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 13, 2011, 11:29 AM
Post #151 of 173 (3860 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:
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.

BTW, I think their judgment of rc.com is accurate. The fact that buried in the muck there are gems is not inconsistent. Neither disproves the other.

rc.com is a very big tent, with a lot of different things going on.

GO


(This post was edited by cracklover on Feb 13, 2011, 11:30 AM)


Partner philbox
Moderator

Feb 13, 2011, 2:58 PM
Post #152 of 173 (3837 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 26, 2002
Posts: 13104

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:
k.l.k wrote:
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.

BTW, I think their judgment of rc.com is accurate. The fact that buried in the muck there are gems is not inconsistent. Neither disproves the other.

rc.com is a very big tent, with a lot of different things going on.

GO

Circus tent by the sound of things. Laugh


granite_grrl


Feb 13, 2011, 5:29 PM
Post #153 of 173 (3816 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 25, 2002
Posts: 14702

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 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

philbox wrote:
cracklover wrote:
k.l.k wrote:
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.

BTW, I think their judgment of rc.com is accurate. The fact that buried in the muck there are gems is not inconsistent. Neither disproves the other.

rc.com is a very big tent, with a lot of different things going on.

GO

Circus tent by the sound of things. Laugh
Everyone love the circus.....unless they're scared of clowns.


ubu


Feb 13, 2011, 5:40 PM
Post #154 of 173 (3815 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 17, 2008
Posts: 1476

Re: [granite_grrl] 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

granite_grrl wrote:
philbox wrote:
cracklover wrote:
k.l.k wrote:
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.

BTW, I think their judgment of rc.com is accurate. The fact that buried in the muck there are gems is not inconsistent. Neither disproves the other.

rc.com is a very big tent, with a lot of different things going on.

GO

Circus tent by the sound of things. Laugh
Everyone love the circus.....unless they're scared of clowns.

<raises hand>


k.l.k


Feb 13, 2011, 7:12 PM
Post #155 of 173 (3802 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 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

cracklover wrote:
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.

Yes, actually I was. As one of the krusty old guys on ST, I know full well the sort of response you'd be likely to get.

The question is, why is that? You seem unconvinced by my suggestion that there is a paradigmatically n00b quality to the way that "technical" issues are approached here at RC. But what is yr alternative explanation? As you note, plenty of folks in other online communities have engineering or math backgrounds or jobs. And at st, you also get a more than respectable collection of top professional guides, rescue folks, industry insiders, and riggers, namely a audience that is far more "technically" savvy and experienced than the one here.

And you'd be incorrect to say that st doesn't have "technical" threads. As I suggested before, there are stacks of them, but yes, they tend to be very different from the sort of thing you find on here.

Heres a current example:
http://www.supertopo.com/...ricane-Drill-Intrest

You seem like a smart guy, my guess is that if you flog yourself through it (not recommended unless you have great interest in hand drilling) or some of the other decent ones, you'll see some of the differences from the basic approach popular on this site.

And I'm talking about the basic angle of approach, the way questions are framed, rather than even the specific content or the inevitable chippy stuff.


k.l.k


Feb 13, 2011, 7:27 PM
Post #156 of 173 (3795 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

I wrote: "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.



cracklover wrote:
Yes, that sort of thing could happen here for sure.

Could, has, does, will, over and over-- it's an entire genre.

For a recent example, I just went to one of the blue "technical" forums and clicked on the top thread:

http://www.rockclimbing.com/..._reply;so=ASC;mh=25;

Compare it to my model. Note healeyj making the only necessary and appropriate judgment early in the thread. Note how he is ignored as the thread degenerates (I especially like the bit in which one of our technically-oriented folks inadvertently reveals that he has no familiarity with common belay situations on long routes).
Finally, patience wearing thin, Joe comes close to snapping in an effort to point out the bottom line once more.

