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

Premier Sponsor:

 
First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next page Last page  View All


Partner cracklover


Feb 7, 2011, 11:45 AM
Post #76 of 173 (2962 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 (2945 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 (2923 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 (2909 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 (2878 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 (2855 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 18, 2003
Posts: 9624

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 (2843 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 18, 2003
Posts: 9624

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 (2826 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 (2816 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 18, 2003
Posts: 9624

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 (2809 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 (2804 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 18, 2003
Posts: 9624

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 (2801 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 (2800 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 (2790 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 18, 2003
Posts: 9624

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 (2784 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 (2778 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 18, 2003
Posts: 9624

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 (2754 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 (2735 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 (2699 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 (2668 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 (2656 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 (2648 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 (2635 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 (2628 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!

First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next page Last page  View All

Forums : Rockclimbing.com : Suggestions & Feedback

 


Search for (options)

Log In:

Username:
Password: Remember me:

Go Register
Go Lost Password?



Follow us on Twiter Become a Fan on Facebook