, "n00b."

rc.com is a harmonic convergence point for several unhappy cultural trends:

1. americans generally believe that massive applications of technology are the solution to any problem.

2. the outdoor industry lives to sell increasingly needless or specialized bits of shiny "technical" commodities to anyone who will buy them.

3. the overwhelming majority of posters/visitors to this site learned or did most of their early climbing in gym/roadside environments, and each successive step into new types of climbing seems to be about learning how to use occult bits of new technical gear.

as a result, "technical" discussions regularly take the following form:

n00b doe ventures into the great outdoors then

a. gets off-route
b. gets in over his head and can't downclimb
c. sticks the pro in his only toe-jams
d. clusters the anchor/rap

and then dies/epics/breaks the shiny bit of technology that was supposed to be his salvation.


the ensuing thread then runs 17 pages of venn diagrams, vector overlays, multiple regression analyses of similar accidents, arguments about alloys, alternative and occult anchoring systems, corrections of mathematical errors, and the rare, occasional and easy to ignore post with actual relevant content.

"bleeding edge of technical climbing issues" is exactly right. what n00bs take away from these discussions is going to be exactly the wrong lesson, namely, a confirmation of their