Not coincidentally, he is also one of the few st regulars who still posts here fairly often. And my guess is, that clock's ticking down.


airscape


Feb 13, 2011, 10:21 PM
Post #157 of 173 (3781 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 26, 2001
Posts: 4240

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:
Not coincidentally, he is also one of the few st regulars who still posts here fairly often. And my guess is, that clock's ticking down.

Why would you say this?

I have not read a single post where he has said he is tired of here.


k.l.k


Feb 13, 2011, 10:39 PM
Post #158 of 173 (3773 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 9, 2007
Posts: 1190

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 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

airscape wrote:
k.l.k wrote:
Not coincidentally, he is also one of the few st regulars who still posts here fairly often. And my guess is, that clock's ticking down.

Why would you say this?

Probably just projecting.

heh


Toast_in_the_Machine


Feb 14, 2011, 4:58 AM
Post #159 of 173 (3743 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 11, 2008
Posts: 5184

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:
Heres a current example:
http://www.supertopo.com/...ricane-Drill-Intrest

Gawd what a boring ST thread. I think stupid people are a necessary part of any lively discussion. Every good book or movie has to have a good antagonist(* see other theory below), and here the bad guy is a stupid guy with more courage than sense. But take away that, and you get 10 posts of ďI like that drillĒ. Snore.

Now, in the RC thread, you skipped over j_ungís fantastic post. Was it on topic to the OP? Not really, but it was priceless none the less. Conversations do need to wander, do need someone stupid, and do need humor. One of the best posts here was rgoldís admission of waking up at the base of a free solo when he was younger. As we get better (and older) we often forget that ignorance and stupidity are a fuel we all have and need to acknowledge in ourselves and allow others to have it. When we begin to think stupidity is boring, a certain amount of rigidity of thought creeps in and in turn, the conversation itself becomes boring.

Now I admit, Iím a n00b. Pig ignorant as the day is long. Iím a gym based flatlander who can barely climb a ladder. I also try to reflect back the other lessons that are here and improve myself as a person. For example, the real lessons of the top rope accident was not which belay technique to use, but why would someone trust their life to someone who doesnít know what they are doing? Have I done that? Sure did. But where is the risk line? Where should I draw it in my own life?

Yesterday I yelled at my kids (grumped more like it, I donít ever really yell). I was cleaning up, for the umpteenth time a mess as they gleefully went about making a new mess. My lovely wife reminded me that I need to let it go. The kids are useless and will be for many years into the future. It is my reaction to their behavior that is the problem. And, just like the lesson of this thread, I need to relax, enjoy the ride, pick up the toys and smile at my kidsí glory. Why grump (ST) when I can join in the joy (RC)?

And, since the trendy, cool thing is this thread is to put your name and occupation. I will show how much of a sheep I am and do the same.

Gordon Summers
Dad, Tae Kwon Do student, and TPS Report Writer

(*) So, the theory is that the best (action) movies are not the ones with the best bad guy, but the best assistant bad guy. Also, most great action movies are really love stories.


meatbomz


Feb 21, 2011, 6:41 AM
Post #161 of 173 (3583 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 23, 2010
Posts: 7053

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:
. . . 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

Ah the Sliding X thread. The knob at it's very best and very worst at the same time.


Partner cracklover


Feb 21, 2011, 9:58 AM
Post #162 of 173 (3552 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 9973

Re: [meatbomz] 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

meatbomz wrote:
cracklover wrote:
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

Ah the Sliding X thread. The knob at it's very best and very worst at the same time.

Precisely. The Alien threads were also, as you say, rc.com at its best and worst simultaneously.

GO


(This post was edited by cracklover on Feb 21, 2011, 10:02 AM)


squishy654


Mar 10, 2011, 9:13 AM
Post #163 of 173 (3442 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 18, 2008
Posts: 137

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:


Worst case scenario, the SP/VCF meltdown.

hahahahahaha...interesting...

