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


jt512


Feb 8, 2011, 10:22 PM
Post #126 of 173 (3408 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21890

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 (3305 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 (3295 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 (3293 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 24, 2004
Posts: 26576

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 (3282 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 (3267 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 7, 2002
Posts: 10610

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 (3202 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 9973

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 (3268 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 (3153 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 (3149 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 (3136 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 9973

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 (3111 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 7, 2004
Posts: 28728

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 (3087 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21890

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 (3071 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 26, 2002
Posts: 18227

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 (3068 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 26, 2002
Posts: 18227

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 (3061 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21890

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 (3051 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 26, 2002
Posts: 18227

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 (2973 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 9973

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 (2916 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 mistaken but deeply-held belief that climbing is about manipulating obscure bits of technical hardware.

death by gps.


Partner cracklover


Feb 13, 2011, 7:10 AM
Post #148 of 173 (2844 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 9973

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

Nope. Yes, that sort of thing could happen here for sure. But totally irrelevant to what I'm talking about.

But cheers anyway.

GO


k.l.k


Feb 13, 2011, 9:14 AM
Post #149 of 173 (2826 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:
. . . totally irrelevant to what I'm talking about.

So link some recent examples that we could take over to st or ukc and persuade the crowds there to revise their judgment of rc.

I can only think of two: the work done in the aliens meltdown thread (s). and maybe certain of the threads in the accidents forum, where heavy moderation seems really useful.


Partner cracklover


Feb 13, 2011, 11:20 AM
Post #150 of 173 (2809 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 9973

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:
cracklover wrote:
. . . totally irrelevant to what I'm talking about.

So link some recent examples that we could take over to st or ukc and persuade the crowds there to revise their judgment of rc.

I can only think of two: the work done in the aliens meltdown thread (s). and maybe certain of the threads in the accidents forum, where heavy moderation seems really useful.

Are you kidding? I'm not familiar with UKC, but on supertopo there is zero interest in such stuff. Negative interest, actually - it gets ridiculed. Even when the people talking are gear engineers, mathematicians, and statisticians.

I can think of one such conversation there, when many of the participants who helped work up the testing and analysis behind the new John Long anchors book were trying to present some of their findings. Here such a thing might be greeted with too much attention by too many noobs, but there it was ridiculed, considered stupid, pointless, and uninteresting. Any time another thread along those lines has started it's been shouted down quickly.

Calling attention to such threads here on rc.com would only be more proof of rc.com's idiocy.

As for recent examples - I haven't actually followed anything recently. But the Alien threads and the anchor thread were examples.

GO

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?
$8.28 (10% off)
$89.96 (10% off)
$53.96 (10% off)
$621.00 (10% off)



Follow us on Twiter Become a Fan on Facebook