I wonder if you could even wrap your head around that statement...to call it a meltdown, as if there was a relationship to begin with, I will try and help because your statement is disingenuous, if not nieve...VCF was spawned because SP banned about 15 or 20 members for simply having opinions...it was a war from day one, not a friendly relationship...SP is nothing but a hiking and photography site now, it's not a coincidence that 90% of the people banned were climbers, and 90% of the moderators are hikers...there's also a nice divide along generational lines, most of those banned were of gen x, most, if not all the moderators are baby boomers...the banned included both liberal and neo-con alike (although they wish to blame that divide on the discourse)...it is a fundamental difference in how people see the world and how they interact with each other. SP and it's admins are not even mountaineers or climbers, they are a pile of fail and the place is run for profit on the backs of those who contribute material...They protect the weak who lack coping skills and gumption while punishing those who speak up like they have a pair. We called them on it and they banned us with much bias...they allowed certain personallities (their friends) to continue to mouth off and held others to a different standard, those not even involved saw it and many removed their contributions because of it without ever being banned. In fact the owners have been sued in the past for internet shenanigans involving google and profit, there is no doubt their info places 1st in google for a reason, this is why they hide their identity, in fact they are not even mountaineers, hiker or climbers and their head technical admin exemplifies this fact by his one and only hobby, flytrap growing...They have gone as far as placing ads all over their 404 error page so those who are banned, now including many hotspots around the country, give them more ad impression revenue instead of proper technical information...they also banned people for what they say on other websites and forums after explicitly telling the membership population they would not do such a thing. So if you have an account there and value your content, be careful how to reply to this post...

Bias, is any moderators worst enemy, this is why I am not a moderator myself, I know I cannot be unbiased. If your membership population smells bias in the administration practices, your toast, plain and simple. VCF (virtualcampfire.org) tries to minimize this by not even moderating, what you say is subject to ridicule as much as the next guy and it all stays for posterity...yeah, it may be a dirty hole at times, but when the real conversations happen, they are a thousand times more interesting, enlightening and colorful than anything pooped out of a place like SP where more posts have been deleted than remain and the most interesting and colorful members are banned because some pussy can't handle some harsh words...


Arrogant_Bastard


Mar 10, 2011, 9:28 AM
Post #164 of 173 (3431 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 30, 2007
Posts: 19994

Re: [squishy654] 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

squishy654 wrote:
Bias, is any moderators worst enemy, this is why I am not a moderator myself...

No, that's not why.


squishy654


Mar 10, 2011, 9:37 AM
Post #165 of 173 (3428 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 18, 2008
Posts: 137

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:
squishy654 wrote:
Bias, is any moderators worst enemy, this is why I am not a moderator myself...

No, that's not why.

Well I am also pretty retarded, but that's besides the point...


kachoong


Mar 10, 2011, 9:48 AM
Post #166 of 173 (3422 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 22, 2004
Posts: 15304

Re: [squishy654] 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

squishy654 wrote:
k.l.k wrote:


Worst case scenario, the SP/VCF meltdown.

hahahahahaha...interesting...

I wonder if you could even wrap your head around that statement...to call it a meltdown, as if there was a relationship to begin with, I will try and help because your statement is disingenuous, if not nieve...VCF was spawned because SP banned about 15 or 20 members for simply having opinions...it was a war from day one, not a friendly relationship...SP is nothing but a hiking and photography site now, it's not a coincidence that 90% of the people banned were climbers, and 90% of the moderators are hikers...there's also a nice divide along generational lines, most of those banned were of gen x, most, if not all the moderators are baby boomers...the banned included both liberal and neo-con alike (although they wish to blame that divide on the discourse)...it is a fundamental difference in how people see the world and how they interact with each other. SP and it's admins are not even mountaineers or climbers, they are a pile of fail and the place is run for profit on the backs of those who contribute material...They protect the weak who lack coping skills and gumption while punishing those who speak up like they have a pair. We called them on it and they banned us with much bias...they allowed certain personallities (their friends) to continue to mouth off and held others to a different standard, those not even involved saw it and many removed their contributions because of it without ever being banned. In fact the owners have been sued in the past for internet shenanigans involving google and profit, there is no doubt their info places 1st in google for a reason, this is why they hide their identity, in fact they are not even mountaineers, hiker or climbers and their head technical admin exemplifies this fact by his one and only hobby, flytrap growing...They have gone as far as placing ads all over their 404 error page so those who are banned, now including many hotspots around the country, give them more ad impression revenue instead of proper technical information...they also banned people for what they say on other websites and forums after explicitly telling the membership population they would not do such a thing. So if you have an account there and value your content, be careful how to reply to this post...

Bias, is any moderators worst enemy, this is why I am not a moderator myself, I know I cannot be unbiased. If your membership population smells bias in the administration practices, your toast, plain and simple. VCF (virtualcampfire.org) tries to minimize this by not even moderating, what you say is subject to ridicule as much as the next guy and it all stays for posterity...yeah, it may be a dirty hole at times, but when the real conversations happen, they are a thousand times more interesting, enlightening and colorful than anything pooped out of a place like SP where more posts have been deleted than remain and the most interesting and colorful members are banned because some pussy can't handle some harsh words...

It's easier to wrap one's head around paragraphs.


k.l.k


Mar 10, 2011, 1:32 PM
Post #167 of 173 (3392 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 9, 2007
Posts: 1190

Re: [squishy654] 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

squishy654 wrote:
k.l.k wrote:


Worst case scenario, the SP/VCF meltdown.

I wonder if you could even wrap your head around that statement...to call it a meltdown, as if there was a relationship to begin with, I will try and help because your statement is disingenuous, if not nieve...VCF was spawned because SP banned about 15 or 20 members for simply having opinions...it was a war from day one, not a friendly relationship...SP is nothing but a hiking and photography site now, it's not a coincidence that 90% of the people banned were climbers, and 90% of the moderators are hikers...there's also a nice divide along generational lines, most of those banned were of gen x, most, if not all the moderators are baby boomers...the banned included both liberal and neo-con alike (although they wish to blame that divide on the discourse)...it is a fundamental difference in how people see the world and how they interact with each other. SP and it's admins are not even mountaineers or climbers, they are a pile of fail and the place is run for profit on the backs of those who contribute material...They protect the weak who lack coping skills and gumption while punishing those who speak up like they have a pair. We called them on it and they banned us with much bias...they allowed certain personallities (their friends) to continue to mouth off and held others to a different standard, those not even involved saw it and many removed their contributions because of it without ever being banned. In fact the owners have been sued in the past for internet shenanigans involving google and profit, there is no doubt their info places 1st in google for a reason, this is why they hide their identity, in fact they are not even mountaineers, hiker or climbers and their head technical admin exemplifies this fact by his one and only hobby, flytrap growing...They have gone as far as placing ads all over their 404 error page so those who are banned, now including many hotspots around the country, give them more ad impression revenue instead of proper technical information...they also banned people for what they say on other websites and forums after explicitly telling the membership population they would not do such a thing. So if you have an account there and value your content, be careful how to reply to this post...

Bias, is any moderators worst enemy, this is why I am not a moderator myself, I know I cannot be unbiased. If your membership population smells bias in the administration practices, your toast, plain and simple. VCF (virtualcampfire.org) tries to minimize this by not even moderating, what you say is subject to ridicule as much as the next guy and it all stays for posterity...yeah, it may be a dirty hole at times, but when the real conversations happen, they are a thousand times more interesting, enlightening and colorful than anything pooped out of a place like SP where more posts have been deleted than remain and the most interesting and colorful members are banned because some pussy can't handle some harsh words...

i'm not sure what you are trying to say, or why it is directed at me, but it appears to involve snow.


Partner philbox
Moderator

Mar 10, 2011, 10:24 PM
Post #168 of 173 (3356 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 26, 2002
Posts: 13104

Re: [squishy654] 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

squishy654 wrote:
k.l.k wrote:


Worst case scenario, the SP/VCF meltdown.

hahahahahaha...interesting...

I wonder if you could even wrap your head around that statement...to call it a meltdown, as if there was a relationship to begin with, I will try and help because your statement is disingenuous, if not nieve...VCF was spawned because SP banned about 15 or 20 members for simply having opinions...it was a war from day one, not a friendly relationship...SP is nothing but a hiking and photography site now, it's not a coincidence that 90% of the people banned were climbers, and 90% of the moderators are hikers...there's also a nice divide along generational lines, most of those banned were of gen x, most, if not all the moderators are baby boomers...the banned included both liberal and neo-con alike (although they wish to blame that divide on the discourse)...it is a fundamental difference in how people see the world and how they interact with each other. SP and it's admins are not even mountaineers or climbers, they are a pile of fail and the place is run for profit on the backs of those who contribute material...They protect the weak who lack coping skills and gumption while punishing those who speak up like they have a pair. We called them on it and they banned us with much bias...they allowed certain personallities (their friends) to continue to mouth off and held others to a different standard, those not even involved saw it and many removed their contributions because of it without ever being banned. In fact the owners have been sued in the past for internet shenanigans involving google and profit, there is no doubt their info places 1st in google for a reason, this is why they hide their identity, in fact they are not even mountaineers, hiker or climbers and their head technical admin exemplifies this fact by his one and only hobby, flytrap growing...They have gone as far as placing ads all over their 404 error page so those who are banned, now including many hotspots around the country, give them more ad impression revenue instead of proper technical information...they also banned people for what they say on other websites and forums after explicitly telling the membership population they would not do such a thing. So if you have an account there and value your content, be careful how to reply to this post...

Bias, is any moderators worst enemy, this is why I am not a moderator myself, I know I cannot be unbiased. If your membership population smells bias in the administration practices, your toast, plain and simple. VCF (virtualcampfire.org) tries to minimize this by not even moderating, what you say is subject to ridicule as much as the next guy and it all stays for posterity...yeah, it may be a dirty hole at times, but when the real conversations happen, they are a thousand times more interesting, enlightening and colorful than anything pooped out of a place like SP where more posts have been deleted than remain and the most interesting and colorful members are banned because some pussy can't handle some harsh words...


I'm not reading that. Heh, had to be said.


Gmburns2000


Mar 22, 2011, 7:24 PM
Post #169 of 173 (3273 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 6, 2007
Posts: 15106

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 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

bump


wonderwoman


Mar 23, 2011, 4:33 AM
Post #170 of 173 (3247 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 14, 2002
Posts: 4269

Re: [Gmburns2000] 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

If theree's something we should know about, pleas use the 'report this post' button. Or is there another reason to bump?


Gmburns2000


Mar 23, 2011, 5:31 AM
Post #171 of 173 (3237 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 6, 2007
Posts: 15106

Re: [wonderwoman] 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

It was a good conversation.


Arrogant_Bastard


Mar 23, 2011, 8:31 AM
Post #172 of 173 (3219 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 30, 2007
Posts: 19994

Re: [wonderwoman] 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

wonderwoman wrote:
If theree's something we should know about, pleas use the 'report this post' button. Or is there another reason to bump?

He was post whoring...

Banz him! Banz him now!


roguecrimson


Mar 20, 2012, 4:31 PM
Post #173 of 173 (2385 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 16, 2012
Posts: 22

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:
wonderwoman wrote:
If theree's something we should know about, pleas use the 'report this post' button. Or is there another reason to bump?

He was post whoring...

Banz him! Banz him now!

These stars can be bought at staples and cut and paste them on.

Now is everyone happy?

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